10 Countries admitted to the EU

[Mercutio]

WARSAW (Reuters) - Eight former communist countries and two Mediterranean islands joined the European Union on Saturday in a historic reunification of western and eastern Europe 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Malta officially joined the EU at midnight central European time (1800 EDT).

This biggest ever enlargement makes the new 25-member EU the world's most powerful single trading bloc with 450 million citizens producing nearly one quarter of global wealth.

What do you think of this mega expansion? Especially those mooters already members of the EU. Will it help? Is it good for these countries? Or is there some animosity about it?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I subscribe to a magazine called Current History (published in Philadelphia). The March, 1994 issue has several articles on the EU expansion. Concerns discussed include how the new countries will adapt to monetary union in general and the Euro in particular, and Europe's disagreement with the current American administration's preference for unilateral action and general throwing its weight around.

I'm rather hopeful that eventually some form of "balance of power" may lead to more rational policies on combating terrorism, global warming, etc. And the two probable shortterm "balancers" seem to be China and the EU. And I notice that the Bushies have decided not to "bother" China with pesky questions about human rights violations.

In every way but military spending the EU (even prior to enlargement) seems a "superpower" at least equivalent to the U.S. Therefore it seems such an anomaly to still have U.S. forces in Germany, the U.K. etc. NATO was crucial until the collapse of communism but what exactly is the purpose of NATO now?
Is it the neutral countries (Sweden and Ireland, for two) that
prevent some form of European defense force?

[Count Comfect]

I had a Model UN conference last weekend on this exact issue. Our sort of consensus was that it was a good thing, especially on the political front, but had a huge potential to blow up the EU budget - since so much of it is economic development and agricultural aid and the new countries have such poor and agriculturally dependent economies.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
I subscribe to a magazine called Current History (published in Philadelphia). The March, 1994 issue has several articles on the EU expansion. Concerns discussed include how the new countries will adapt to monetary union in general and the Euro in particular, and Europe's disagreement with the current American administration's preference for unilateral action and general throwing its weight around.

Can I ask how a March 1994 article can be discussing the division against America?

I'm rather hopeful that eventually some form of "balance of power" may lead to more rational policies on combating terrorism, global warming, etc. And the two probable shortterm "balancers" seem to be China and the EU.

What "rational" policies should we take with Bin Ladin and the terrorists? You mean cowtowing to them like Spain did? "Oh please don't bomb us - we'll leave."

As for global warming - as far as the Kayoto Treaty went - it was completely useless. Even Clinton didn't agree with it and said that it wouldn't work. That's why he never sent it before Congress - like so many other things - he left it up to Bush to kill.

And I notice that the Bushies have decided not to "bother" China with pesky questions about human rights violations.

Oh - now we're not doing enough against China again. First we're supposed to not be the police of the world - then we're supposed to be. I wish people would make up their minds. I personally think we should be taking a hard line with China.

In every way but military spending the EU (even prior to enlargement) seems a "superpower" at least equivalent to the U.S. Therefore it seems such an anomaly to still have U.S. forces in Germany, the U.K. etc. NATO was crucial until the collapse of communism but what exactly is the purpose of NATO now?

We have forces over in Europe because it allows easy access to the Middle East and other hot spots around the world. Dont' worry - our troops are leaving Germany and moving to Eastern Europe. We are also in the process of building huge ships which are larger than aircraft carriers and will be floating bases. Then we don't have to worry about them.

As for the EU being a superpower - how is that? The largest countries have 10% unemplyment. And economically follow America. They have to do a lot more than joining a union to solve their problems. Frence health care is bankrupt, their pension funds are near bankrupt, it's not a pretty picture in France - and Germany is having similar problems.

Is it the neutral countries (Sweden and Ireland, for two) that
prevent some form of European defense force?

No - it's the fact that they don't have the money to do it. They already pay huge taxes - in Sweden it's 50%. Also - they have got lazy by relying on the US - look at the fact that Clinton wanted them to take care of Bosnia - but they couldn't even handle that. France isn't having much luck in the Ivory Coast at the moment. But I guess not many people know about their troops being there.

As for the question at hand - which had NOTHING to do with the US - I think it's positive for Europe. I would give Europe a word of warning - I wouldn't turn my back on Germany and France. I think it is quite clear - as a matter of fact they said it right oin French news - that they want to take control of the EU.

[mithrand1r]

I think that the enlarging of the EU has positives and negatives.

Economically, there is much to be gain among member nations. By joining together to form a large "economic block" they can compete better against the US and Asia in the marketplace.

Politically, it has the potential of a quagmire (sp?). Since there are (now) 20+ members it gets harder for policy to be determined. (More opinions of how things shall be done. Some nations (ie. Germany, France) may try to dominate the Union)

I have heard from some circles that the US secretly likes more nations being added to the EU. The theory being that the US may be able to influence the EU through member nations. The more nations in the EU the better the odds of the US being able to influence at least 1 nation at any given time.

[mithrand1r]

With regards to Cyprus, I was really hoping that admission to the EU would would be a chance for Cyprus (A nation divided since the 1974 invasion by Turkey) to be reunited as a completely free nation with all foreign troops removed from Cypriot soil.

From what I have been able to follow, it does not seem likely that the reunification of Cyprus will happen.

For anyone interested you may do a search in the Library or net for information on the Cypriot conflict.
cyprus-conflict is a web site that I think does a good job of giving an overview of the history of Cyprus in relation to the current situation. Take a look if you wish and judge for yourself.

