Hi There! My name is Salvador Cerda and I’m planning to write about the advantages and disadvantages of European Unions expansion.
The European Union is a growing organisation and it keeps expanding by adding new countries as members. Historically it have been growing since it started in 1952, back then it was only a steel and coal community, which main purpose was to keep peace between the European countries. The founders and first members were: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. Since then, the European Union have had six expansions: · 1973: Denmark, The republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom. · 1981: Greece. · 1986: Portugal and Spain. · 1995: Finland, Sweden and Austria. · 2004: Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Hungary. · 2007: Bulgaria and Romania.
The discussion on which the advantages and disadvantages are, is very complex, mainly because during the different expansion, the arguments have changed, mostly depending on which country/countries the expansion is referring to. Before the fifth expansion the disadvantages were considered to be the mass immigration and the economy decrease. These arguments were based on the assumption that with the joining of former communist countries, with mass unemployment and instable economies, would cause trouble for the old EU members. Sweden was one of them that thought that the expansion would lead to mass immigration. Which by the way was proven wrong, because the expansion came and there were no mass immigration.
After the last expansion (2007), the main argument against a future expansion, have been against the membership of turkey. Many consider that Turkey is not worthy to be part of the EU, basically because they violate the human rights, have a insufficient democracy and is consider to be to much “Islamic”. The main argument for a future expansion is that with the pressure and demands that EU puts on future members makes countries adapt themselves to the EU. This is something that could work to put pressure on Turkey, to once and for all resolve the “Kurd-Question”. The economical advantages play very big part in the main argument for a future expansion. The question is if we should consider the EU expansion through an economical or geographic view? As Mark Leonard writes in his book: Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century, Europe would be the next economical centre if it keeps expanding. But wouldn’t that erase every culture difference or destroy everything that is different? /Salvador Cerda
In response to Martin. Hi Martin, I'm Francesca. Don't worry, there is someone else interested in this issue! I'm going to write something as soon as possible.
Hi all I am also going to write something about the advantages and disadvantages of the expansion of the European Union, looking forward to further discussion. Have a nice evening Lina
In response to Salvador. First of all, let me say that the expansion process should end. If we talk about the European Union, we have to consider that Europe is a continet with a limited territory and maybe not all the European countries are European in the strict meaning. I wrote a thesis about the Armenian genocide and the last chapter of it was dedicated to the membership of Turkey. I read a loto of books and documents about Turkey and according to me Turkey isn't a European country or rather only a part of it, that is Istanbul, however not all the city, can be considered European: I think that Turkey belongs to Asia. also in Europe there are a lot of differencies among the countries but I think that we all have something in common, maybe the christian roots, as the Pope said, but Turkey has nothing to do with us: we have to consider it a European country only because Mustafà Kemal founded a secular republic in 1923? or only because Turkey has had a strong relationship with the USA since the end of the second world war? Turkey has a different political, economic, social and cultual background and many differencies are also related to Islam. the main concern about Turkey membership is the population: Turkey has more inhabitants than any other European country, also Germany and, given that each country has a parliamentary delegation proportional to its population, this fact will alter precarious balance reached with a great deal of effort in the past. Let alone the economic and social side. but Turkey is not the only problem: there are other countries which apply for the membership, such as Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and they all have problems (Croatia and Serbia have problems related to their strong nationalist movements and Macedonia has a dispute with Greece about the name because the last one says that Macedonia is an inland region of Greece itself, the land of Alexander the Great, while Macedonia refuses the Greek proposal to change its name). I think that the EU will have some disadvantages by accepting the membership of Turkey, above all the fact to be neighbouring with countries, like Syria, which are hot spots from a strategic point of view; until today the EU hasn't proved to be a strong political actor and for this reason someone defined the EU as a political dwarf which totally depends on NATO and the USA for the military problems. I think that before talking about advantages and disadvantages of the EU expansion, the EU should strenghten from a political and military point of view and only after this the EU will be able to talk about the expansion process. wouldn't it be better if we worked on the institutions and policies that we already have? Last but not least, I don't see a risk of erasing different cultures: an expansion process doesn't mean the end of different traditions. Since 1973 the EU has been keeping growing but every country kept his culture. If only Italy would lose some bad habits and take the discipline of countries like Germany!
