Borderline Europe countries

Affable

Should Turkey be in the EU?
Should Russia?
Should Israel(I hope not)?

oscarBravo

Haven't we done this several times recently?

Affable

oscarBravo wrote: »

Haven't we done this several times recently?

The forum might have, but I personally haven't.

oscarBravo

Then perhaps you could start by expressing your own views.

BlitzKrieg

Should Turkey be in the EU?

Since they have indicated they want to and have applied, they are welcome to join if they meet the strict standards set out by the EU, so far Turkey has not reached the required democratic and human rights standard needed by the EU

Should Russia?

Russia has shown little or no interest in joining the EU but if they applied, they would go through the same strict requirements as Turkey, but would probably find it more difficult as all the eastern states would take turns in vetoing them as revenge for the soviet union (ok that last bit might not happen.)

Should Israel(I hope not)?

They wouldnt want to and I doubt they will pass the human rights requirement or the democracy one until the issue with Palestinians is actually solved.

So no.

Never gonna happen.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Since they have indicated they want to and have applied, they are welcome to join if they meet the strict standards set out by the EU, so far Turkey has not reached the required democratic and human rights standard needed by the EU
.

They do have separation of church and state.

Affable

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then perhaps you could start by expressing your own views.

OK. Russia should be, it's be a step towards Europe and a two fingers to the USA, it's natural because of shared history, resources, climate and geographically it makes sense, as they run all the way to China and Japan. Israel no ****ing way, unless you want to take a further step towards American and Jewish control over us. Turkey, if you look on the map, is a neat point to stop geographically and not allow in, although they do have separation of church and state and I'd rather have a moderate islamic country in than Israel.

BlitzKrieg

They do have separation of church and state

Didnt say they didnt, I'm just saying that the EU outline a standard for a liberal democracy for X amount of years before being considered and Turkey have not matched it yet I believe. I could be wrong. I know they are still falling short on the human rights aspect aswell.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Didnt say they didnt, I'm just saying that the EU outline a standard for a liberal democracy for X amount of years before being considered and Turkey have not matched it yet I believe. I could be wrong. I know they are still falling short on the human rights aspect aswell.

I didn't say you said they didn't. Shouldn't the EU have other criteria than that, such as spiritual/historical factors? Otherise if Aisan countries modernised, they could be in the EU, if China did, they could be in the EU.
So shouldn't we make historical/geographical borders?

BlitzKrieg

So shouldn't we make historical/geographical borders?

Dont know, I assume that in many cases that alot of these areas would opt to create their own unions and trading blocs (like most of them have already) before considering joining the EU. The thing with countries like Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Russia etc is that they have like you said yourself Historical links with europe but also have strong economic and political links with them today aswell. There would be a move to want to join the EU from within the state itself.


If the UK can hold out joining the euro despite the overpowering economic benefits for them for purely national reasons, then I have no doubt that we will not have most of the world lining up to join the EU.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Dont know, I assume that in many cases that alot of these areas would opt to create their own unions and trading blocs (like most of them have already) before considering joining the EU. The thing with countries like Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Russia etc is that they have like you said yourself Historical links with europe but also have strong economic and political links with them today aswell. There would be a move to want to join the EU from within the state itself.


If the UK can hold out joining the euro despite the overpowering economic benefits for them for purely national reasons, then I have no doubt that we will not have most of the world lining up to join the EU.

Morocco and Algeria cannot join. It just isn't right because they
are not geographically Europe. The English especially are unbelievably small minded about Europe. They(us) ares till thinking about the empire and Oxbridge and home mad jam and village greens, ie the past and not how we can be powerful again. Thats why it's dead in a way.

turgon

Affable wrote: »

So shouldn't we make historical/geographical borders?

We do have then. The capital of Turkey, Istanbul, is located on the generally held border between Europe and non-Europe. About 10% of Turkeys land is on the European side of this border.

BlitzKrieg

Morocco and Algeria cannot join. It just isn't right because they
are not geographically Europe.

But historically?

