Talk Elections

()

Blue: Current EU member-states

Aquamarine: Candidates (Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Turkey)

Green: have ratified the EU Association Agreement, and are recognized by the EU as having a European perspective (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia)

Yellow: countries/candidates that have not yet applied for entry (Bosnia/Herzegovina, Kosovo)

Orange: countries/candidates that have frozen or withdrawn their membership applications (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland)

Croatia, Iceland, and Macedonia, in that order.  Bringing the club to an even 30.  That's my prediction for the 2020s.

Croatia and Iceland: 2012
Macedonia: 2014
Montenegro and Albania: 2018

Croatia, Iceland and Macedonia. I doubt they will manage to expand anywhere else.

I agree, with the addition of Montenegro. Still not the consensus needed to admit Turkey by any means.

Croatia and Macedonia.

Croatia and Iceland by 2013.

Then a long pause.

Turkey probably in the year 2189 or so.

Croatia and Iceland by 2012-2013.
Macedonia and Montenegro by the end of decade, but that's less likely.

Croatia very soon. Iceland, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania all possibilities but I'd suggest none by 2020 excpet Iceland as a 50/50.

Croatia would be the most likely soon, yes.

But then, what a fooog for the future of what the hell could EU become, then about its possible expansions...

Croatia maybe, but unless the EU has changed its unanimous consent rule to join, we're not going to see any other expansions in this decade.

Croatia and Iceland will be in within the next 5 years. Macedonia and Montenegro will be in by the end of the decade. Albania is also possible but less likely. Serbia and Kosovo won't get in until they resolve their disputes and Kosovo is universally recognized and admitted to the UN, which I don't see happening this decade.

Anyone who said Turkey doesn't understand Turkey or the EU.

Lol@norway and switzerland. Too good to be in "europe"

Not a case of being too good, but that it would be extremely stupid for either of them.  Norway would get screwed royally if its waters were part of the Common Fisheries Policy and its waters opened up to European trawlers.  Plus they'd have to use the same technicality that Sweden has used to avoid joining the Eurozone, that of not being a member of the ERM II for two years, as the Norwegian krone more than meets all of the other requirements that would force them to adopt the Euro.

Norway stays out for oil related reasons also, right? Further, the Swiss get to keep prying eyes away from their shady banks.

In other words, they're too good to be in "europe."

Well, the 2 systems might not be exactly the same, but Luxembourg is in the EU. And for example they are already part of Schengen (not of EU's Customs Union though), I would think it's more psychological reasons for them, and the fact they don't want an external parliament dictating them some conditions in their very-participative democracy too maybe.

Croatia and Iceland. Maybe Macedonia after a pause.

With Mladic going to the Hague, and presumably Goran Hadzic right behind him, what does everyone now think of Serbia's chances of joining the European Union? 

It improves them, but I doubt they will be a member by 2020.

Croatia is the only one likely to be a member by then.

Iceland might have been stampeded into joining if the length of time it takes to become a member wasn't so long.  By the time the EU decides it is willing to accept Iceland, I think Iceland will have resumed thinking they don't want to join.

Montenegro and Bosnia will likely be members by 2030, with Serbia possibly as well, but the language issue will likely be a thorny one. (I.e., are there four languages there, four dialects of Serbo-Croatian, or some mixture of the two endpoints.)

There is also the Kosova issue to be settled before Serbia and Kosova join.

The Greeks will continue to hold Macedonian membership hostage to the name issue.

Does anyone think that the fact that at least 4, if not 5 countries, at minimium, are going to have to be kicked out of the monetary part of this Union (i.e. the euro) before 2020 in order for said monetary part to survive, will have an impact on the expansion in the European Union itself?

From an economic common sense standpoint; yes.  However, I think that the political will for a United Europe is too strong for little things like economic sense to stand in the way.  That all changes, of course, if Greece defaults.

I don't know much about the EU, but I assume the reason Iceland hasn't joined yet is because of the fisheries, considering Iceland is one of the most fish-producing nations in the world?

Why is Switzerland always such a loner? Did it get picked on  as a child?