I have as I earlier posted in the blog chosen to also write about the advantages and disadvantages of European Union expansion.
- Never again war! After the Second World War a large part of Europe lied in ruins and the international community all agreed that something like this should never be able to happen again. A variety of agreements and treaties on different levels around the world were signed to prevent similar horrors to take place in the future. The European Union (EU) is a rather unique economic and political partnership in the world between 27 European countries. Its origins can be traced approximately 60 years back and it was initially, after the Second World War, created as a tool to control the coal and steel production in Europe.
Ever since, the EU has grown in size by adding new member states and it has increased its powers gradually by broadening its policy areas. The guiding principles for the European Union are peace, prosperity and freedom. The citizens of the member states in Europe should all be able to live in a safer and better region and world. Free trade, free travel, better environment, fight poverty, fight crime and terror are some of the cooperation fields today handled by the Union.
There are a lot of theories about the advantages and disadvantages concerning the expansion of the European Union, it is a very complex question to answer and you can approach the question in various ways. In this essay I have chosen to approach the question above by taking a deeper look at some of theories which state that the European Union is lacking democracy. Some theories suggest that the Union is one of the best managed alliances on an interstate level and the benefits, for all involved, are just all good “the bigger the better” if you want. Others theories suggest that the European Union to some extent is growing too fast and is getting to big. The Union suffers from a lack of democracy and the ordinary citizens have a hard time to find their way around in the complex process practiced by the Union. This is a topic also very well known and well debated in Sweden on different levels especially from the side that, in some form, is against European Union.
I think that the core question here is "What is the European Union all about and what do we want to achieve with the union?".
Is it a construction aiming at more power being delegated upwards to Brussels or an organisation for cooperation between equal member states (from Malta and Luxemburg to Germany and possibly Turkey)?
In many societies (US and Europe) there is a tendency to identify "us" as something opposite to "them" when it comes to language, culture...and what women wear on their head!
I would welcome a European union with more than 27 member states. Why shouldn't we cooperate with all the states of former Yugoslavia, Albania, Moldavia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey and a democratic Belorussia...?
If you want to become a member state of the European union, you have to respect some fundamental rights. The country has to be a democracy. The death penalty is not allowed.
We can see that the membership of the European union has led to a more intense fight against corruption in Romania and Bulgaria.
As regards Turkey, the EU negociations have led to a change in legislation in many fields in order to be in line with the "acquis communautaire" and a better situation for human rights.
I think it would be good for all parties if the European union becomes even bigger and even more diverse, as a union of equal member states!
To begin, it is very hard to talk about EU as a continent with limited territory if you look at it through a historical perspective. The EU borders as we know them now are not the same borders that existed in the past. For instance, most of the countries that joined EU during the two last expansions, used to belong to The USSR during the Second World War. And were not counted as part of the continent EU. The same thing happened with Algeria when it used to belong to France, it was considered to be part of France and thereby part of the European territory. But as soon they were liberated, they stopped to be part of EU and were seen as part of Africa. As Mark Leonard puts it, there is no stopping EU, because it doesn’t have any boundaries. There are no boundaries to the economical expansion or to the globalisation. If we take a look throughout the world; the majority of the countries have almost the same kind of economy, the market economy. The only exceptions are for instance Cuba and China and neither of them have a good relationship with USA. Turkey on the other side has the same economy as the rest of the western world and have good relations with both USA and EU. When it comes to the culture difference, it shouldn’t really matter. Because within EU own borders, we can easily find a groups of immigrants from different part of the world, including those with Islamic background. They are not treated differently from other citizen; with other words EU is a heterogeneous organisation and not a homogeneous. In my opinion the real argument whether Turkey should be a member or not, is the fact that you put it; it could gain more votes than France. With the risk of repeating myself, I remark how Mark Leonard puts it, EU doesn’t need to strengthen it military. Mostly because it doesn’t have to bomb countries(like USA)to make them change, instead they use the pressure of becoming member and in that way make countries change themselves.