Remember Algeria only came out of French rule in the 1960's and while it is a state predominantly Islamic, french is the unofficial language which is widely spoken and many elements of french culture still persist and are popular in modern day Algeria.

At the moment I would say Algeria would not want to be part of the EU, but as it grows politically it might find itself having more in common with its EU neighbours to the north, then its african neighbours to the south.

Morocco is in a similar situation.


One thing you might need to remember is that to fully join the EU there would need to be some cultural desire above and beyond simple economic desires as most if not all countries around the borders of the EU have some form of economic trade agreement with the EU that allows them access to many of the EU's economic benefits and cooperation. To take it that one step further and seek actual full membership requires some common set of beliefs and standards that is shared by EU member states. This is why history is more important in EU membership then geography.

Affable

But if these countires all become democracies with human rights, and Europe gets really islamic anyway, what will be different between us and them? I can't help thinking that geography has to mean something.

Even dare I say, racial history means something.

sink

Affable wrote: »

I didn't say you said they didn't. Shouldn't the EU have other criteria than that, such as spiritual/historical factors? Otherise if Aisan countries modernised, they could be in the EU, if China did, they could be in the EU.
So shouldn't we make historical/geographical borders?

There are already Article 49 of TEU states that any European country that respects the principles of the EU may apply to join. There is no mention of non-European countries being allowed to join and there is a precedent, Morocco's application to join was refused on the grounds that it is not a European country.

I'm not a big supporter of the current geographic requirements, it seems a bit arbitrary. Any country within the vicinity of the EU that satisfies the Copenhagen criteria should imo be allowed to join.

The Copenhagen criteria are the requirements which any applicant country must meet before they are permitted to join the EU.

"Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union."

There are further EU directives clarifying the exact requirements laid down.

turgon wrote: »

We do have then. The capital of Turkey, Istanbul, is located on the generally held border between Europe and non-Europe. About 10% of Turkeys land is on the European side of this border.

The capital of Turkey is Ankara btw.

turgon

Oops, just assumed that the historical significance and size of Constantinople would have made it capital.

BlitzKrieg

But if these countires all become democracies with human rights, and Europe gets really islamic anyway, what will be different between us and them? I can't help thinking that geography has to mean something.

THis is leading into many more questions then simply should someone join or not, and its why relying simply on geography firstly oversimplifies the situation and secondly leads to misconceptions of the EU itself. Firstly the *us and them* issue needs to answer what is *us* first, if the EU holds through to its origins, then the guidelines that I have brought up that Sink quoted would be what defines the *us* of the EU as an institute and therefore if nations uphold those guidelines *the principles of the EU* as Sink put it, then they are as much *us* as we are and are welcomed to join. But if there are other aspects that define *us* are they used to define the EU aswell? In alot of cases they dont, beyond what we agree on liberal democratic states embracing freedoms, there is little beyond our history that links that members of the EU together, they are different cultures, different religions, different ideals, languages and so on. The most common element that links europe is simply history, which is where my argument that states like algeria, Morocco and Turkey share that same history as much as some european states. And remember for most of that history we spent it fighting each other, so its not a happy history either.

Also consider that Spain, historicaly was ruled as an islamic land for decades at one point, was in modern history the longest surviving fascist state in history and yet they were welcomed into the EU.

Thee guidelines being used by the EU are currently the best and most consistent set of ideals for the EU at the moment and any country that can match those ideals and wish to join, I say they should be welcomed, encoruge the democracy and embrace the freedoms and the extremism will be driven out.

Even dare I say, racial history means something.

I guess I would be of the opinion that social history has more importance then racial history. Racial history has always played second fiddle to social history in that for the needs of nations class and societies race has been divided up or driven to and from lands. In fact its only with the advancement of social history do the wrongs of racial history are amended.

Affable

sink wrote: »

There are already Article 49 of TEU states that any European country that respects the principles of the EU may apply to join. There is no mention of non-European countries being allowed to join and there is a precedent, Morocco's application to join was refused on the grounds that it is not a European country.

I'm not a big supporter of the current geographic requirements, it seems a bit arbitrary. Any country within the vicinity of the EU that satisfies the Copenhagen criteria should imo be allowed to join.

