Romania will join the EU in 2007

Originally posted by pepsi78
Well you unlinked all the organisations from the EU.
But why unlink them when they are for it.

- The simple fact is that these are all separate organisations; you are claiming a direct and effective linkage where none exists.

The WB is not involved when the various Ministers and/or Prime Ministers or Presidents from the member nation states of the EU meet to agree policy; nor are they involved when the representatives of those national governments propose policy from the EU Commission and people like the WB or IMF etc etc certainly have absolutely nothing to do with the European Parliament when it sits in session debating and voting in it's work.

Simply because a person or grouping believes that an organisation is on balance a benefit to all involved does not necessarily make them one and the same.

The Eu is promoting the world bank.

- I suppose it depends on how you interpret 'promoting'.
The nation states that comprise the EU support and 'promote' the WB mainly because they are all members of it.

If you look you'll find Romania joined the WB in 1972, it was absolutely nothing to do with the EU and Romania's imminent EU membership.

There are approx 184 member countries of the WB, way more than are members of the EU.

Th EU is promoting the united nations their on a non stop stand at the UN.

- Same with the UN, all member states of the EU are members of the UN, why wouldn't they 'support' another organisation that they are all (without exception) members of?

There are 191 states that are in the UN, Romania joined 1955, once again absolutely nothing to do with her application to join the EU.

The same applies to the IMF (184 member countries). Romania has been a member of the IMF since 1972; 35 years before Romania will probably join the EU.

The EU tolerates the CIA and exept the german counceler who did get pised off no one seems to see anithing.

- Hmmmm.
The 'EU' has just launched an investigation into this 'extraordinary rendition' nonsense, hardly tolerating or turning a blind eye.

The fact is that the member states are all friendly allies with the USA, we have a series of rules and agreements as to what the USA may legally do (whether that be 'normal' things like the USAF over-flying or extraordinary stuff like the CIA 'transiting' people through or over our territories).

There may well be some dirty politics going on in this regard, personally I find this whole torture (they expect normal people to keep on referring to it as 'extraordinary rendition' ) business deeply troubling and completely unacceptable.
If 'we' allowed overflights (or worse that certain people permitted a centre to operate in Poland as has been suggested) then I think those people should be prosecuted and the law applied.

Beyond that what do you suggest we all do, declare war on the USA?

You do know that "the EU" does not have an actual foreign policy or a defence policy, right?
Those matters reside totally with the member states.
So one can hardly complain about what "the EU" is or is not doing in this regard.

You do know that "the EU" does not have an actual foreign policy or a defence policy, right?
Those matters reside totally with the member states.
So one can hardly complain about what "the EU" is or is not doing in this regard.

OK, despite the fact I reside in the US, I keep tabs on this EU situation because I would like to move to Europe. However, if the EU 'over takes' Croatia, I will change my mind about relocating to Europe.
Now correct me if I'm worng, but if you go to the EU site you'll see the declaration "Delegation of the Europion Commission to the USA". Now you make it seem that this EU is harmless as far as host countries policies go, but, if there was anything that seemed fishy [for a lack of better words] about this it would be the EU's ties with the US. Doing business as an American IN America is a devilish task [I own a very small buisness and I come across sketchy situations all the time]. So to have many other nations be subject to not only unify [possibly over many of the host nations' citizens wishes] but also transpire with the US, it just seems downright bad. And to bring foreign policy back up, the EU implements the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), with it's guidlines set by the European Council. So where does this policy fall under [I ask because I don't understand this policy].

[edit on 2-6-2006 by PrimaFaciFacts]

[edit on 2-6-2006 by PrimaFaciFacts]

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
if the EU 'over takes' Croatia, I will change my mind about relocating to Europe.

- The EU doesn't "take over" anything......no-one ever forced anyone to join the EU, just as no-one is forced to remain within the EU either.

If Croatia chooses to join the EU and if the EU accept their application for membership then that will be a voluntary and free choice by the parties involved.
It does not entail anyone "taking over" anyone.

you'll see the declaration "Delegation of the Europion Commission to the USA". Now you make it seem that this EU is harmless as far as host countries policies go, but, if there was anything that seemed fishy [for a lack of better words] about this it would be the EU's ties with the US.

