Extension of the EU-how far?

[Elvain]

There was a discussion in my country how far will the extension of EU go.
Will it stop by accepting Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia or will it go further?

Poles want Ukraine in the Union, Romanians want Moldavians(in fact Moldavians are Romanians living in another country where big Russian minority lives), Czech president wants Kazakhstan :eek:
does Turkey belong to EU?

If the arguments are only economical, there would be no limit, so no reason why not to accept for example Morocco, Egypt, Iran or Russia. But do they belong to Europe?
i think EU should consider it's definition of Europe. IMO it is based on some values that came from west_christian-humanistic philosophy.

Somewhere I have heard that Greece has now, 25 years after joining EU more problems in internal joining than 10 states that joined EU last year. How is this possible? Maybe this is caused by the roots. Greeks are orthodox nation, as well as Romanians and Bulgarians. I personally think that EU should not accept more countries than Croatia.
IMO eastern border of Europe should be Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia. The furthest extension I could imagine would be accepting Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Macedonia, possibly also Ukraine(if divided so western part without any doubt) and Moldavia, but not Albania, Turkey and I seriously doubt about muslim Bosnia.

Reasons of my words are cultural roots. I have nothing against muslims and even less I have against the orthodox, but IMO EU should be western-christian/humanistic or christian civilisation based. I support membership of Armenia and Georgia from membership of Turkey...

what do you think?

[Angryminer]

To make the EU a nation it has to maintain a cultural integrity.
When germans don't feel they are the same as albanians, and albanians don't feel they are the same as germans, they can not possible feel together as europeans.

So the EU has to decide wether it wants to be a "block of power" or a nation.
To gain sufficiant support from the people in the EU the union it has to be nation with a cultural integrity.
I think the idea of "priviledged membership" for those states who are culturally incompatible but politically and economically close to the EU is a good solution for nations like Turkey. This keeps the cultural integrity of the EU as a nation and gives the advantages of close political and economic cooperation to both Turkey and the the other members of the EU. That way the EU can evolve to a nation and a "block of power".

Though it should be discussed wether we want to create "blocks of power" when we remember the "blocks of power" that were existant before WW1 and WW2...

Angryminer

[Elvain]

but do you think that "block of power" with diferent mentalities(diferent goals of policy) inside could be effective.
Look how effective was Yugoslavia when strong personality of Josip Broz Tito was gone. I also lived in one such state where 2 nations with oposite goals lived. Czecholsovakian federal parliamant was totally inefective after fall of communist regime(so Czechs tried to push their real dreams=no communist ones, while Slovaks did it too)

there can be multicultural block of power if there is comon enemy, if common enemy disappears (or emerges inside one of partners) block crashes (see alliance of USSR and USA against the Nazis) If we talk about such block or economical partnership, I have no reason to keep Turkey or democratic orthodox countries out of it. But I think EU wants to be more than just block of economical partners (economical block doesn't need constitution f.i.). Europe-EU wants to be integrated deeper than juts economicaly. That's why I disagree with accepting Turkey and any other in-"christian" country into EU. And who knows how will this politicaly and culturaly deeply integrated EU work with orthodox nations.

Can you imagine Israel in league with Egypt? they are both democracies and economical cooperation would help them both, but they are culturaly diferent, they cant create Egypt-Israel union.

[Traveller]

Angryminer, here in Bulgaria, we have many different regions with quite different people. For example, the difference between the the Rodopean, the Macedonian and the Northerner is quite essential. But we are still one country, one people. The diversity only enriches our nation and our culture. So, the more, the better. The question is if "the more" want to be Bulgarians. And ofcourse if Bulgarians want the new "more". Because we have those Gypsies (not exactly like your Gypsies), which are deffinitely not from Bulgarian origin and we don't like them. I think they don't like us either. So it's hard and useless to incorporate them. But if both they and we agree and their standarts (be it financial, cultural etc.) are good enough, I see no reason they can't join in. Especially if they're here from long, long ago, longer than most of those who are now in.

Elvain, Oh, so you're in and now all the rest could die in misery, huh? Only westerners and to be more precise - catholics? I thought the EU is a political organisation, not the second Vatican! Everyone in Europe should be allowed to join, if they meet the requirements. The question should be, who is in Europe. Most of Turkey is in Asia, only a small part of it is in the Balkans. Same with Russia, although most of Russia's population is in the European part. And don't tell me Russia's culture is far from European culture. Turkey is far, both by religion, history. But still, Turkey is reformed and is not an islamic country like Lybia f.e. But, ofcourse, Russia will never enter the EU, both because it won't be invited and it would refuse, even if it is. And it won't be invited, because it's population is too "uncomfortable" for the current "majorities". Anyway, Russia is not my business. EU isn't either...

