Will Russia ever join the EU ?

[Polkergeist]

When people talk about EU expansion some mention Russia as a candidate. To me this is on the border of what is possible even in the mid to long term (2030).

What do you guys think ?

[minionofmidas]

More likely than Russia joining the United States of America, I'll grant you that.

[Jens]

Quite unlikely, but perhaps in a long term perspective. Still loads of issues that separate EU and Russia

[ragnar]

I doubt russia will ever join EU. The reasons is;
1: russia have  a so big population, that they would  become dominating power in the EU. France, Germany and UK would be agaist
2: Most of easten Europe, have a very bad history with Russia, and it´s not just the history with USSR, and unlike Germany it´s unlikely that russia will ever apologize.
3: Russia is big, and can in the long survive without the EU
4: Russia is decades away to have a cultural or democratic society, who can interact with the rest of EU, but this is the weakest of the reasons.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Boy, perhaps in 50 years from now or so.

[Erc]

Canada has a better shot of joining than Russia.

Bangladesh has a better shot of joining than Russia...

[Beet]

We don't want to lose the distinction between a European[/b] Union and the beginning of World Federalism.

[JohnFKennedy]

We don't want to lose the distinction between a European[/b] Union and the beginning of World Federalism.

There is no limit placed on the EU, Turkey will probably be admitted despite 97% of it being East of the Helles Point. In fact, Morocco is closer to the heart of the European union than some of the new members so they have a case to attempt to accede to the European Union.

To be honest, they actually need to define what is Europe, that is something the Constitution should have addressed.

[opebo]

Probably not, but I'm hoping Russia, or the EU, or a combination of both (or China) will someday form an opposing pole to reign in the rogue state.

[Hitchabrut]

EU will probably fall apart (except for the Low Countries and Germany) within the next 20 years.

[opebo]

EU will probably fall apart (except for the Low Countries and Germany) within the next 20 years.

Well, there goes one possible check on the rogue state.

Btw, why do you make the above prediction?

[patrick1]

Russians remain proud of their imperial past and are fiercely nationalistic.  I do not see the bear handing over any foreign policy sovereignty to bureaucrats in Belgium.

[Colin]

Probably not, but I'm hoping Russia, or the EU, or a combination of both (or China) will someday form an opposing pole to reign in the rogue state.

Ever read 1984 opebo?

[opebo]

Probably not, but I'm hoping Russia, or the EU, or a combination of both (or China) will someday form an opposing pole to reign in the rogue state.

Ever read 1984 opebo?

Of course.  Many parrallels to the present, except we have only the one rogue super-state, fighting mostly fictional 'enemies', rather than the tripartite system. 

[DanielX]

Probably not, but I'm hoping Russia, or the EU, or a combination of both (or China) will someday form an opposing pole to reign in the rogue state.

Ever read 1984 opebo?

Of course.  Many parrallels to the present, except we have only the one rogue super-state, fighting mostly fictional 'enemies', rather than the tripartite system. 

You honestly believe that?

[opebo]

Probably not, but I'm hoping Russia, or the EU, or a combination of both (or China) will someday form an opposing pole to reign in the rogue state.

Ever read 1984 opebo?

Of course.  Many parrallels to the present, except we have only the one rogue super-state, fighting mostly fictional 'enemies', rather than the tripartite system. 

You honestly believe that?

Of course.

[DanielX]

Probably not, but I'm hoping Russia, or the EU, or a combination of both (or China) will someday form an opposing pole to reign in the rogue state.

Ever read 1984 opebo?

Of course.  Many parrallels to the present, except we have only the one rogue super-state, fighting mostly fictional 'enemies', rather than the tripartite system. 

You honestly believe that?

Of course.

It's the equivalent of comparing a rubber ducky to Hitler, you know. with the US as the evil, evil rubber ducky. 

First off, all three states in 1984 were socialist (or rather communist). Everyone was guaranteed a job (assigned one, in fact: the only way to absolutely guarantee a job is to have one assigned), there's essentially very little money (food, etc. is provided), there's no private property, government has crazy regulations.

Also, a question: you believe the government has no right to regulating someone's sex life, but every right to regulate their money?

[opebo]

Also, a question: you believe the government has no right to regulating someone's sex life, but every right to regulate their money?

I do think there is far more reason for the latter than the former. 

However I would be sympathetic to the view that neither should be regulated (though complete laissez-faire is probably more possible in the bedroom than in the wider economic sphere).  The thing is, most Right-wingers are very oddly inconsistent in the other direction, trumpeting economic freedom, in spite of its enormous deleterious effects on vast numbers of people, while wishing to regulate sexual behaviours that have no effect upon anyone beyond those privately engaging in them.

[DanielX]

Also, a question: you believe the government has no right to regulating someone's sex life, but every right to regulate their money?

I do think there is far more reason for the latter than the former. 

However I would be sympathetic to the view that neither should be regulated (though complete laissez-faire is probably more possible in the bedroom than in the wider economic sphere).  The thing is, most Right-wingers are very oddly inconsistent in the other direction, trumpeting economic freedom, in spite of its enormous deleterious effects on vast numbers of people, while wishing to regulate sexual behaviours that have no effect upon anyone beyond those privately engaging in them.

I'm not most right-wingers, first off. On domestic policy, i actually support libertarians as much if not more. 

 Second off, you think that there's more reason to regulate making money then abortions?

[opebo]

Second off, you think that there's more reason to regulate making money then abortions?

Obviously!  If someone has an abortion, it has no effect on anyone else.

[Erc]

Second off, you think that there's more reason to regulate making money then abortions?

Obviously!  If someone has an abortion, it has no effect on anyone else.

And me making money has a deleterious effect on other people?

[opebo]

Second off, you think that there's more reason to regulate making money then abortions?

Obviously!  If someone has an abortion, it has no effect on anyone else.

And me making money has a deleterious effect on other people?

Hmm.  I do not know.  However, stopping abortion has no good effect for anyone, while taxing the owners (who make the bulk of the money), is very beneficial to most people.

[Democratic Hawk]

Hopefully, not!

Dave