.

Rule of law but what kind of law? What if it was Sharia for example? Deaht penalty countries? I dunno about arbitrary. It seems intuitive that the better countries in Africa should be working to better Africa rather than looking to join us. South Spain makes a neat border for Eurpe, climatically and border control wise. (beter climates cause better economic conditions, less heatwaves, droughts etc) There should be a size limit right? Theres only so much land a government manage and only so many borders they can protect.
Also, by your rationale if any country in Africa further down began to meet requiremtns we could allow them in, and so it would go on. You have to stop somewhere geographically unless you just want a huge globalised bloack with no distinctions. Because if the EU has more seriius aims than just being an economic block, actually becoming a USE, given more and more English is spoken throughout also, then too bigger size and disparity would harm that ideal.

turgon

Well firstly, the EU is the biggest promoter of the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

Secondly, I dont know much about Sharia law, but Im sure a lot of it is negated by the charter of rights.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Also consider that Spain, historicaly was ruled as an islamic land for decades at one point, was in modern history the longest surviving fascist state in history and yet they were welcomed into the EU.

.

Yeah but like I say if the EU's got serious long term aspirations of greater union to a single federation/country, then too bigger size may impinge on that. Africa is an intuitve place to stop, the water does it. Over the water is a huge huge land mass. You may get some equivalent to the Northern Ireland situation if it occurs.

BlitzKrieg

if the EU's got serious long term aspirations of greater union to a single federation/country,

Again you are bringing other issues into the discussion. The matter of the EU as a single country/federation is something I would oppose, I perfer the inter governmental system.

then too bigger size may impinge on that. Africa is an intuitve place to stop, the water does it. Over the water is a huge huge land mass. You may get some equivalent to the Northern Ireland situation if it occurs.

The issue that you are ignoring is that countries joining the EU are never asked to join, they apply themselves. This is why I am pushing social history as an important aspect. Because once you go beyond northen africa the social history between europe and the southern african states is very different. They do not have the same social or historical links as the northen african states and would be less willing to push for any more then an economic agreement.

Furthermore you have to consider that there is nothing stopping similar bodies being set up with overlap with the EU, there was talk of a mediterranian union being established (and the Barcelona process is an element of that) a while back which would overlap with the EU in the way of economic policies etc but still be two seperate politic institutes. Similar there already exists a African Union already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_union. (note that Morocco is the only African state not a member of its own free will and not suspended)

There's an element of arrogence that it is assumed all states would want to join the EU, the same way people in the USA would think all europeans want to be a federal democracy like the USA. The reality is if it was put to a vote tomorrow should we join the USA I would be surprised if even 10% voted yes.

That is why I would argue that once you go beyond the north african coast you will find that most states would choose the African Union over the European Union.

BlitzKrieg

out of personal curiosity (since I brought it up)

does anyone know how the African union Commission is selected?

they have 10 commissioners for over 50 states and seeing the amount of problems we had here over loosing one, I am curious as to how the african ones are selected from out of 50 states...

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Again you are bringing other issues into the discussion. The matter of the EU as a single country/federation is something I would oppose, I perfer the inter governmental system.

There's an element of arrogence that it is assumed all states would want to join the EU, the same way people in the USA would think all europeans want to be a federal democracy like the USA. The reality is if it was put to a vote tomorrow should we join the USA I would be surprised if even 10% voted yes.

That is why I would argue that once you go beyond the north african coast you will find that most states would choose the African Union over the European Union.

But you could have huge power and a better economy by being a single country. And the enrichment of cultural interchange, greater power against americanisation etc. America still has much state independence, it has state laws and governers, that gives the key independence whilst still maintaining unity.
What do you mean Americans think we want a federal democracy? Is that the same as joining the USA? Who thinks we would want to join the USA?
I wasn't aware there even were such people...

BlitzKrieg

Affable wrote: »

But you could have huge power and a better economy by being a single country. America still has much state independence, it has state laws and governers, that gives the key independence whilst still maintaining unity.

