Talk Elections

And here is the map of the European Union as it currently stands:

()

Light Green: Current members
Dark Blue: Candidate countries
Light Blue: Potential candidate countries
Yellow: Application for membership frozen as negotiations were rejected in a referendum
Red: Application for membership rejected
Pink: Accession rejected in two referenda

Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia.

Of the poll options: Iceland; Croatia; and Macedonia.
The rest have various issues (mostly human rights related) which I think should be addressed before allowing entry.

Of those not on the list, Norway, Switzerland, Greenland and most of the micro-nations would also be fine with me.

It would be great to see Turkey join, but the economy needs to improve there. I think the EU may have to wait about a decade to allow any new states because the new ones currently are still behind Western Europe and must catch up before any more countries can be admitted.

I voted Croatia and Iceland, though I probably should've voted Macedonia too.

Turkey should be allowed to join soon, but it probably won't join for at least ten years.

Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Iceland.

I'm against Turkey in Europe. The Turkish government's recent law on headscarves backs me up my argument.

In the next wave, I'd like to see Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Iceland. However, I am of the opinion that membership within the European Union works to solve a lot of the problems often brought up with candidate countries and therefore only oppose countries with very severe unsolved problems (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Bosnia of those listed) from joining.

I think Turkish membership in the EU would be of immediate and immense benefit to both democracy and secularism in Turkey and therefore have no qualms whatsoever with admitting it more or less as is. Same goes for corruption problems in Ukraine.

Because obviously headscarves = terrorism.

The European fascination with the relationship between headscarves and Islamic extremism, along with minarets and this extremism has always amazed me.  I don't understand where these concepts come from.

Croatia, Iceland, Moldova. Montenegro and Bosnia as well, perhaps.

Tadic's victory made Serbia's inclusion slightly more likely, but only slightly and I think there are still too many hard feelings over the Kosovo war for this to happen any time soon.

Kosovo and Ukraine won't join for the foreseeable future, because Russia would go absolutely apes***t if they did.

Turkey won't join in the next immediate phase because key member states like Germany and UK are still at loggerheads over this issue; but I do believe it will happen at some point before 2020.

Wow, just wow.

I never said anything about headscarves=terrorism. My point was in fact about secularism in Turkey.

Wow.

why isn't Norway in the EU?

Economic reasons, mainly. Norway has one of the most generous welfare states on the planet, yet it's also horrendously expensive compared to other EU countries, and they're loath to give up that "special status". There are probably other reasons, but that's it in a nutshell, I think.

However, there are special agreements in place which mean that they effectively have quasi-EU status.

Scotland

Croatia, Turkey, Iceland.

I would consider equal rights for people of all religious preferences to be an important part of secularism, wouldn't you?

It should be obvious.  Headscarves, minarets, and so forth show that there are people present who actually believe in their inherited nonsensical intolerant hate-filled religion, and thus they are a terrible danger to everyone else.  This same method of noticing the religious works in christian countries as well - look for churches and jesus signs in the south and you'll know you're in trouble and should get out asap.

Countries that wish to join the EU must address human rights.
In the last wave of entrants, some have still yet to implement human rights, this is not acceptable, you must meet the criteria before you join, simply saying, we will meet them if you let us join first, is not good enough.

Iceland is the only country that meets my criteria at the moment, but i'd like to see all Europeam countries joining, and having a system similar to the US.

Iceland, Ukraine, Croatia and Macedonia. Croatia needs to fully sort out war crimes stuff first though.

Since when? Secularism is the rejection of religious doctrines, not some form of equalitarianism. Besides, we're talking about a system of enforced secularism - in Turkey, they very much have a "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"-attitude towards Islamists, which dates back to the Ataturk period.

However, I think the main reason some EU governments such as Germany are against Turkey joining is the human rights abuses taking place there, especially against the Kurds, not to mention all that stuff about the Armenian genocide. For as long as Turkey doesn't address these issues, EU membership is unlikely. You could of course look at it from another angle and suggest that membership is the proverbial carrot on the stick that's being held out for Turkey to address its human rights abuses.

There are of course other, pettier reasons, which are mostly related to Germany's sizeable Turkish community, but that's neither here nor there.

O/c using one definition of the term it's actually wrong to describe the system in Turkey as being secular; the state has an active role in religious affairs.

My own experience indicates that corruption actually increases after admission in the EU. And if Turkey is admitted unreformed, the anti-democratic forces will become entrenched and reforms will be far less likely.
Which countries admitted recently have yet to implement human rights?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Bulgaria

Don't get me wrong, I think these countries have came a long way, but membership should be as a reward when you've finished the test. What motivation do the countries have now to address the remaining aims?

Romania and Bulgaria entered too quickly. I support moves for Iceland, Croatia and Turkey to join next wave.

And Scotland, should we become independent.

Amen to that!

All but the former Soviet Union states.

Iceland, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Croatia.

Kick out the Baltic?

You could call them Slavic, but it's dangerous to do so.

Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan.

The Macedonians are Slavs as well.
And Serbia had rather good relations with the West when it was part of Yugoslavia and after the overthrow of Miloshevich, but they prefer to have good relations with countries which actually help them.

good choice.

i think the rest will have to wait. they are not yet ready for the EU.

Let them all in and collapse under it's own weight!

I didn't know Iceland wanted to join the EU. Anyway if it wants to it should immediately. Some major reforms should take place within the EU before any other country can join. In fact these reforms should have been made 10 years ago, before the latest expansion. But the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice were failures. Croatia and Turkey should wait at least 10 years, the other countries cannot join before 2020.