Greece will default, technically (they may term it restructuring or whatever, but it will be "default" for the language on the debt).  It is a guarantee, and since there are few guarantees in this world, it should not be ignored.  And it will occur before 2020 (long before).  Portugal, Spain, Ireland and (probably) Italy are on the same path, but none as quick as Greece.

With that in mind, I ask the same question again.

I doubt the ECB will let themselves lose face by allowing any Eurozone members to officially drop out of the zone. But look the other way as some countries introduce unofficial units of account (leaving the Eurozone by stealth) in order to speed up the internal devaluation they need, perhaps.

That will be viewed as default by the credit markets.

I don't see any limit to the contagion once it gets started. Greece's default will spread to Ireland and Portugal's yields, and these will spread to Spain, and these will spread to Italy, and these will spread to France and Belgium, both of whose yields widened late last year. Sovereign debt contagion will spread until the point where there is demonstrated political will to make sovereign debt whole.

The ECB could depreciate the euro and use the proceeds to buy government bonds of afflicted countries. The German economy would be overstimulated by a cheaper euro, to avoid putting the entire currency union at risk by having something like Spain, for instance, be forced out. However the people in charge of Europe's institutions are ultra orthodox in their outlook and this kind of talk is heresy.

No, they're too smart to be in the EU. Nothing strange with that.

My prediction is Iceland unless they change their mind and don't want to and Croatia. Wouldn't Greece stop Macedonia?

It's a shame that only Norway and Switzerland were smart enough...

I would argue that Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia shouldn't have been let in.

What's with all this hostility to the European Union? Do you really wish to return to the Westphalian system of independent competing nation-states that ultimately led to the First and Second World Wars?  

You're seriously claiming the only way to avoid a future World War in Europe is by surrendering political power to Brussels? Really?

I'm pretty sure we would not see another European war simply because the EU wasn't there. Personally I support the common market, but I don't see why that means we need to give up our soverinty and national powers to an undemocrtic beurocracy. Why should France decide all of Europes agricultural policy, Germany all economic policy, and Britain all anti-terror policy and so on.  

I do -from my perspective, the European Union has helped immensely as a pacifying force, which was the main reason it (or at least its predecessors) was founded.  You don't see France, Britain, and Germany contemplating war against one another, do you?  The only areas of conflict in Europe that we have seen since the end of the Cold War have been in the Balkans, which (with the exception of Slovenia) are still outside the European Union.  And the main protagonist in those conflicts has been Serbia.  

The Coal and Steal Union was an agreement that would keep one of the two countries (France and Germany) from secretly starting to produce more of the two itims in order to start war on eachother. That has nothing to do with European relations today.

That's like claiming NAFTA is the reason USA, Canada, and Mexico isn't bombing the $hit out of eachother right now. 

The EU should probably only expand to countries willing to go along in the further development of the Union. It is already too much of a large Free Market-zone and too little of an actual union.

From what I am reading from the 1951 Treaty of Paris that created the European Coal and Steel Community, its mission was much broader and ambitious than that.  According to the preamble (or its equivalent), its aims were, 'to substitute for historic rivalries a fusion of their essential interests; to establish, by creating an economic community, the foundation of a broad and independent community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts; and to lay the bases of institutions capable of giving direction to their future common destiny;

HAVE DECIDED to create a European Coal and Steel Community'

Pretty much says it itself, doesn't it? 


That is a false comparison, and you know it. 

Franzl, why do you feel that national sovereignty is a positive?  At all?

It's already a given that at least one member will "default" in one way or another ("reprofiling", "restructuring", etc). Officially dropping the Euro may be viewed as a default, but can New York or London courts really pass judgement over an officially unofficial policy of a sovereign government? As long as the bonds are paid in Euros I'm not sure there can be a legal argument that a default has occurred.

For the same reason I support federalism within countries. I support decentralization as far as is reasonable and productive. Just as I think states in the U.S. should be free to set most of their own policies, I think European countries should be able to further their interests.

And it's a lot more extreme in Europe, the EU being quite undemocratic and far away from the European people. The U.S. federal government is a lot more tolerable than Brussels.

Add to that that I also strongly believe in competition of ideas. If Spain isn't providing you what you want, go to Germany or Britain where you might get what you want.

What's good about the EU is the free-trade zone and also the free movement policy (sceptical of Schengen, but not totally against it. But even with border controls, you'd still have the right to live and work in any EU country).