I perfer the inter governmental system, people may not appreciate it at the moment and treat it like a federal system by seperating our government and the EU (inc. a number of our own leaders) on many issues, but the reality is the EU is an extension of our own government and its powers. I also disagree with the federal systems consoludating of alot of power into a single institute such as the executive with the president etc.

What do you mean Americans think we want a federal democracy? Is that the same as joining the USA? Who thinks we would want to join the USA?
I wasn't aware there even were such people...

I was referring to the myth some americans propergate that everyone else wants to be american. And applying the same thinking that someimtes exists in the EU that everyone else wants to be in the EU aswell. THe assumption that just because anyone can apply to join the EU everyone will is somewhat similar to the idea that if the US offered free membership to any EU state we would all apply to join.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I was referring to the myth some americans propergate that everyone else wants to be american. And applying the same thinking that someimtes exists in the EU that everyone else wants to be in the EU aswell. THe assumption that just because anyone can apply to join the EU everyone will is somewhat similar to the idea that if the US offered free membership to any EU state we would all apply to join.

Oh interesting. Why do any Americans actually suggest that? I'd be shocked if they did.

BlitzKrieg

because they are proud. No harm in it really and it normally translate to a nice shot of national swell, bit of flag waving, isnt it great. And it is great, there are many great things about America.

Same here, we are proud of many aspects of being Irish and being European...sadly an internet forum isnt the best example of that pride because we spend most of the time argueing.

And I know Kenyans who are very proud of their home.

EDIT DAMNIT! I missed my 9'000 post now I gotta go back and find it.

sink

Affable wrote: »

Rule of law but what kind of law? What if it was Sharia for example? Deaht penalty countries? I dunno about arbitrary. It seems intuitive that the better countries in Africa should be working to better Africa rather than looking to join us. South Spain makes a neat border for Eurpe, climatically and border control wise. (beter climates cause better economic conditions, less heatwaves, droughts etc) There should be a size limit right? Theres only so much land a government manage and only so many borders they can protect.
Also, by your rationale if any country in Africa further down began to meet requiremtns we could allow them in, and so it would go on. You have to stop somewhere geographically unless you just want a huge globalised bloack with no distinctions. Because if the EU has more seriius aims than just being an economic block, actually becoming a USE, given more and more English is spoken throughout also, then too bigger size and disparity would harm that ideal.

The specifics of the Copenhagen criteria are laid out in detail in further EU legislation and the rule of law is defined as following liberal and egalitarian principles.

It is arbitrary because any decision should be based upon the potential benefits weighed against the negatives and not based purely upon an irrelevant line on a map. The purpose of the EU is to provide a better society for it's citizens and that can be achieved by stabilising, developing and eventually integrating all countries in it's neighbourhood who choose to do so. Whether a country is inside or outside any defined border of Europe has zero impact upon whether integration would benefit the EU.

You have not given any reason as to why an expanded EU would harm the ideal and the climatic argument is completely erroneous. It is not suited to a European style agrarian economy but Africa has many abundant natural resources Europe lacks and which can be developed into prosperous industries. The only thing Africa lacks is stability and leadership.

As Blitzkrieg said, sub-Saharan African countries are unlikely to want to join the EU for nationalistic/anti-colonial reasons.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

because they are proud. No harm in it really and it normally translate to a nice shot of national swell, bit of flag waving, isnt it great. And it is great, there are many great things about America.
.

Not great IMO. Bit naff and overbearing the way they do it and no-one else does it that way. I know its en vogue to be pro-American but I think the Americanisation of Europe thats occured is no good thing.

BlitzKrieg

I know its en vogue to be pro-American but I think the Americanisation of Europe thats occured is no good thing.

nail + hammer = QED

Now you know why the majority of the world will not apply to join the EU.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

nail + hammer = QED

Now you know why the majority of the world will not apply to join the EU.

No, because it's totally different. Borderline Asian/African countries wanting/not wanting to be in the EU is simply not an issue that is comparable to European countries wanting to join the USA. It just isn't.

sink

Affable wrote: »

No, because it's totally different. Borderline Asian/African countries wanting/not wanting to be in the EU is simply not an issue that is comparable to European countries wanting to join the USA. It just isn't.