- Why?

.....and what on earth do you mean by the term "host" countries?

The sovereign member states that make up the EU are not "hosts". The are free and democratic nation states acting in cooperative agreement, each having full voting rights on the various EU 'bodies'.

As far as trade is concerned this is one area where the sovereign nation states have delegated negotiating powers so as to be dealt with as a single body. hence it is the EU which engages with bodies like the WTO and not the separate nation states.
This makes sense as 'we' are now operating as a single market.

But it is not something 'imposed' by the EU.

The EU is controlled and run by the Prime Ministers. Ministers and delegated members of the various bodies and 'organs' of the EU who all come from the sovereign member states (and who are almost always nominated by the various governments of the day).

So to have many other nations be subject to not only unify [possibly over many of the host nations' citizens wishes] but also transpire with the US, it just seems downright bad.

- Again, why?

You could make that kind of claim about those who do not elect a particular government within any country.
The duly elected government could also well be accused of acting against "many of the nations citizens wishes" but the duly elected government still has the democratic right to determine policy.

And to bring foreign policy back up, the EU implements the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), with it's guidlines set by the European Council. So where does this policy fall under [I ask because I don't understand this policy].

- It's another element of using 'pooled sovereignty', cooperation and agreement to enable us to achieve more than we could or would alone.
It is wholly subservient to the member states' governments.

The Council of the European Union defines and implements the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), under guidelines set by the European Council (EU Member State Heads of State and Government).

www.eurunion.org...

Common Foreign and Security Policy


The EU’s foreign policy is known as the Common Foreign and Security Policy, or CFSP. CFSP provides for a common, not a single, EU foreign and security policy.

Decisions on CFSP are taken unanimously by all Member States i.e. the UK has a veto. CFSP came into being with the Maastricht Treaty which entered into force on 1 November 1993. In CFSP, Member States act where they all agree the proposed policy and where they believe that collective action will have added value. By combining our foreign policy strength with 24 other countries, one in eight of the UN’s member states, we have a stronger voice on the international stage and – because EU foreign policy is agreed by unanimity - the policies we support have greater weight.

www.eu2005.gov.uk.../Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1107293535833


It's true that these areas (foreign policy and defence for instance) are being looked at.
Had the so-called 'constitution' been enacted they might well have happened under a more central EU umbrella but it wasn't and they didn't.



[edit on 2-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Ok, don't read so deep into what I wrote. I mentioned the EU 'over taking' Croatia and i used quotations over it. My belief is that I do not trust this EU and so I do not believe that its ALL some sort of free-willed joining of these countries. Although it might be up to a country to put in an application, this EU has more power than it appears. I dunno maybe I'm paranoid but this just rings NWO. Hey when I get a little more time SminkeyPinkey I'll give you a more detailed response. I love a good debate.

[ADDED]: OK, so you asked why I made mention of the EU's business with the US as such a bad thing. Well my statement that has a history that traces back to George Washington. His last speech to the people of America made a warning to all Americans 'not to have entangling alliances'. Of course this warning went without heeding. And ever since ANY nation has had alliances with another problems have arised. So for the US to have such a large market with the EU, all I see in the future is higher inflation, a higher deficit [for the US at least], and many other problems that are directly attributed to 'entangling alliances'.

As for me naming EU joined countries as "host countries", this was due to the fact that I see these United countries as hosts to the EU.

Now just one question for you: who established the euro?

[edit on 2-6-2006 by PrimaFaciFacts]

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
Ok, don't read so deep into what I wrote.

- Fair enough PFF, but I can only go by what you write, huh?

My belief is that I do not trust this EU

- Well you're certainly not alone in that attitude to it.

and so I do not believe that its ALL some sort of free-willed joining of these countries.

- But that is exactly how it works.
Countries apply and are considered for membership.

No one makes anyone do anything.