There's no reason that needs to be extended to centralized policies from an undemocratic institution in Brussels.

Then you're not very familiar with modern Europe, if you think that without the EU that France, Germany and Britain would start fighting once again.

There's nothing to suggest that, and an awful lot that would strongly discourage it.

The United States and Canada are separate, sovereign countries....and you don't see them going to war with each other, do you? Why are Britain and Germany different for you?

Are you seriously going to compare Europe and North America?  Really? 

When last I checked, the United States and Canada never engaged in a world war (let alone, two) that resulted in the deaths of millions and devastated an entire continent.

THAT is why Britain and Germany is a completely different situation than that between the United States and Canada.  There is no comparison.   

Frodo, using that logic it's just a matter of time before the US and Britain declare war against eachother. You guys have been to war with eachother in the past after all. Not to mention Spain, Spain obviously wants to get back at you for the Mexican War. 

Yeah, Frodo...I really get the feeling you aren't familiar with Europe or Europeans. There's just no reason to fear any type of conflict, with or without the EU.

Anyone who thinks Europe would be on the brink of war without the EU is really much too clueless to even be considered. Sorry. I can really only echo Franzl and Johan in this thread.

Gustaf's 100% right on this...and I say that as someone that supports the EU anyway.  (Mainly out of my dislike of the nation-state itself)  Europe isn't going back to war.  (Note: this statement includes the Balkans, but I stand ready to redefine it to not include the Balkans)

The Balkans is a good example of why forcing countries into unions without popular support is not a good idea if you want peace.

After all, 95%+ of all wars in the world are civil wars. And most conflicts end when unions are broken up (Scandinavia, Balkans, Czechoslovakia, etc)

Are you now trying to predict that the EU will lead to a pan-european civil war? :P

Haha :) Nah a European war, especially in Western Europe, is extraimly unlikly either way. However I think that the union many times cause more conflict between certain states than it resolves.


Pretty easy prediction considering they already are in it. ;)


That is probably true. Might be a potential explanation as to why eastern European countries in general seem to be more EU positive.

Nope, I think the risk of war in Western Europe is very low either way. But if anything, the risk is greater with the EU, for two reasons:

1. It creates unnecessary conflicts over policy - look at the relation between Greece and Germany right now, for instance.

2. It undermines European democracy, and since democracy is the best insurance against war that is probably also negative from the perspective of peace.

Of course, the idea of European countries going to war today is pretty absurd. I do think Sweden is more likely to be dragged into some silly display of European power because of our EU membership.

Worth noting that the issues that there are with the EU are mostly a result of its fundamentally undemocratic (and unaccountable; a slightly different thing) structure than with the fact that it's a supranational authority in certain respects; there is, after all, nothing sacred about nation states. The EU has done some good things and I'd not vote to leave it, but there's no point in waving aside the negatives; obviously everyone is concentrating on economic and monetary stuff at present, but no one would be allowed to forget that (for example) the EU's agricultural and fisheries policies are absolutely heinous.

The war thing is a tempting argument, but is basically silly and can be shown to be so. For example, Britain did not join the EEC until the early 1970s. And of the two big political parties in post-war Germany, the one that was initially quite hostile to the concept was also against rearmament.

If the EU doesn't function fully democratically that has a lot to do with the lack of enthusiasm of certain member states for the European Project. The idea of a directly elected European 'President' is something I am very much in favour of. Or if that's too much asked, perhaps we could have had Blair rather than Van Rompuy.

I voted Croatia and Montenegro.

Strong candidates are Iceland (if the banking stuff sorts) and Macedonia (if they can resolve the naming dispute with Greece).

Albania and Bosnia/Herz have paths but need some work.  Serbia is tied to Kosovo, nothing happens until sovereignty is settled.

Turkey?  That's "not a ing prayer" territory.  Turkey in the EU is DOA.