Indeed. Remember Tito broke from Moscow early on during the Cold War, which is why I got annoyed during the Eurovision entry selection when Serbia was described as "eastern bloc".

Remember how World War One started.

Indeed. Remember Tito broke from Moscow early on during the Cold War, which is why I got annoyed during the Eurovision entry selection when Serbia was described as "eastern bloc".

Remember how World War One started.
[/quote]

I don't understand why, because they are Eastern bloc. Russia and Serbia were allies during WW I and they are still. Tito was Croatian and not Serbian.

From the International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/03/13/news/OUKWD-UK-EU-CROATIA.php)

EU says Croatia can conclude entry talks in 2009
By David Brunnstrom
Reuters
Published: March 13, 2008

BRUSSELS:
Croatia should be able to conclude talks in 2009 to become the next country to join the European Union, the European Commission said on Thursday, as it sought to encourage integration of the troubled Balkans region.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said after talks with Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader that the EU executive would give Zagreb an indicative timetable later this year for the steps required to close the accession talks. "I have every confidence that Croatia will be able to meet the conditions...It should be possible to conclude the technical negotiations next year, preferably by the end of the mandate of the Commission (in November 2009)," he told a joint news conference.

Barroso said the target date assumed Croatia would meet all the EU's benchmarks by June this year, which include a reform of the judiciary and a painful restructuring of its state-assisted shipyards. Allowing time for ratification by the 27 member states, that would mean Croatia would join the EU in late 2010 or 2011. ....

I don't understand why, because they are Eastern bloc. Russia and Serbia were allies during WW I and they are still. Tito was Croatian and not Serbian.
[/quote]

Serbia and Croatia were both in Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia left the Warsaw Pact in the 1950s and adopted a more neutral policy in the Cold War. Remember, the Iron Curtain was on its Eastern border.

I´d like to see all of the countries above in the European Union by 2050, including Norway, Switzerland and Belarus. Don´t know if Russia wants to join as well ...

No, I don't think so and the EU will probably never admitt them, unless perhaps Russia collapses to a more manageable size.

Serbia Applying to European Union (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/12/22/world/international-uk-serbia-eu.html?_r=1&hp)
 
By REUTERS
Published: December 22, 2009
Filed at 5:40 a.m. ET

BELGRADE/STOCKHOLOM (Reuters) - Serbia will formally apply for European Union membership on Tuesday and take a major step in its efforts to turn its back on the war, poverty and international isolation of the 1990s.

President Boris Tadic will submit the application to Sweden, which holds the rotating EU presidency, a decade after the end of the Balkan wars that tore apart the former Yugoslavia and kept it away from mainstream Europe.

Although analysts said this was only the start of a long accession process that could take years, Serbian politicians were jubilant and the news dominated all local media.

"This is a turning point and a new phase, which will require deep and painful reforms but will eventually benefit our citizens," Tadic said.

The move came amid concrete signs that the EU was warming up to the biggest ex-Yugoslav republic, which had suffered United Nations sanctions in the 1990s and was bombed by NATO in 1999 to halt Belgrade's crackdown on the breakaway Kosovo province.

Earlier this month, the EU unblocked an interim trade deal with Serbia and lifted the visa requirements for Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro, allowing their citizens to travel freely to the 27-nation bloc.

And Iceland. Preferably Ukraine too.

Indeed

It's just old fashioned xenophobia. Muslims are immigrants with darker skin. They don't like.
Since xenophobia is not very popular in 21. century Western Europe of political correctness, they hide it behind phony arguments. Like womens rights' (as if the conservatives ever cared...), or the need to defend our "western way of life". And so on.

I would support all those countries joining the EU except Turkey. Turkey would need to resolve the Cyprus dispute and end its occupation of Northern Cyprus before it should be allowed to join.

All except for Turkey and Azerbaijan, neither of which is really in Europe.

Are Georgia and Armenia in Europe?

Is Cyprus?

Just Croatia and Iceland could get in in the next years. Another massive expansion will give European Federalism the coup de grace.

culturally, yes. Geographically, no. Azerbaijan is not in Europe either culturally or geographically. The same would be true of Turkey but for Istanbul and Turkish Thrace. Also, Azerbaijan is not a democracy. This has nothing to do with being in Europe, but much to do with being in the EU.

Uh, in what sense?

Christianity?  (not to speak for him)

I assume so - not that that is a definition with a validity in excess of 0. Elseways Eritrea and parts of Kerala are European, while Bosnia is not. Which is obviously utterly absurd. These are remnants of Asian Christianity - as anybody with an inkling of the history of the Middle East would find obvious. (Much less obvious, because the territory in between was eventually Christianized at a surprisingly late date, because we've grown used to thinking of it as an unequivocal part of Europe for 300 years and more, and anyways it's had *some* ties to Europe long before, is that the same could historically be claimed for Russia.)

That's partly it but not entirely. I was speaking more about cultural ties, which came about largely because of Christianity, but encompass much more than it. And actually Armenia was the first country to officially embrace Christianity.

Yes - an argument can be made that to be "fully" European you need to be historically Christian, but turn it around and you're left with nothing but gibberish.

The idea of parts of Kerala being in the E.U is sufficiently amusing for me to support the idea.

...besides, you could look at the initial membership list of the European project and claim that only countries with a large non-'immigrant' Catholic population have any 'cultural' right to E.U membership...

And you'd be right. Out with you!

Fair enough. But we take Scandinavia and the former DDR and... um... some of the Eastern states though I can never remember the exact religious demographics... with us. Hah!

At least we get to keep Poland.