Eu Is Expanding - Political Forum

CHUQ · 10-07-2006, 08:23 AM

Article written about two new prospects.

http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/2516.cfm

Good or bad?

Slartibartfas · 10-08-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

I think Slarti would be the biggest critic of this move. I would probably have to agree with him. Given the EU's failure to pass its Constitution a year or two ago, they don't need more members. They need to improve the EU where it applies now.

Yep, I am not celebrating, if you mean that

But I am realist enough to see that one can not prevent it anymore. A year possible delay would not have changed much anyway. A good sign might be indeed that now more and more politicians on EU level wake up and overthink this endless enlargement school of thought. Merkel for example said recently that she aims for a total temporary stop and she is joined by the EU commission president.

Allthough that is quite clear that this has to happen anyway. The current treaties are only layed out for max 27 members. As the constitution failed, we do not even have the legal basis for any further new member. And as new treaties allways take long time especially when its about the very power of each member state, I think all the further enlargments will at least be temporarely halted for at least a few years.

WRT Romania and Bulgaria. They are clearly not really ready to join. Their justice and and fight against organized crime is a sole nightmare as corruption is. Therefore the EU has decided the by far strictest rulings ever imposed on a new member state in the EU existance. If those failed sectors in both states do not improve, the EU Commission will have the power to cancel all payments to them, they can rule that member states can ignore Romananian or Bulgarian court rulings if not soon western standards are met. As the voting powers in the affected political fields are cancelled as long as their job is not done.

One has to see what happens. Its a problem that they are to enter the EU now, if there would have been a possibility to prevent that without loosing the face and destabilizing the whole region I would have supported it.

Slartibartfas · 10-09-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

If they are not ready to join, why did the EU let them in? Is it afraid that the countries might revert to some sort of totalitarian state if they don't let them in next year?

There are multiple reasons, but you allready come near to a very important one. Not that they would immediately fall back into the darkest authoritarian times, but they would run into signfificant danger that they would go the Russian way, of an corrupt government and economy where democracy and freedoms are increasingly abolished and undermined. Thats not really would we would love to see to happen on European soil if it does not really have to.

And there we come to the secound main reason. Its the economy stupid.

The European companies have allready invested quite much and wants to keep it that way, their is much as risk. In order that the economic advantages remain intact, the justice system and the corruption have to be fixed at least somehow.

By shutting the door with a big bang, you would put all that at risk. Not to forget the last of the main reasons that the Europeans were stupid enough to nail themselves down to a fix date of admission. The sole alternative to the admission now or in one year would have been a Njet. This no would not have shut the doors for ever in theory but it would have had the very risks I told you above.

And last but not least, if the EU decides to use the tools it granted itself towards Romania and Bulgaria, they have strong tools at hand to put Romania and Bulgaria under considerable pressure to get their stuff straight, also after succeeded in their aim of joining the EU.

You know some have allready compared the new conditions of admission to a pseudo status of a "European" colony. And in fact, no member state gave up more souvereignity by joining the EU than those two countries will. I mean they have to report the Commission every half a year the situation on eg the justice sector, and allow investigators from the Commission to sniff around to look if those reports match up with reallity. In case the Comission is unsatisfied by the achievements, it simply can cancel the flow of money coming from the EU to Romania / Bulgaria. Or it can set out the voting power of these states in the European council....

Slartibartfas · 10-10-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois

It's interesting. To read your post, you actually lay out a few reasons why the expansion is a good thing. I think the most important point was that with the expansion they can influence Romania and Bulgaria to become more on track with fighting corruption and having more political freedoms.

You seem to imply that perhaps the deadline should have been further in the future.

So perhaps we can say that the EU sacrificed tighter intergration for wider integration, or sacrificed quality for quantity.

Perhaps. Actually its what Britain allways wanted to see. Allthough even they might allready slowly reckognize that an overexpansion is not really in their interest either. (at least I hope so)

Brother Oz · 12-10-2006, 09:31 AM

The mood in Britain is going right... the papers were screaming that a wave of Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants would come in and take our jobs. If you watch the rhetoric of the politicians right now, they've caught the mood.

But you have to remember, this coming year we will be changing PMs, from Blair to probably Brown. Brown has very different ideas about the EU than Blair: to Blair the EU is a political tool to influence Europe, to Brown the EU is an economic thing.

Slartibartfas · 12-10-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

The mood in Britain is going right... the papers were screaming that a wave of Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants would come in and take our jobs. If you watch the rhetoric of the politicians right now, they've caught the mood.

But you have to remember, this coming year we will be changing PMs, from Blair to probably Brown. Brown has very different ideas about the EU than Blair: to Blair the EU is a political tool to influence Europe, to Brown the EU is an economic thing.

Well Blair seems to be the most pro European Britisch politician, ever seen. And perhaps also untopped for a long time in that aspect. And thats, when considering Blairs actual position is really frightening.

No matter what follows Blair, it only can change from bad to worse, regarding constructive work within the EU.

Btw, does it mean when you say that for Brown it is an economic thing, that he will oppose and try to block the political Union?

Brother Oz · 12-10-2006, 11:56 AM

No, I mean that he has different priorities for the EU. He will not necessarily oppose integration, but he probably wouldn't encourage it like Blair, or encourage expansion like Blair.

Slartibartfas · 12-10-2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

No, I mean that he has different priorities for the EU. He will not necessarily oppose integration, but he probably wouldn't encourage it like Blair, or encourage expansion like Blair.

When did Blair ever encourage integration???

WRT expansion, thats an interesting point. Brown is a critique of a further expansion?

Brother Oz · 12-10-2006, 04:27 PM

No, no, you're misisng the point. Expansion and integration don't matter to Brown, what matters is the economic effects on Britain. Blair likes expansion for the sake of it, for the sake of increasing the number of countries he can influence. Brown isn't pro or anti expansion.

Slartibartfas · 12-10-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

No, no, you're misisng the point. Expansion and integration don't matter to Brown, what matters is the economic effects on Britain. Blair likes expansion for the sake of it, for the sake of increasing the number of countries he can influence. Brown isn't pro or anti expansion.

Ok

So what will be Browns position on political decision on EU level that will be for the benefit of the whole EU at the cost of the power of the member states on certain issues, when the whole thing is neither an economic advantage nor disadvantage?