Of course a directly elected president would never work. I'm aware that the intelectual-left of this forum dislikes the concept of nation states and that a lot even wish to see a United States of the World goverment. But people in general like their national states. They fought wars to gain indipendence, and they are not willing to give that up. As soon as the European Union in any way shape or form will start to look like a United States of Europe (which it already is in a lot of areas) all public support of the Union would crumble. That's why it was never possible to pass the EU constitution, but it was possible to pass the Lisabon Treaty. Even though they were 95% the same when it came to what was actually in them, it's all about name. A President of Europe elected like the President of the United States would never be accepted in any European country ever outside of the political elite, because that would reveal that we aren't indipendant nations any longer.

Besides the leaders of Europe would never accept a strong president telling them what to do. The strong leader they want to rule the whole EU is themself. If they can't have themself rule, they much rather prefer a weakling like Van Rompuy who will not be able to stand in their way.   

Reason I continue to say Macedonia will be a yes is that Greece's bargaining power has been eroded considerably due to their...problems.  Rest of Europe is going to be less likely to let Macedonia's entry be stalled due to the asinine name debate when Greece is nearing total collapse.

I think Armenia has a good chance of eventually joining the EU by 2020

I would say that Greece's collapse is a good argument against new members with weak economies.

Perhaps, but I doubt anyone will call Greece on it publically.  Realpolitik between EU member states is bad for the "project"; hell, thus far, they've been reluctant to even call out Greece on the obvious stuff.

Plus, the EU seems to give substantial deference to existing and more senior members.  If it's between Macedonia and Greece, Greece wins.

I have to say, Greece's problem with Macedonia is possibly the single most irredeemably stupid instance of geopolitical friction extant, at least that I am aware of. Greece's position on this is so childish, silly, and insane that I really wonder why the international community hasn't just told them to buck up and deal with it.

Yeah, they're doing such a great job with the whole "pay your bills" thing, I'm sure they'll adjust behavior on Macedonia with a limp-wristed push by the EU.  :-)

I'd be embarassed to be Greek right now; their behavior on the international stage is almost uniformly infantile.

Croatia may join the EU in 2013 if it meets conditions (http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-11/news/29647584_1_croatia-eu-member-nations-european-union-membership)

June 11, 2011|By Stephen Castle, International Herald Tribune

LONDON — After six arduous years of talks on its bid for European Union membership, Croatia was told yesterday that it should be able to join in 2013 but that its efforts to combat corruption and reform its judiciary will be monitored in the meantime in case they slip.

Held back by its failure to cooperate fully in the prosecution of war crimes suspects, Croatia was pressed by the EU to make a host of changes, including overhauling its judicial system.

Yesterday it was judged to have finally met entry requirements, furthering the quest for it to become the 28th EU state — providing the bloc’s nations agree to that timetable.

But the continued monitoring until then underlines how attitudes have hardened against expansion since 2007, when the EU admitted Romania and Bulgaria. Both those nations have continued to battle against corruption since then and have had some EU subsidies temporarily frozen.

Icelandic FM: membership depends on EU fishery 'superpowers' (http://euobserver.com/9/32555) - EUobserver

I think you missed the part where the EU is developing military capacity and wants to be a big international player. :P

I'm in favour of NATO membership though.

This is not encouraging for those of us who want to see Serbia join the European Union, to say the least:

Serbia May Put EU Accession on Ice (http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/11/23/serbia-may-put-eu-integration-on-ice/?mod=google_news_blog)

NOVEMBER 23, 2011, 4:50 PM CET
By GORAN MIJUK

The European Union’s carrot-and-stick tactics may be losing their appeal to Serbia, which may put its aspirations of joining the EU on ice or even drop them altogether as the country is unwilling to part with Kosovo, its former southern province that unilaterally declared independence in 2008.

The EU, which is expected to decide on Dec. 9 whether to proceed with accession talks with Serbia, said in October that before the integration process can be accelerated, strained relations with Kosovo need to be improved.

Conflict between the two neighbors gained momentum this summer when Kosovo police forces took over several border posts to enforce an import ban. Kosovo’s Serbs, who dominate the region, reacted by putting up road blocks, which sparked clashes with the police and later with North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led troops.

Tension in the region remains high and several barricades and roadblocks still stand even as officials from Serbia and Kosovo have resumed talks in Brussels, after suspending them during the summer violence. Top policy makers still hope the talks can be brought to a successful end and pave the way for Serbia’s EU integration.

Croatia and Iceland.