[Elvain]

It's not like "I am in and I don't want anybody else to come in." You misunderstood me. "We" (in this case I mean Poles, Czechs, Slovenians, Croatians and Slovaks Hungarians as well as Lithianias, Latvains and Estonians) have had same or almost-the-same institutions like Germans for almost 1000 years. We are part of "western" culture for over 1000 years.

I will repeat my ideas in other words:
I am for economical integration with countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia - they are culturaly very close to the West. With Turkey it would be more problematic IMO. They are secularised for over 80 years that's nice. For this 80 years they try to have same political institutions like "Europe", but they still have roots in muslim culture, their mentality is little different, they have diferent values. They could be accepted into economical partnership (YES, do that as soon as they will do necessary economical and law reforms and solve their problems with minorities-Kurds,accept responsibility of Armenian genocide. I will have not a single word against it!)
Let's share economical prosperity with kind nations. I am fully for economical integration with Balkan orthodox nations but I am against political integration which may IMO cause some problems.

I also keep off using catholic Europe since we all know that over half of EU is not catholic, but protestant or atheist("humanist") So I use "western christian-humanistic" tradition.
EU is not religious organisation. It is union of nations that share very same roots, alues and it is economical and political organisation.
Yugoslavia turned into bloody and longlasting war for such cultural diferences. Serbs and Croats-main Yugoslavian nations were one orthodox, one catholic. They can cooperate in economy very deeply, but not so deeply in policy which is much more influenced by mentality, culture and values.

I have some very nice friends among Romanians. I want to share economical advantages of european integratio with them, but I can see that in many cases we have principaly diferent opinions. And those diferences are much deeper than liberal(mainly protestant-humanistic)/conservative(mainly catholic) antagonism.

Russia is an own entity comarable to whole Europe together. Russia-Europe relation is like Japan-China: Japan would never be asked to become part of China(peacefully) and Japan would never agree to it! It don't belong here as Russia doesn't belong to EU in any way.

[Webmaster]

before any new members get into the EU, they have to fullfil the criteria for starting negotiatings (democracy, no death penalty ... and many many more)

sure the EU has to define where are the cultural and geographic borders. but the same discussion now was made during the south expansion (spain, portugese, italy). and this states are now proud and respected members with the core EU.

the different nations with their different indentities is a plus for the EU.

[Darius]

before any new members get into the EU, they have to fullfil the criteria for starting negotiatings (democracy, no death penalty ... and many many more)

sure the EU has to define where are the cultural and geographic borders. but the same discussion now was made during the south expansion (spain, portugese, italy). and this states are now proud and respected members with the core EU.

the different nations with their different indentities is a plus for the EU.

Agreed...
I think any new members of EU should have some cultural incommon with us, not to mention geographical. Turkey, in IMO, is almost to far away, I'm not sure with Russia though

[Noldy]

The fact is, EU is both political and economic integration. If we want to engage more in economy with Turkey, Egypt, Marocco etc. we make economic treaties (with many we already have treaties like EFTA), and not in EU.
Thats why I agree with most of Elvains words.

[Ldvs]

And it won't be invited, because it's population is too "uncomfortable" for the current "majorities".
Of course Russia would have a lot of seats compared to other countries but the maximum number is set at 96, and you need 15 countries to agree on a point to settle the agreement. Thus, it would be "annoying" but not too much.

As an atheist I completely disagree with religions being a cultural barrier for the EU. As someone mentioned, Turkey isn't an islamic country. So if they respect each criterion written in the Constitution, I don't see why they couldn't join. Moreover, if you consider it's not geographically located in Europe, then Greece isn't either, since a tiny part of Turkey is in Europe. Under the current circumstances Turkey couldn't join because they don't recognize Cyprus, the Armenian genocide and men and women are not equal.

Honestly, I think the expansion of the EU should be ended now. Within 3 years, almost as many countries will have joined it as there has been members for nearly 20 years. Some small countries already fear, and rightly so, that they'll not be represented in all the institutions (they will but only periodically with a turnover), which is just unfair because when you're in, you're in.

[Moryarity]

. Some small countries already fear, and rightly so, that they'll not be represented in all the institutions (they will but only periodically with a turnover), which is just unfair because when you're in, you're in.


I think this is totally ok...most of hte new countries are small...if all of these countries are represented in an institution at the same time, they are so many, that they alone could make politics and the older and greater countries couldn´t interfer.....so a turn-over is really a good thing.it makes possible, that there is arepresentative from all "groups" (old members, big, one small ones, new) at all times..