When I wrote that the expansion of EU could erase everything that is different, I was referring to economical difference like Cuba and China. Because lets face it, EU was founded in the beginning of the cold war, it expanded during the cold war and finally made countries that used to belong to USSR to pure market economies.
In response to Stefan. Hi Stefan. I really agree with the first thing you said, the core question that you underlined: what do we want to do with the EU and what do we want to achieve with this organisation which isn't a country in the strict meaning, it's not a confederation or a federation or an international organization like the UN? I believe that the cooperation with other countries, as you said, is welcome but why we can't cooperate with them considering these countries as external ones? I don't believe that we can obtain real advantages by accepting other countries and I think that there will be always problems. I think of Poland that was about to make some negotiations fail because of its requirements, i also think of the older members like France, Netherlands and Ireland: the first two blocked the process to adopt the European constitution while the last one created a stumbling block on the way to adopt the Lisbon treaty. I'm not so optimist about the expansion: i believe that first of all Europe has to solve many internal problems, then the EU can think of a further expansion. but this process should end: if Ukraine, Belorussia, Albania, Russia and other countries will join the EU, why not Kazakistan or China? joking aside, I believe that there must be an end. Don't you think that many countries won't ever be ready to join the EU? and perhaps it will be better for them being helped as a non-member country instead of being subordinate to laws and legislations which will be an obstacle for their development? what do you think about? cheers Francesca
Nice to see that there are so many takin interest in this question.
I have read all your posts and my take on the question is also linked to the questions that has been posed: What is the European Union? And what do we want it to bee?
I have always had a big interest in these questions and have studied and worked with them in a number of different countries (Sweden, Belgium and the UK) and contexts. I have a Master in Political Science and when I wrote my Master thesis I examined the views in the EP on the issue.I will briefly sum up my findings to try to bring some clarity of what the EU is and why an expansion could be good.
Those who want a further expansion and even Turkish accession to the EU see the greatest good coming from such an arrangement, for all parties. The overall discourse puts focus on the fact that countries can adapt to the European way and Turkeys potential role as a bridge between the European and Muslim world is the dominant argument. The EU is viewed as a trans-national organisation rather than an entity that is limited to a specific territory (Europe)by this group.
Those who oppose Turkish accession and further expansion has an opposite view. They think that the EU shares characteristics with the nation-state and has its base in a specific territory and peoples who share the same history, culture and religion.
This is why this subject is so interesting, the debate is going on right now. The political leaders of the EU does not share a common idea of what the EU is!
My view is that the EU would benefit from a further expansion since it could spread human rights and respect for minorities to areas that do not do this at this juncture (Turkey for example). However history supports the opinion that non-European countries cannot gain acess to the EU. Marocko applied for Membership but was declined early in the last decade.
Lack of democracy is an important side of the European question. According to me, from a technical point of view we can't talk about lack of democracy because our countries are representative democracies so we have to elect our representatives and we also vote for our governments because nowadays It's unthinkable a model of direct democracy with so many citizens: every citizen participates in political life of his country. I think that in our countries' political life we don't participate in every decision made by the government asit happens in the EU. Of course many treaties are written and implemented without consulting the European population and a lot of agreements are closed following not very transparent procedures but the EU isn't a country like Italy or Sweden and it seems to me that a lot of international organization, the UN for example, make decisions in a not properly democratic way. In the EU the voting procedures provides for high quotients so a big participation of countries is required to adopt a decision. So what do you mean for democracy and lack of democracy?