I guess this probably shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone -but it's still disappointing:

No candidate status as Merkel says Belgrade “not ready” (http://www.europolitics.info/no-candidate-status-as-merkel-says-belgrade-not-ready-art320136.html)

By Lénaïc Vaudin d’Imécourt | Friday 02 December 2011

The member states will not agree to granting Serbia EU candidate status at the next General Affairs Council, scheduled on 5 December. Concerns have been raised over the country’s readiness to be given that status, as negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo have not yet produced concrete measures to help end their conflict.

Against the backdrop of recent violence and growing tensions in the North of Kosovo, Germany made its position clear on Belgrade’s candidacy: it will not give its consent. Chancellor Angela Merkel told the German Bundestag, on 1 December, that “Serbia’s road into the EU can only lead through the normalisation of its relations with Kosovo”. “I very much regret that Serbia has not met these expectations sufficiently so far and that therefore the preconditions for giving it candidate status are not in place up until now,” she added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which makes it all the more frustrating, as Serbia has made progress vis-a-vis Kosovo:

Serbia and Kosovo reach border deal (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/12/201112303521299708.html)

Last Modified: 03 Dec 2011 01:19

Serbia and Kosovo have struck a key deal on the controversial issue of border management, European Union mediators said after the third consecutive day of negotiations in Brussels.

In a statement late on Friday, the EU said Serbia and Kosovo agreed to joint management of their border points, but indicated that the deal "will be gradually implemented as soon as practically possible".

The bloc also added that the EU's law and justice mission in Kosovo, EULEX, "will be present in line with its mandate".

The EU announcement of a deal followed three days of long talks into the late hours as Serbia came under strong pressure from EU nations and NATO to take a proactive role in stemming violence on the border.

Belgrade and Pristina also agreed to fully implement a previous deal on free movement.

"The expectation is that there will be full implementation of the freedom of movement agreement as of 26 December 2011, resulting in free travel for everyone," the EU said.

Today the question would be more like 'European Union Deconstruction by 2020'.

Fortunately, Serbia will not give up on its bid to join the EU (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/12/2011121016587325415.html).  

And in other news, Croatia has just signed its accession treaty (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/croatia-signs-eu-accession-treaty-to-become-28th-member-in-2013.html), making it the 28th member of the EU starting in 2013.

Honestly, I think there will be too much economic collapse in Europe for the EU to take in more countries. If the EU isn't completely on fire by 2015, I'll be surprised.

I got a puzzling question that some of ya guys might be able to answer. Can the EU kick out members? If so, then why haven't they kicked out members like Greece?

Welcome to the forum!

According to this link (http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/20/) from the Danish government page on the EU, the answer to your question is 'no'.  An EU member country cannot be expelled though it can leave/secede on a voluntary basis.  

Croatia is in:

Croatians vote in favor of E.U. membership (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/croatians-vote-in-favor-of-eu-membership/2012/01/22/gIQA2it5IQ_story.html)

By Michael Birnbaum, Sunday, January 22, 3:30 PM

BERLIN — Croatians voted Sunday to join the European Union, after a heated campaign that reflected how the economic turmoil of the past several years has damaged the prestige of membership.

Not long ago, becoming a member of the E.U. club was seen as a quick ticket to economic success, as borrowing costs dropped and investors swarmed some of the former Eastern Bloc countries that joined eight years ago. Now, the union is notable mainly for the financial upheaval that has threatened to spread across the Atlantic and affect growth in the United States as well as in Europe.
 
Still, citizens in some small countries appear to believe the European Union is still worth joining. With more than 99 percent of the ballots counted, Croatian officials said 66 percent of voters approved the referendum. Turnout was about 44 percent, which is considered low, they said. Assuming E.U. member countries approve Croatia’s entrance, the country by mid-2013 would be the union’s 28th member.

Perhaps, but if the Eurocrats were really determined, they could make EU membership for a particular country so intolerable that its politicians will be forced to pander to nationalism in the electorate - and engineer an "expulsion".

Serbia's prospects of becoming an EU candidate is suddenly much brighter:

Kosovo and Serbia Reach Key Deal (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/europe/25iht-kosovo25.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=world&adxnnlx=1330138900-I+7fUfrTIInh0hI2vSmfnA)

By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER
Published: February 24, 2012

Serbia and Kosovo, its former province, reached an agreement Friday that helps pave the way for Serbia’s gaining official “candidate” status to join the European Union.