[Radagast]

As an Englishman against the the United Kingdom's entry into the E.U. I am glad to see that if we do enter, the line France is taking with the E.U. is generally supportive of my own view, i.e. that if France were the dominant E.U. nation, the policies it follows are significantly more acceptable to me than the one Mr. Blair appears to be creating. I have complete confidence in President Chirac.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
As an Englishman against the the United Kingdom's entry into the E.U. I am glad to see that if we do enter, the line France is taking with the E.U. is generally supportive of my own view, i.e. that if France were the dominant E.U. nation, the policies it follows are significantly more acceptable to me than the one Mr. Blair appears to be creating. I have complete confidence in President Chirac.

So then you see no problem with France and Germany trying to create a power block to control the EU?

[Radagast]

No. not really, because I would rather have a centre-right Chirac- Schroder coalition controlling the E.U. than any centre-left power block under Blair. Understand?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
No. not really, because I would rather have a centre-right Chirac- Schroder coalition controlling the E.U. than any centre-left power block under Blair. Understand?

Isn't it supposed to be where NO single country controls the EU - but it's supposed to be representative?

[Radagast]

You believe that, do you?

[Count Comfect]

Actually, with 25 countries and their proportional representation system, it may be very difficult for any one nation (or couple of nations) to dominate the EU.

By the way, the EU's unemployment is not as severe as it seems. France, Spain and Germany are the three hardest hit (all around or above 10%), but the actual economies don't seem to be in as much trouble as one would expect from this. Some of the problem seems to come from overgenerous unemployment benefits, which they are addressing.

The new nations have much much worse economies, though (ranging from 1/4 to 3/4 of the current EU mean GDP), which may mess some things up.

[Mercutio]

My views:

1. The admission of 10 new countries will be good to balance often self-indulgent France and Germany.

2. It will economically strengthen these 10 new countries.

3. The new countries will lose some of their unique culture--All turned into one huge consumeristic group. The bishop of Hungary stated that this would cause Hungary to lose its morals.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by Mercutio
My views:

1. The admission of 10 new countries will be good to balance often self-indulgent France and Germany.

2. It will economically strengthen these 10 new countries.

3. The new countries will lose some of their unique culture--All turned into one huge consumeristic group. The bishop of Hungary stated that this would cause Hungary to lose its morals.

Yes, economically strengthen them at the expense of nations like the U.K., which give much more to the EU than it ever gets back

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Radagast
No. not really, because I would rather have a centre-right Chirac- Schroder coalition controlling the E.U. than any centre-left power block under Blair. Understand?

????


Isn't Schroeder a Social Democrat, with a Green coalition partner? And aren't the German Soc-Dems far to the Left of 'New Labour'?
More like Old Labour?

[Dwarven Sen]

Recently i've been discussing the "Immigration Issue" with friends and family. Most of the people who are concerned with it, want to be reassured that when they come over here, they'll work and they'll just get on with their lives without causing trouble. But that just isn't going to happen. Our economy can not carry on letting people in without making sure they have a stable environment and job to support themsleves and their families. We need to sort out our country so the immigrants we've already got have what they need for a good life.

i guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm happy that the countries will have improved status, economy, etc, but we can't have a massive influx of their people. we just can't support them.

And I'd like to thank the Bishop of Hungary for his comments, saying that we have no morals. I try my best you know.

Also i agree with Radagast that the thought of Blair controlling the EU is horrific. RUN, Run, run away now... Did anyone believe that it's not controled by the big countries?

[Lalaith]

For me, as an Austrian citizen, it has prooved to be advantageous that Austria is an EU member state. I have so many possibilities and especially the youth actions within the EU are great.
I got to know so many cool people from other EU nations and that really gave me a new way of thinking and changed my attitude towards Europe.

From that experience I would say that it is really good that the EU has expanded. It's another step to a united Europe which can leave all the past wars behind and "fight" for the same goals.
I also think it is a great possibility for the new states to integrate and to get the same opportunities we (the western states) have.

There has to be a time when all these East/West crap has to end and I think an important step has been done with the enlargment.

A big PRO from Austria.

[Hanza]

we did something on this in our pse lesson a couple of weeks ago unfortunately i was too wrapped up in looking for malta on every map in the atlas!! moi's boyf is half maltese and i find the fact that his dad is a malteser very amusing

[Radagast]

The day when there is a United States of Europe is the day I pack my bags and leave England. I could not live in such a place, where the U.K. is but a member state, on 'equal' terms with nations like Albania and Slovakia! The sheer indignity that we, a nation that ruled a fifth of the globe, are merely one of fifteen states, on equal terms with a tin pot little country!

[Earniel]

Well there's been a some heavy partying going on now that there 25 countries in the EU, let's hope the hang-over stays a way for a while. I'm fearing we've bit off more than we can chew, so to speak.

There's a massive addition of people and territory since yesterday. It'll be a nigh herculian effort to get all the governments alligned with the European regulations and so forth. And considering the fact that Poland already stated that they want a greater portion of funding even before they joined us and seen their size and population, you'll realise this will not all go smoothly.

Going from 15 to 25 countries is a major step that is taken a wee bit too lightly IMO. While I applaud the growth of the EU -which in a way can be seen as its success- I had prefered it to go somewhat slower. Especially in relation to Cyprus, I don't think we're doing those people a favour, it's like a second Berlin Wall. I'd rather seen Cyprus join as a whole or not at all.

Still, we'll have some interesting years in front of us.

I pity the students who'll now have to learn the names of 25 countries in exchange to the 12 in my time.