I think i was too drastic. I believe that boundaries are necessary: the expansion process can't continue over and over again. I think that regional organizations are the best solutions: in fact in many other areas of the world organizations like the EU are developing. but we talk about regional organizations and regarding to Europe, someone also talked about the future united states of Europe so i think that we have to put boundaries to Europe. We can't think of the central Asia countries as European countries and it is the same thing for the countries of North Africa like Morocco or Algeria (i believe that French considered Algeria as French territory only because of the assimilation policy). Another point that you made out: you said that the EU is a heterogeneous organization. I think that the question is: how do we think of the EU? what do we want it to be? It's a confederation, a federation or simply an international or regional organization? If we wnat to consider it as a confederation or a federation, i think that it is necessary its military strenghtening and not because it will bomb another country. If we want to consider the EU only as an organization, i think that, also in this case, it's necessary the military strenghtening because the EU won't have to depend always on the NATO or the USA military forces. Until now the EU hasn't showed political unity nor military force: the EU is an important actor only on the economic field (but also in this field i think that the power of the Euro doesn't reflect the real strenght and power of the EU and its economy). maybe another expansion would be good for Europe but i'm pessimist (I'm pessimist by nature): i can only see disadvantages.
After the collapse of communism EU membership became a very attractive goal for those countries who later joined the EU in 2004. I think that this process, working towards membership by adapting the legislation to the acquis communautaire and getting rid of rules or procedures which are not in line with European laws/ideals, is one of the main advantages of a further enlargement. One would also hope that EU membership furthers other ideals, such as equal opportunity. I have a black female collegue who went to Slovenia in 2001 and she had a terrible racist experience. Hopefully she would be OK in 2011.
I realise that a political union with 35 member states would be very hard, if not impossible, to govern - at least in the short run. But, already with a European union of 27, are we ready to advance towards a political union? I would say no. Sweden, Denmark and the UK would rather leave the union than enter a political union, which would mean a no to all the national exceptions, such as the euro, a European common defence or common labour market regulations. If federalist countries don't like this, they can opt for "enhanced cooperation" as a last resort.
I don't think that it is in the Europeans' interest to create a political union yet. Therefore, further enlargement is positive - and this because of the very core idea of the European communities of the 1950s: peace!
With a pro-EU government in Belgrade, Radovan Karadžić was actually turned over to the Hague!
Would the genocide of Yugoslavia have taken place if this part of Europe was a member of the EU? For many warlords of the 90s it is probably horrific to see that their countries enter into a union with "the enemy" 15 years or so later!
If a membership of the EU means prosperity, better trade agreements and good governance, why shouldn't we let these countries join the club? OK, the common agricultural policy has to be rewritten or scrapped, but that's another issue :-)
As I said in another message, Bulgaria and Romania are still under pressure from Brussels due to the corruption in these countries. A large amount of aid has been frozen until these countries show results. What would have happened in those countries if they weren't part of the EU? And even more important, what about corruption and organised crime in our neighbouring countries? Bring them in, and we can get to the bottom with those kinds of problems by putting real pressure on the politicians!
we are Fabio and Giusy. We have read your post and we have found it very interesting. We don't agree with you about some points, in particular the ones about Turkey. We think that the entrance of a country into the EU shouldn't depend on its religious roots. In general, religion shouldn't be a factor of division either should race and other ethnical features, but it should be a meeting-point. Besides, Turkey is famous as the only lay country among the Muslim ones. Finally, in the EU there are already some countries of different confessions even like Italy and Sweden. In conclusion, we think that the entrance of Turkey into the EU is premature but not for religious reasons. Fabio and Giusy.
Thanks for the input! Ok, As I said in the introduction it is a complex question to answer.
I am not in general speaking about direct or representative democracy.
One theory state that EU is growing and getting bigger and this is not, from a democratic point of view, something that is going the benefit the citizens in EU, - why, because citizens in Europe to some extent already have a hard time grasping what EU is about. Another issue often mentioned in the debate is the one that talks about the European Parliament. The European Parliament is representing the European population however the Parliament in EU doesn’t have the same authorities as a normal parliament and that is not, from a democratic point of view, good for anyone. To meet up to some of the criticism made (that EU is lacking democracy) the European Parliament in last five years or so has gotten its authorities broaden.
16 comments:
Wow this title really sounds interesting! But so far it seems that Im the only one thinking so..
I really hope that some one else likes this subject as much as me so we can discuss it!
Over and out/Martin
Hi There!
My name is Salvador Cerda and I’m planning to write about the advantages and disadvantages of European Unions expansion.