The agreement outlines the conditions under which Kosovo can be represented at international meetings and outlines technical parameters for border controls.

European Commission leaders will meet in the coming week to decide on whether Serbia has met all the criteria to begin accession talks; a key sticking point had been the tense relations with Kosovo, which declared independence in 2008. A previous E.U. meeting, in December, declined to offer Serbia an invitation, as German peacekeeping troops had come under attack by Serbs in North Kosovo.

Serbia has until now thwarted any participation by representatives of the Kosovo government in international meetings by walking out or refusing to participate. Under the new agreement, Serbia will accept international forums in which Kosovo is represented by Kosovars for the first time.

The diplomatically complex agreement states that the word “Republic” will not appear next to the name Kosovo in international forums. Instead, a footnote will refer to Security Council Resolution 1244 — which did not mention the independence of Kosovo — and a ruling by the International Court of Justice saying that Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008 was legal.

I doubt any government will suddenly acknowledge the legitimacy of a foreign puppet regime on a historically significant part of their territory, though.

It's official -Serbia is now a candidate to join the European Union. (http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/03/01/eu-grants-serbia-membership-candidate-status/)

How soon does everyone expect Serbia to join the European Union?  In Croatia's case, between the time they became an official candidate for membership (mid-2004), and when they are due to officially join (June 2013), it took nearly a decade.  So, maybe early in the next decade for Serbia?  

A few updates:

-Croatia has officially become the 28th member of the European Union (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23118035).

-Also, membership talks between Serbia and the EU are set for next January (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23099379).

-And we can forget about Iceland joining the EU (http://www.icenews.is/2013/06/24/iceland-opts-out-of-joining-eu/) for the time being. 

I've thought talk of the EU breaking up to be too unrealistic, but no one can deny the EU is in trouble. Why do countries keep joining it?

If the results don't fit with your data, maybe you should look into your data.

...or said in another way, American media is lazy and when they look into information about EU, they go the easiest source; British media and analysts, and let be honest, that like getting all your information about USA from TexasX10.

Look at the countries that wish to join (Croatia, Serbia, Albania) and the countries that have in recent years backed away from membership talks (Switzerland, Norway) and you've got your answer. The EU still offers a lot of incentives for the smaller and poorer countries of EEurope thanks to the cohesion funds + it's still seen as a sign of progress to be inside of the EU in these places.

ftfy

Iceland has a rock solid europhobic block of fishermen, farmers, hardcore leftists and conservative nationalists making up 1/3 of the population - and those people will vote in a referendum. You need to convince almost everybody else - incl. a lot of eurosceptics - to vote yes, that was never a realistic scenario, all though the crisis could have made it close (maybe 55-45 in 2009)

Politicus have already covered Iceland.

So let us look at the two others.
Norway have attempted to join 3 times, everytime there was a no in the referendrum, big surprise that they don't try to join again, while having a booming economy build on oil.
Switzerland will never join, it would be a pure nightmare for Switzerland to win all the refrendrum in the cantons needed to join, and economical it would demand that Switzerland changed a lot of the parasitic behaviour which make them rich.

2020 might be too soon, but I bet by 2025 all of the Balkans joins except maybe Bosnia and Kosovo.

In 2025 Serbia and Montenegro will have joined the union, BH, FYROM, Kosovo, Albania and Turkey will be in negotiation. It takes around 7-10 year from when negotiation begin to when a country become member, and I can't see any of those countries being allowed to begin negotiation before 2018-20 at earliest.

San Marino will hold a referendum on 20 October to decide whether or not to submit an application for EU membership.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxyZWZlcmVuZHVtZXVyc218Z3g6NTkxZWRmOTk2Y2E3NmMw

LOL, San Marino would have 6 times more members of the EU parliament than prisoners. Or maybe I should say prisoner.

Turkey will still be in negotiations to join the EU in 2030, though by then both sides will have long since lost interest.

I can't see San Marino getting full EU membership.  And 6 MEPs if they were!?!  That would make the EU parliament more imbalanced in per capita voting rights between its largest and smallest members than the US Senate.