What exactly is the difference between an Irishman not wanting Ireland to become the 51st state of the USofA and a Kenyan not wanting Kenya to become a member of the EU?

BlitzKrieg

how?

edit: damn you sink!

Affable

sink wrote: »

What exactly is the difference between an Irishman not wanting Ireland to become the 51st state of the USofA and a Kenyan not wanting Kenya to become a member of the EU?

Well Kenya is an unrealistic example, but say Morocco for example. It's totally different. a)Because Europe is actally superior to the USA in many of our eyes and more civilised. Africa is not more civilised than Europe. b)It's miles and miles away from Ireland(USA). Morocco is close to Europe.
c)Being in the EU is not as binding. And one would not be giving away their heritage and history by joining. Shared history is important as someone mentioned. The only shared history Ireland and the US have is that Irish people left Ireland to go to the US, and that some dumb yanks funded the IRA without having a clue about it because they didn't like English people.

sink

Affable wrote: »

Well Kenya is an unrealistic example, but say Morocco for example.

I thought you were worried about indefinite expansion, if you admit that Kenya is unlikely to ever join the EU then you must also admit that indefinite expansion of the EU is also unlikely.

Affable wrote: »

It's totally different. a)Because Europe is actally superior to the USA in many of our eyes and more civilised. Africa is not more civilised than Europe.

That is a completely subjective measurement, Americans would certainly tend to disagree, in fact they would tend to believe the opposite. Africans would also have their own subjective measurement of what is superior. Many Africans are fiercely anti-European due to their colonial history and would not see Europe as superior in anyway. You are presupposing an entire continent agrees with your own subjective opinion with no evidence.

Affable wrote: »

b)It's miles and miles away from Ireland(USA). Morocco is close to Europe.

Hence why Morocco want's to join the EU and why Ireland and Kenya do not want to join the USA and the EU respectively.

Affable wrote: »

c)Being in the EU is not as binding. And one would not be giving away their heritage and history by joining. Shared history is important as someone mentioned. The only shared history Ireland and the US have is that Irish people left Ireland to go to the US, and that some dumb yanks funded the IRA without having a clue about it because they didn't like English people.

There are definite difference in degrees of integration but even if all things were equal it is likely Ireland would still not want to join the US and Kenya would still not want to join the EU.

Historic ties between Ireland and America are much stronger than the ties between Ireland and Eastern Europe, heck even much of western Europe.

BlitzKrieg

a)Because Europe is actally superior to the USA in many of our eyes and more civilised. Africa is not more civilised than Europe.

But if we put it in reverse and asked an american state to seceed and join the EU you will still get the same *no* saying your country is superior is not a valid argument, it goes back to the issue of pride and arrogence I brought up. Assuming just because Europe is more civilised that other states will automatically want to join it show's a serious ignorance of *at least* north african states. Morocco is a constitutional Monarchy, it has civilisation, it has over 4 dozen universities, it has a
culture and a history.

Should Ireland have joined the US in the 1980's...we were poor developing country back then so therefore less *civilised*? The answer is clearly no.


And picking Morocco is unfair, I spent the first half of this thread argueng that Morocco *is* a valid state to apply for membership into the EU because they have a shared history and cultural aspects with european states. I am not going to turn around and say they suddenly dont.

Affable

sink wrote: »

Hence why Morocco want's to join the EU and why Ireland and Kenya do not want to join the USA and the EU respectively.



There are definite difference in degrees of integration but even if all things were equal it is likely Ireland would still not want to join the US and Kenya would still not want to join the EU.

Historic ties between Ireland and America are much stronger than the ties between Ireland and Eastern Europe, heck even much of western Europe.

But I was making the point that Kenya was an example that threw the debate in the wrong direction. I didn't want to compare Kenya, I was talking borderline countries. I'm tired so need a moment to go back to the orignal post. I disgree with your final point. Ireland only has ties with the US because of people who left. Americans only really have ties to each other because they are all people from other continents genetically who came there. Irish are genetic Europeans that share similar, longer political histories to Europeans, and even more religious similarities, right, with roman catholic countries like Poland/Italy.