The European Union is a growing organisation and it keeps expanding by adding new countries as members. Historically it have been growing since it started in 1952, back then it was only a steel and coal community, which main purpose was to keep peace between the European countries. The founders and first members were: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. Since then, the European Union have had six expansions:
· 1973: Denmark, The republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom.
· 1981: Greece.
· 1986: Portugal and Spain.
· 1995: Finland, Sweden and Austria.
· 2004: Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Czech Republic and Hungary.
· 2007: Bulgaria and Romania.
The discussion on which the advantages and disadvantages are, is very complex, mainly because during the different expansion, the arguments have changed, mostly depending on which country/countries the expansion is referring to. Before the fifth expansion the disadvantages were considered to be the mass immigration and the economy decrease. These arguments were based on the assumption that with the joining of former communist countries, with mass unemployment and instable economies, would cause trouble for the old EU members. Sweden was one of them that thought that the expansion would lead to mass immigration. Which by the way was proven wrong, because the expansion came and there were no mass immigration.
After the last expansion (2007), the main argument against a future expansion, have been against the membership of turkey. Many consider that Turkey is not worthy to be part of the EU, basically because they violate the human rights, have a insufficient democracy and is consider to be to much “Islamic”.
The main argument for a future expansion is that with the pressure and demands that EU puts on future members makes countries adapt themselves to the EU. This is something that could work to put pressure on Turkey, to once and for all resolve the “Kurd-Question”.
The economical advantages play very big part in the main argument for a future expansion. The question is if we should consider the EU expansion through an economical or geographic view? As Mark Leonard writes in his book: Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century, Europe would be the next economical centre if it keeps expanding. But wouldn’t that erase every culture difference or destroy everything that is different?
/Salvador Cerda
In response to Martin.
Hi Martin, I'm Francesca.
Don't worry, there is someone else interested in this issue!
I'm going to write something as soon as possible.
Hi all
I am also going to write something about the advantages and disadvantages of the expansion of the European Union, looking forward to further discussion.
Have a nice evening
Lina
In response to Salvador.
First of all, let me say that the expansion process should end.
If we talk about the European Union, we have to consider that Europe is a continet with a limited territory and maybe not all the European countries are European in the strict meaning.
I wrote a thesis about the Armenian genocide and the last chapter of it was dedicated to the membership of Turkey.
I read a loto of books and documents about Turkey and according to me Turkey isn't a European country or rather only a part of it, that is Istanbul, however not all the city, can be considered European: I think that Turkey belongs to Asia.
also in Europe there are a lot of differencies among the countries but I think that we all have something in common, maybe the christian roots, as the Pope said, but Turkey has nothing to do with us: we have to consider it a European country only because Mustafà Kemal founded a secular republic in 1923? or only because Turkey has had a strong relationship with the USA since the end of the second world war?
Turkey has a different political, economic, social and cultual background and many differencies are also related to Islam.
the main concern about Turkey membership is the population: Turkey has more inhabitants than any other European country, also Germany and, given that each country has a parliamentary delegation proportional to its population, this fact will alter precarious balance reached with a great deal of effort in the past.
Let alone the economic and social side.
but Turkey is not the only problem: there are other countries which apply for the membership, such as Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and they all have problems (Croatia and Serbia have problems related to their strong nationalist movements and Macedonia has a dispute with Greece about the name because the last one says that Macedonia is an inland region of Greece itself, the land of Alexander the Great, while Macedonia refuses the Greek proposal to change its name).
I think that the EU will have some disadvantages by accepting the membership of Turkey, above all the fact to be neighbouring with countries, like Syria, which are hot spots from a strategic point of view; until today the EU hasn't proved to be a strong political actor and for this reason someone defined the EU as a political dwarf which totally depends on NATO and the USA for the military problems.
I think that before talking about advantages and disadvantages of the EU expansion, the EU should strenghten from a political and military point of view and only after this the EU will be able to talk about the expansion process.
wouldn't it be better if we worked on the institutions and policies that we already have?
Last but not least, I don't see a risk of erasing different cultures: an expansion process doesn't mean the end of different traditions.
Since 1973 the EU has been keeping growing but every country kept his culture.
If only Italy would lose some bad habits and take the discipline of countries like Germany!