It would be almost the same as the US Senate in 1900.

Nevada was admitted way too soon.  They were too confident that it would grow and the nascent Republican Party wanted another three electoral votes they could count on in 1864.

It's only a matter of time now:

Serbia To Start EU Accession Talks In January (http://www.rferl.org/content/serbia-eu-accession-talks/25204157.html)

By RFE/RL
December 17, 2013

BRUSSELS -- Serbia has been given the green light to open EU accession negotiations in January.

EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fuele wrote on Twitter that EU ministers had "acknowledged reform and normalization efforts," with Kosovo.

Fuele said the talks will start on January 21.

"On Serbia and Kosovo, I applaud both prime ministers on the remarkable efforts they have made towards normalization this year with expert facilitation and political facilitation of [EU foreign-policy chief] Cathy Ashton. I am pleased that the council has acknowledged these efforts," Fuele announced after a meeting of EU ministers for foreign and European affairs in Brussels on December 17.

"The adopting of the negotiation framework is an important step forward for Serbia," he added.

Speaking on national TV, Serbia's Prime Minister Ivica Dacic called it a "historic moment for Serbia."

Serb Progressives Win Majority in Parliament on EU Pledge (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-16/serb-progressives-win-majority-in-parliament-on-eu-pledge.html)

By Gordana Filipovic and Misha Savic 
Mar 16, 2014 6:22 PM ET

The Serbian Progressive Party led by Aleksandar Vucic won an outright parliamentary majority in a general election on a pledge to fight graft, fix the economy and join the European Union by 2020.

Vucic’s party, which forced the ballot two years earlier than scheduled, won 48.8 percent, more than polls predicted, for 157 of the chamber’s 250 seats, Serbia’s independent election monitor said today. Prime Minister Ivica Dacic’s Socialist Party received 14 percent, for 45 seats, said Marko Blagojevic, director of monitor the Centre for Free Elections and Democracy, citing preliminary results.

Vucic, who was once an ally of late Balkan strongman Slobodan Milosevic, pledged to embrace painful austerity measures endorsed by the International Monetary Fund and make Serbia the third former Yugoslav republic to join the EU two decades after the bloody Balkan civil wars. He said he will “extend a hand” to other parties before forming a new government by May 1.

“I’m sure that Serbia will continue its European path,” Vucic told a media briefing after his party declared victory. “We are ready for that kind of dialogue with all the relevant political parties.”

Kosovo agreement clears Serbia's EU path (https://euobserver.com/enlargement/130008)

By ERIC MAURICE
BRUSSELS, 27. AUG, 09:21

I don't know if the EU still exists in 2030 (I hope it doesn't). Of the abovementioned countries, I only see Serbia become a member soon, apart from mini states and the rich non-EU countries, who will surely be accepted if they apply. The acceptable "max" has been reached for many countries.

Wait, is Serbia recognising Kosovo?

Not yet, but this agreement is certainly improving the relations between those two countries.

This thread makes for interesting reading given its age!

Montenegro is more likely than Serbia, but perhaps they are a "mini state" to you.

Didn't know that they were (more) likely to join, interesting. No, they're not a mini state to mi: they're even larger than Luxembourg. By mini states I meant San Marino and the like.

Serbia advances, and is likely to open talks with the EU over its membership application either next month, or early next year.

Macedonia doesn't look to be doing so well, however:

Serbia advances on EU path, Macedonia stalls (https://euobserver.com/enlargement/131049)

The question for Iceland is whether they want to be in the EU.  If they ever decide they do, accession will be quick, but I'm doubtful they will decide that by 2030.  Montenegro is the most likely new member, but the necessary reforms could be done by 2020 or still not implemented by 2030.

EU revives Turkey membership bid, launches Serbia talks (https://euobserver.com/enlargement/131522)

By ESZTER ZALAN
BRUSSELS, 15. DEC, 09:29

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bosnia-eu-mogherini-idUSKCN0VO0QA

Serbia Aims to Open Key EU Chapters in June: (http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/serbia-eu-chapter-24-opening-possible-in-june-02-03-2016)
Negotiations on key chapters on Serbia’s European path could be opened as early as June, an expert said, after Enlargement Commissioner Hahn praised the progress made so far.