Edit-This was the original statement ok, so you have, and I say this without confrontational intent, diverted the debate.

---->>>

No, because it's totally different. Borderline Asian/African countries wanting/not wanting to be in the EU is simply not an issue that is comparable to European countries wanting to join the USA. It just isn't.

sink

Things are getting confused let's backtrack and find where things got muddled.

Affable wrote: »

Yeah but like I say if the EU's got serious long term aspirations of greater union to a single federation/country, then too bigger size may impinge on that. Africa is an intuitve place to stop, the water does it. Over the water is a huge huge land mass. You may get some equivalent to the Northern Ireland situation if it occurs.

You original argument was that the EU has to stop somewhere due to a enlarged EU being unmanageable (for what reason you never explained). This implied that you were of the opinion that without a fixed border limit the EU would continue expanding indefinitely. Blitzkrieg and myself argued that countries which are far beyond the current borders of the EU are unlikely to ever want to join the EU and just assuming they would shows both ignorance of their culture/history and arrogance over your own. The hypothetical scenarios involving the USA and Kenya were an attempt to demonstrate the fallaciousness of your concerns.

sink

Affable wrote: »

I disgree with your final point. Ireland only has ties with the US because of people who left. Americans only really have ties to each other because they are all people from other continents genetically who came there. Irish are genetic Europeans that share similar, longer political histories to Europeans, and even more religious similarities, right, with roman catholic countries like Poland/Italy.

Although this is way off topic I could not leave this point un-addressed. Cultural ties between Ireland and the USA are very strong precisely due to Irish migrants. There are some 40 million Americans who claim Irish heritage, there are entire areas of the East coast which are dominated by Irish American culture. Many Irish people including myself have family and life-long friends in America. There were very few personal ties between Ireland and much of continental Europe prior to the EU whereas family ties between Irish and Americans go back to the earliest settlers in America and ties don't get any closer than family ties.

Affable

sink wrote: »

You original argument was that the EU has to stop somewhere due to a enlarged EU being unmanageable (for what reason you never explained). This implied that you were of the opinion that without a fixed border limit the EU would continue expanding indefinitely. Blitzkrieg and myself argued that countries which are far beyond the current borders of the EU are unlikely to ever want to join the EU and just assuming they would shows both ignorance of their culture/history and arrogance over your own.

Oh ok. I didn't want to imply that it WOULD increase indefinitely. You are probably entirely correct to say that it would most likely never do so and that there is an arrogance in people, including me, assuming it would. I really want to address your point about the border though. By your logic, the current geographical border is arbitrary(which you state renders it invalid). Take that logic to it's conclusion, and it COULD be, on principle, permitted to increase indefinitely, since any other border would be equally arbitrary, and any countries falling within it with adequate shared values and history could join. So let's not, for now, consider whether it WOULD expand indefinitely. I'm saying that if, on principle, you don't oppose the likes of these 'slightly over the current borderline' countries joining because of shared values/history/aspirations and because the current borderline is arbitrary, then you couldn't, on principle, oppose countries from slightly further(and then slightly more further, and then slightly more further(repeat many times)) afield with shared values/history/aspirations joining. Any geographical border further out would be just as arbitrary as the current one. This to me would mean a geographical 'arbitrary' limit has to be set at some point. Otherwise the hypothetical conclusion to it is that India could join with the right criteria, Hong Kong could, Australasia could, Canada could. Shared values, aspirations, histories. Which would cause an absurd degree of globalisation and be too large to govern, follow media and culture and events within, feel any connection with as an entity, and if there was a single language, most likely English, it would be too much of one language in the world. And it would be ungovernable because when it got that large there is no way a centralized government would have any meaningful power or sway, or that you'd want it to over that many people and that much land, or could even follow voters needs, so it'd get to the stage of just needing each division to be totally independent again. Like I say, to me, the EU is only really a meaningful concept if you are willing to consider the 'USE' idea-think about it- otherwise, all it effectively means is a few economic agreements, a single currency(which isn't as bigger deal as people think) and some fairly meaningless 'symbolic' shared title. It has to mean something more than that. The natural historical and geographical borders for Europe, ie Istanbul area, South of Spain, edge of Russia, make pretty good sense in terms of size, (common climate that people of European descent best exist at and work at also, though thats kinda trivial, but there are better working conditions, less heatwaves and deaths etc, stabler climate) and where to stop the process.