I have as I earlier posted in the blog chosen to also write about the advantages and disadvantages of European Union expansion.
- Never again war! After the Second World War a large part of Europe lied in ruins and the international community all agreed that something like this should never be able to happen again. A variety of agreements and treaties on different levels around the world were signed to prevent similar horrors to take place in the future. The European Union (EU) is a rather unique economic and political partnership in the world between 27 European countries. Its origins can be traced approximately 60 years back and it was initially, after the Second World War, created as a tool to control the coal and steel production in Europe.
Ever since, the EU has grown in size by adding new member states and it has increased its powers gradually by broadening its policy areas. The guiding principles for the European Union are peace, prosperity and freedom. The citizens of the member states in Europe should all be able to live in a safer and better region and world. Free trade, free travel, better environment, fight poverty, fight crime and terror are some of the cooperation fields today handled by the Union.
There are a lot of theories about the advantages and disadvantages concerning the expansion of the European Union, it is a very complex question to answer and you can approach the question in various ways. In this essay I have chosen to approach the question above by taking a deeper look at some of theories which state that the European Union is lacking democracy. Some theories suggest that the Union is one of the best managed alliances on an interstate level and the benefits, for all involved, are just all good “the bigger the better” if you want. Others theories suggest that the European Union to some extent is growing too fast and is getting to big. The Union suffers from a lack of democracy and the ordinary citizens have a hard time to find their way around in the complex process practiced by the Union. This is a topic also very well known and well debated in Sweden on different levels especially from the side that, in some form, is against European Union.
Cheers
/Lina
Hello everyone!
I think that the core question here is "What is the European Union all about and what do we want to achieve with the union?".
Is it a construction aiming at more power being delegated upwards to Brussels or an organisation for cooperation between equal member states (from Malta and Luxemburg to Germany and possibly Turkey)?
In many societies (US and Europe) there is a tendency to identify "us" as something opposite to "them" when it comes to language, culture...and what women wear on their head!
I would welcome a European union with more than 27 member states. Why shouldn't we cooperate with all the states of former Yugoslavia, Albania, Moldavia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey and a democratic Belorussia...?
If you want to become a member state of the European union, you have to respect some fundamental rights. The country has to be a democracy. The death penalty is not allowed.
We can see that the membership of the European union has led to a more intense fight against corruption in Romania and Bulgaria.
As regards Turkey, the EU negociations have led to a change in legislation in many fields in order to be in line with the "acquis communautaire" and a better situation for human rights.
I think it would be good for all parties if the European union becomes even bigger and even more diverse, as a union of equal member states!
In response to Francesca.
To begin, it is very hard to talk about EU as a continent with limited territory if you look at it through a historical perspective. The EU borders as we know them now are not the same borders that existed in the past. For instance, most of the countries that joined EU during the two last expansions, used to belong to The USSR during the Second World War. And were not counted as part of the continent EU. The same thing happened with Algeria when it used to belong to France, it was considered to be part of France and thereby part of the European territory. But as soon they were liberated, they stopped to be part of EU and were seen as part of Africa.
As Mark Leonard puts it, there is no stopping EU, because it doesn’t have any boundaries. There are no boundaries to the economical expansion or to the globalisation. If we take a look throughout the world; the majority of the countries have almost the same kind of economy, the market economy. The only exceptions are for instance Cuba and China and neither of them have a good relationship with USA. Turkey on the other side has the same economy as the rest of the western world and have good relations with both USA and EU.
When it comes to the culture difference, it shouldn’t really matter. Because within EU own borders, we can easily find a groups of immigrants from different part of the world, including those with Islamic background. They are not treated differently from other citizen; with other words EU is a heterogeneous organisation and not a homogeneous. In my opinion the real argument whether Turkey should be a member or not, is the fact that you put it; it could gain more votes than France.
With the risk of repeating myself, I remark how Mark Leonard puts it, EU doesn’t need to strengthen it military. Mostly because it doesn’t have to bomb countries(like USA)to make them change, instead they use the pressure of becoming member and in that way make countries change themselves.
