Should new countries join the EU? If so, which ones and why?

Question

The Maastricht Treaty, which came into force in 1993, says that any European state which respects the principles of liberty, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law may apply to join the Union.

The European Union has gone from six members in the 1950s to 27 in 2007. Today, Croatia, Turkey and Macedonia are candidates. There is talk of some day including the Western Balkans, Ukraine, Georgia. Which of these, if any, should be next to join and why?

For more information read the Answers blog: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=2713

Answer 1

NO MORE NO ESPECIALLY MOSLEMS.

Answer 2

I think countries need time to absorb the workers that come from other countries. The original plan was that people could move around for work purposes to send money home,
I don't think it was intended for so many to actually settle in another country. I think there should be a limited time in each EU country of say 3 years (unless they were in a key job) and then move on either home or to another EU country not become a permanents resident unless married. (which can result in a lot of marriage of convenience)
Polish workers have arrived and work very hard in the UK but it has created a shortage of workers in Poland where their skilled workers can earn more here as a labourer than as a professional at home. It will take at least 10 years for the economy to level out so Poland is now advertising for workers in India and China for builders.
I would not like to see Turkey join at the moment until they sort out their own internal problems between Muslims and Kurds, and they are not in Europe.

I believe London now has less than 20% British people living there, is there any other Nation that can boast about their capital not having an indigenous population, We have such a large selection of different foods and cultures to learn about.

Answer 3

The European Union is already an anachronism, it's raison d etre was liberty, democracy and the rule of Law.

Now its entire purpose is to compete with other trading blocks.

The people, should be at the heart of all Government, but inevitable political machinations, have led to the EU designing ways to circumvent the will of the people.

When any organisation that purports to represent an electorate, refuses to seek the will of its charges, then that organisation is following its own agenda and by definition has become despotic.
And the real test of a despotic regime is just how difficult would it be to get rid of it.

Referenda, transparency and accountability are the cure for the mistrust that the EU engenders, and in the simplest terms "if there's nothing to hide"?

Answer 4

If candidate countries meet all the criteria,i.e. Human rights, democracy, viable economics and all the other EU standards, then why not.
At worst it'd be cheaper than doing an Iraq and at least the majority would have an economic stranglehold over the aberrant members.
If Turkey had been fit to join the EU 10 years ago, then maybe the war in Iraq may never have happened.
In the "Cold war" era everyone was spouting about the domino effect. So, if we let the Turks in and they behave themselves, then maybe the neighbouring lands will catch on too.
Religion, Race etc. are so much crapola. (I have travelled for 30 years and I can tell you, The whole world's full of foreigners!!!!!)
Just because it began in Europe doesn't mean to say it ends at the Bosporus.
Wouldn't it be great if if all of Europe, Asia and Africa functioned with all the same values?
It'd really put the s**t up America!

Answer 5

That's bullshit!

Dissenters and whistle blowers within Brussels are frogmarched from their desks by men in white coats and taken before a panel of bent psychiatrists. They are told to either accept that they are mentally ill, for criticising the EU, or lose their jobs and pensions.
So much for respecting the principles of liberty, democracy within the EU community.

Legally, Great Britain is not, and never has been, a member of the EU. The referendum on joining the Common Market was won by deception, a pledge that membership would not affect our national sovereignty. Under British Law consent obtained by deception is not true consent and un-enforcable.

I therefore remove Great Britain from all European Commitments with imediate and total effect.

I am setting Britain free.

Answer 6

I have just spent three weeks in London, where I was aghast at the way in which the capital had been taken over by immigrants, many of them from the Eastern European countries which have become EU members. I felt myself a stranger in my own land and found myself playing the game "spot the Brit" as I walked down the street or used public transport. The idea of EU membership, as sold to the British public several decades ago, was that it would help Britain, not that it would assist other nations to help themselves to what they found good about our country without, as far as one can see, offering anything in return. It seemed incongruous, too, that a country which had a notorious human rights record as far as its children were concerned (there was a charity shop for Roumanian orphans a few yards away from our house) should nevertheless have been admitted as a member. The whole thing has swelled to ludicrous proportions and I find myself wishing that we could simply leave and be ourselves again. 27 is far too big. The idea of further expansion is grotesque.

Answer 7

Enlarging the European Union is a double edged sward. In many respects it is a good idea, bringing people together of different backgrounds and ethnic groups. But the current policies of allowing such freedom of movement and settlement, of those States from the east the moment they join is not good, fair or sustainable. The imposing of the way they live and are prepared to work for less, on the host nations population will eventually undermine what the E.U. is trying to do. The nationals of the host states will eventually rise up against the new incomers, and the governments that will not listen to it's citizens and their desires, for a more controlled movement of the Eastern European population.

Answer 8

Definitely yes!

The EU is a formidable counterweight to insular nationalism, with a historical mission to prevent national conflicts. The more countries that joins, the more unthinkable that it could be some kind of super-nationalism or unitary super-state. If some countries are deliberately kept outside by princip, because they have the "wrong culture" or something like that, and are made to feel excluded and inferior, the project will prove counterproductive (and the risk of new conflicts breaking out in Europe will increase again).

Especially important would be letting Turkey become a member, because it would mean building a bridge of friendship and co-operation between the whole of Europe and the Muslim countries of the Middle East (and beyond). Hardly anything could change the strained relations between Christian and Muslim countries so much in positive direction as much as that in a short time.

But of course the new candidates need time to adjust to the European principles of human rights and freedoms before they are accepted as members. Probably most of them will make these adjustments before long if we give them the clear signal that it would lead to membership in our community of co-operation.

Answer 9

Out of Croatia, Turkey and Macedonia are candidates except Turkey all other countries should be allowed to join The European Union. Because others will join the EU with their own identity and religious back grounds but Turkey will always feel their identity crises and shall always be doubted for what ever action they take good or bad even the wife of the President or Prime Minister is not free to perform her religious duty and the media will always after Turkey they will try to dig out what the under ware garments the people of Turkey are using whether it is approved by Islam then Turkey has lost it secular status and should be excluded from EU. Then it is better to exclude it at the very beginning.

Answer 10

I think we should pull out of this sham called the e.u its draining the country of all the sources (nhs/schooling e.t.c) and its just deviding the country.

The new influx of eastern europeans are working for a pittance when you compare to what us brits earn............this in turn leads to many ppl being layed off only to find that there job has been taken by someone from the e.u. I myself cannot afford a drop in wages,i struggle to get by on what i`m earning now!!!! i know you cannot blame them for coming here but its needs to be sorted out before we have riots on our hands.

I think australia has the right idea (you come to our country you take on our cultures and if you don`t like it don`t bother to come) they also have to have some kind of trade.

The difference between us and australia is that the australian goverment are not sighned up to the human rights act,i think get rid of the human rights acts and then maybe the uk would be a better place to live but untll then we dont need anymore countries joining the e.u unless terms are imposed

Answer 11

Great! Expand the EU. The losers are the rich countries like Britian, France, Germany. The winners the poorer countries.
The UK is becoming a work state where its harder for British people to live a decent life. Because of Europe our standard of living has decreased. Can't buy a house because of immigration, can't deport criminals because of EU law. Jobs are going east like you won't believe.
Once the next batch of laws go through we stand to lose our financial wealth. Grabbed by greedy Euro Bureacrats.
Its all been a fatal error for every day Brits. Only winners fat cats, poorer Europeans, EU Bureacrates!
BIG MISTAKE!!