Anyway for me, the need for a geographical border is not arbitrary, but it's precise location is. The former takes presidence over the latter in determining whether we set one.

BlitzKrieg

I think you have the right grasp on certain elements but the wrong reasoning on others.

Your main concern is that without Geographic limits the possible indefinite expansion of the EU can result in an unmanagable organisation that will possible collapse in on itself and if not that would be an unresponsive giant that is inefficient.

Well on that point you are sort of in the same thinking as the European Commission when the current treaty process started (nice etc), a key issue with the expansion of the EU was a feeling that the EU institutes would not be able to handle the influx of new political entities into the EU.

This is key in what led to the current constitution/treaty process as the EU is currently trying to reorganise itself so that it can handle its expanded borders.

So I believe in your propossed scenario what would happen would be a similar situation, that each time the EU expanded there would be a required reshuffle of its political process to adjust for the new members, institutes steamlined or redesigned, new one's introduced, old ones removed etc.

The end result is the need to put a geographic limit on the EU is pointless because a political limit would be reached long before a geographic one.

Considering Turkey while I personnally belief it would only need to fullfill its requirements to have a successful application, I would belief due to its large population that there would be a need for a a serious reworking of the European Parliament before Turkey can join due to its large population (population = more seats, Turkey would have the 2nd highest in Europe after Germany) such readjustment will probably benefit Ireland as the current member states will try to play down the importance of population to reel in Turkey's potential to dominate Parliament. But its all still theoritical.

Personnally I would expect them to do as I mentioned earlier and divide the EU into a series of blocks if it continued to expand, where it would become some sort of Democratic Union (the DU) with sub blocks of EU, MU, AU, ASU, ESU etc which would all be seperate entities but follow the same political and economic ideals.

But this is all theory, I doubt the current EU would expand any further then Turkey and Morocco on the African continent, if even then Algeria's membership in the Africa Union shows they are probably more willing to work within in an African system then come back to France. I think more focus will be put on bringing in countries like Iceland instead though. And with the rise of the AU outside of the EU, I dont think the EU will need to expand nor will it be able to.

Zebra3

Affable wrote: »

Should Turkey be in the EU?
Should Russia?
Should Israel(I hope not)?

No, no and NO!!!!!

turgon wrote: »

About 10% of Turkeys land is on the European side of this border.

It's actually roughly 3%.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think you have the right grasp on certain elements but the wrong reasoning on others.

Your main concern is that without Geographic limits the possible indefinite expansion of the EU can result in an unmanagable organisation that will possible collapse in on itself and if not that would be an unresponsive giant that is inefficient.

Yeh. Although what I got interested in was the basis of his argument. I mean, trying to define the way we were arguing philosophically. Because he's arguing in terms of the consequences of the act and I'm arguing in terms of following his principle to a hypothetical conclusion and that as a reason why it shouldn't be done. I was looking on the wbe separating out the issues and trying to fins out which arguments were deontoligcal, which were consequentialist, and what kinds of conseqeuntialism there were. It got complicated and took me ages.

sink

I still think you are taking a hypothetical situation which has little or no chance of ever happening and using it as your only justification, which quiet frankly isn't a good reason.

I also want to point out that North Africans have been trading and warring with Europeans for millennium and there is as much shared history between Mediterranean Europe and North Africa as within Europe itself. While North Africa has had continued contact with Europeans for a very long length of time it had almost no contact with sub-Saharan Africa for almost as long, due to the impassibility of the Saharan desert. It wasn't until the 16th century when ships capable of sailing the rough atlantic seas were developed that any sort of regular contact became possible. Hence why north African culture has more similarities with European and Middle Eastern culture than it does with sub-Saharan African culture. As a result many North Africans feel more connected with Europe and the Middle East than with greater Africa.

ionix5891

Should Turkey be in the EU?
Should Russia?
Should Israel(I hope not)?