When I wrote that the expansion of EU could erase everything that is different, I was referring to economical difference like Cuba and China. Because lets face it, EU was founded in the beginning of the cold war, it expanded during the cold war and finally made countries that used to belong to USSR to pure market economies.
Cheers
Salvador C.
In response to Stefan.
Hi Stefan.
I really agree with the first thing you said, the core question that you underlined: what do we want to do with the EU and what do we want to achieve with this organisation which isn't a country in the strict meaning, it's not a confederation or a federation or an international organization like the UN?
I believe that the cooperation with other countries, as you said, is welcome but why we can't cooperate with them considering these countries as external ones?
I don't believe that we can obtain real advantages by accepting other countries and I think that there will be always problems.
I think of Poland that was about to make some negotiations fail because of its requirements, i also think of the older members like France, Netherlands and Ireland: the first two blocked the process to adopt the European constitution while the last one created a stumbling block on the way to adopt the Lisbon treaty.
I'm not so optimist about the expansion: i believe that first of all Europe has to solve many internal problems, then the EU can think of a further expansion.
but this process should end: if Ukraine, Belorussia, Albania, Russia and other countries will join the EU, why not Kazakistan or China?
joking aside, I believe that there must be an end.
Don't you think that many countries won't ever be ready to join the EU? and perhaps it will be better for them being helped as a non-member country instead of being subordinate to laws and legislations which will be an obstacle for their development?
what do you think about?
cheers
Francesca
Hi everyone!
Nice to see that there are so many takin interest in this question.
I have read all your posts and my take on the question is also linked to the questions that has been posed: What is the European Union? And what do we want it to bee?
I have always had a big interest in these questions and have studied and worked with them in a number of different countries (Sweden, Belgium and the UK) and contexts. I have a Master in Political Science and when I wrote my Master thesis I examined the views in the EP on the issue.I will briefly sum up my findings to try to bring some clarity of what the EU is and why an expansion could be good.
Those who want a further expansion and even Turkish accession to the EU see the greatest good coming from such an arrangement, for all parties. The overall discourse puts focus on the fact that countries can adapt to the European way and Turkeys potential role as a bridge between the European and Muslim world is the dominant argument. The EU is viewed as a trans-national organisation rather than an entity that is limited to a specific territory (Europe)by this group.
Those who oppose Turkish accession and further expansion has an opposite view. They think that the EU shares characteristics with the nation-state and has its base in a specific territory and peoples who share the same history, culture and religion.
This is why this subject is so interesting, the debate is going on right now. The political leaders of the EU does not share a common idea of what the EU is!
My view is that the EU would benefit from a further expansion since it could spread human rights and respect for minorities to areas that do not do this at this juncture (Turkey for example). However history supports the opinion that non-European countries cannot gain acess to the EU. Marocko applied for Membership but was declined early in the last decade.
/Martin
In response to Lina.
Hi there!
Lack of democracy is an important side of the European question.
According to me, from a technical point of view we can't talk about lack of democracy because our countries are representative democracies so we have to elect our representatives and we also vote for our governments because nowadays It's unthinkable a model of direct democracy with so many citizens: every citizen participates in political life of his country.
I think that in our countries' political life we don't participate in every decision made by the government asit happens in the EU.
Of course many treaties are written and implemented without consulting the European population and a lot of agreements are closed following not very transparent procedures but the EU isn't a country like Italy or Sweden and it seems to me that a lot of international organization, the UN for example, make decisions in a not properly democratic way.
In the EU the voting procedures provides for high quotients so a big participation of countries is required to adopt a decision.
So what do you mean for democracy and lack of democracy?
Francesca
in response to Salvador.
Hi Salvador.
I think i was too drastic.
I believe that boundaries are necessary: the expansion process can't continue over and over again.
I think that regional organizations are the best solutions: in fact in many other areas of the world organizations like the EU are developing.
but we talk about regional organizations and regarding to Europe, someone also talked about the future united states of Europe so i think that we have to put boundaries to Europe.
We can't think of the central Asia countries as European countries and it is the same thing for the countries of North Africa like Morocco or Algeria (i believe that French considered Algeria as French territory only because of the assimilation policy).
Another point that you made out: you said that the EU is a heterogeneous organization.
I think that the question is: how do we think of the EU? what do we want it to be?
It's a confederation, a federation or simply an international or regional organization?
If we wnat to consider it as a confederation or a federation, i think that it is necessary its military strenghtening and not because it will bomb another country.
If we want to consider the EU only as an organization, i think that, also in this case, it's necessary the military strenghtening because the EU won't have to depend always on the NATO or the USA military forces.
Until now the EU hasn't showed political unity nor military force: the EU is an important actor only on the economic field (but also in this field i think that the power of the Euro doesn't reflect the real strenght and power of the EU and its economy).
maybe another expansion would be good for Europe but i'm pessimist (I'm pessimist by nature): i can only see disadvantages.
Francesca
In response to Francesca (and everyone else)
Hello, glad to read your comments!
After the collapse of communism EU membership became a very attractive goal for those countries who later joined the EU in 2004. I think that this process, working towards membership by adapting the legislation to the acquis communautaire and getting rid of rules or procedures which are not in line with European laws/ideals, is one of the main advantages of a further enlargement. One would also hope that EU membership furthers other ideals, such as equal opportunity. I have a black female collegue who went to Slovenia in 2001 and she had a terrible racist experience. Hopefully she would be OK in 2011.
I realise that a political union with 35 member states would be very hard, if not impossible, to govern - at least in the short run. But, already with a European union of 27, are we ready to advance towards a political union? I would say no. Sweden, Denmark and the UK would rather leave the union than enter a political union, which would mean a no to all the national exceptions, such as the euro, a European common defence or common labour market regulations. If federalist countries don't like this, they can opt for "enhanced cooperation" as a last resort.
I don't think that it is in the Europeans' interest to create a political union yet. Therefore, further enlargement is positive - and this because of the very core idea of the European communities of the 1950s: peace!
With a pro-EU government in Belgrade, Radovan Karadžić was actually turned over to the Hague!
Would the genocide of Yugoslavia have taken place if this part of Europe was a member of the EU? For many warlords of the 90s it is probably horrific to see that their countries enter into a union with "the enemy" 15 years or so later!
If a membership of the EU means prosperity, better trade agreements and good governance, why shouldn't we let these countries join the club? OK, the common agricultural policy has to be rewritten or scrapped, but that's another issue :-)
As I said in another message, Bulgaria and Romania are still under pressure from Brussels due to the corruption in these countries. A large amount of aid has been frozen until these countries show results. What would have happened in those countries if they weren't part of the EU? And even more important, what about corruption and organised crime in our neighbouring countries? Bring them in, and we can get to the bottom with those kinds of problems by putting real pressure on the politicians!
Hope to hear from you all again!
Stef
In response to Francesca.
Hi Francesca,
we are Fabio and Giusy. We have read your post and we have found it very interesting.
We don't agree with you about some points, in particular the ones about Turkey. We think that the entrance of a country into the EU shouldn't depend on its religious roots. In general, religion shouldn't be a factor of division either should race and other ethnical features, but it should be a meeting-point. Besides, Turkey is famous as the only lay country among the Muslim ones.
Finally, in the EU there are already some countries of different confessions even like Italy and Sweden.
In conclusion, we think that the entrance of Turkey into the EU is premature but not for religious reasons.
Fabio and Giusy.
Hi Francesca
Thanks for the input!
Ok,
As I said in the introduction it is a complex question to answer.
I am not in general speaking about direct or representative democracy.
One theory state that EU is growing and getting bigger and this is not, from a democratic point of view, something that is going the benefit the citizens in EU, - why, because citizens in Europe to some extent already have a hard time grasping what EU is about.
Another issue often mentioned in the debate is the one that talks about the European Parliament. The European Parliament is representing the European population however the Parliament in EU doesn’t have the same authorities as a normal parliament and that is not, from a democratic point of view, good for anyone. To meet up to some of the criticism made (that EU is lacking democracy) the European Parliament in last five years or so has gotten its authorities broaden.
Take care
Lina
Post a Comment