Turkey - i've mixed feeling on this one, Europeans are very worried about the religious involvement in politics, we have our own nuts and baggage (raping priests, ahem) to deal with as is, also they need to sort out their issues with greece and especially cyprus

Russia - yes, but as someone who travelled extensively, they wont do it, theres a huge natioanlistic wave lately in the country, with xenophobia and distrust of outsiders, all of this is being fuelled by putin who wants to keep the country under his thumb, there are also alot of criminals that we dont need

Israel - not likely unless they demolish all them settlements and walls outside their borders and give the Palestinians their country already, also like turkey the involvement of religion in politics is not welcome

---

now countries that should be considered

Cape Verde - already a large tourist and investment destination for Europeans, one of the more stable west African countries, is small, has ties to Portugal

Azerbaijan - the place has huge oil and mineral reserves, the theres political corruption going all the way up to the president, like other eastern European countries it was a democracy in 20s when brutally annexed into the ussr for its oil which proved pivotal in them wining WW2

upmeath

Israel, no not a hope, it has no geographic and few cultural ties to Europe.

Russia shares a land border but Russia wouldn't want to be in the club anymore than we'd want Russia in the club.

Turkey I would like to see join the EU. As previously stated, Istanbul straddles the intercontinental divide, and Turkey has lands on the Balkan peninsula. If the EU develops over the next 50 years to become a superpower, then it's probable that (whatwith America's war on terror ongoing and all :rolleyes: ) the EU may become a new target for Muslim extremists, and having a predominantly Muslim country on board, with understandings of both cultures, would go a long way should diplomatic tensions arise.

PaulieD

upmeath wrote: »

Israel, no not a hope, it has no geographic and few cultural ties to Europe.

Russia shares a land border but Russia wouldn't want to be in the club anymore than we'd want Russia in the club.

Turkey I would like to see join the EU. As previously stated, Istanbul straddles the intercontinental divide, and Turkey has lands on the Balkan peninsula. If the EU develops over the next 50 years to become a superpower, then it's probable that (whatwith America's war on terror ongoing and all :rolleyes: ) the EU may become a new target for Muslim extremists, and having a predominantly Muslim country on board, with understandings of both cultures, would go a long way should diplomatic tensions arise.

Or give them a base from which to attack.

RiverWilde

I have no problem with countries as far ranging as Iceland - maybe even Canada joining the Union. Although I can see the US administration having a bit of a fit at the idea. Especially if Russia and Turkey eventually join. The US is paranoid enough as it is. However, if these countries agreed to adhere to EU law I've no problem with them joining. It would make for very interesting political debates if nothing else.

Riv

evercloserunion

The problem with Russia joining is the same problem as we would have if, hypothetically, the US joined. Both Russia and the US are used to being the big superpowers and they like to throw their weight around. Neither country would work well in what is supposed to be a mutually beneficial union. Both Russia and the EU would try to dominate the EU and use it to serve their own interests if they could. I think it's important that the EU develops as an alternative to Russia and the US.

markopantelic

sink wrote: »

Although this is way off topic I could not leave this point un-addressed. Cultural ties between Ireland and the USA are very strong precisely due to Irish migrants. There are some 40 million Americans who claim Irish heritage, there are entire areas of the East coast which are dominated by Irish American culture. Many Irish people including myself have family and life-long friends in America. There were very few personal ties between Ireland and much of continental Europe prior to the EU whereas family ties between Irish and Americans go back to the earliest settlers in America and ties don't get any closer than family ties.

All European countries have family ties in the USA, over 50 million Americans claim German ancestry!

sink

markopantelic wrote: »

All European countries have family ties in the USA, over 50 million Americans claim German ancestry!

True but that is not pertinent to the point I was making.

Rb

I don't think Islam has a home in the EU, to be quite honest.