Although it might be up to a country to put in an application, this EU has more power than it appears.

- That's as maybe, but the nub of this is that countries do have to apply for membership themselves, they can't be 'made' to do anything by the EU.

If the EU wishes them to adopt new political, legal and business practises before joining (say, as is the case currently up for debate with Turkey) then the applicant country has every right to say no and stop the application process or simply refuse membership if they so wish (as some people in Turkey now propose).

Hey when I get a little more time SminkeyPinkey I'll give you a more detailed response. I love a good debate.

- You're welcome, anytime & back at you.

His last speech to the people of America made a warning to all Americans 'not to have entangling alliances'. Of course this warning went without heeding. And ever since ANY nation has had alliances with another problems have arised.

- Yeah ok I can see where you are coming from on that one, but you have to remember this isn't happening 'in a bubble'; look at the context.
European countries aren't renowned for getting along for any great length of time.

Maybe 'we' have become blasé about this as each peaceable year goes by and people forget but European peace has long been an elusive fleeting quality.
One might acknowledge NATO in this too but it is IMO undoubtedly the case that the EEC/EU has reduced tensions between the member countries in a way rarely seen here.

So for the US to have such a large market with the EU, all I see in the future is higher inflation, a higher deficit [for the US at least], and many other problems that are directly attributed to 'entangling alliances'.

- Well one way or another the world is shrinking and the economic blocks are being formed across the globe.
I suppose we can either look at each other as friendly competitors (even Boeing and Airbus cooperate together) and sometime partners (look at the excellent frontier-pushing work NASA and ESA have done) sharing the same basic values or we can retreat into isolated inward looking 'fortresses'.
I think we all lose with the latter approach.
One can look at the glass as half empty or half full.
I prefer not to fear a more open future, uncertain though it may be.

One thing seems to me to be certain, barring vast natural disaster 'pushing the reset button' for everyone, there's no going back and an interconnected world is a reality we all will have to live with.

As for me naming EU joined countries as "host countries", this was due to the fact that I see these United countries as hosts to the EU.

- But that is a distortion of what the EU is.
The member countries don't so much as accept this outside entity (the EU) into their own country as send Prime Ministers, Ministers, Members of the European Parliament and nominated personnel to the EU to partake in the formulation of it's running.

Now just one question for you: who established the euro?

- I suppose the short answer is that 'we' did.
Closer union, economic and political has been an open objective of the EEC/EU since it's inception (despite the distortions and nonsense some British 'euro-sceptics would have people believe).

It was worked on for many years, decades even, before it became a reality.
Various preparatory stages were gone through in the decades leading up to it finally becoming a reality.

Our new currency has been years in the making.

The Treaty of Rome (1957) declared a common European market as a European objective with the aim of increasing economic prosperity and contributing to "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

The Single European Act (1986) and the Treaty on European Union (1992) have built on this, introducing Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and laying the foundations for our single currency.

The third stage of EMU began on 1 January 1999, when the exchange rates of the participating currencies were irrevocably set.

www.euro.ecb.int...

The concept of economic and monetary union was first discussed in 1969 at an EC summit in the Hague, the Netherlands.
The background was that trade between EC member states had increased greatly as a result of the customs union, and the aim was to enhance European cooperation.
After the Hague summit, an expert working group was set up, headed by Pierre Werner, prime minister and finance minister of Luxembourg. The group presented the Werner Report in 1970.
The Werner Report contained a detailed description of the establishment of economic and monetary union in three stages up to 1980.

www.nationalbanken.dk...

In order to complete the single market by completely removing non-tariff barriers to the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons, a single currency was an essential requirement. In 1988, the European Council of Hanover set up a committee under the then-President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, to make the proposals for the legal and economic arrangements required for the completion of EMU.

Mr. Delors recommended a three-stage plan to greater coordinate economic and monetary policies with the intention of creating a European single currency under the stewardship of a European Central Bank. After the first stage of the Delors plan began in 1990, the European Council was convened at Maastricht in 1991.

It was there that the Heads of State signed the Maastricht Treaty, which set out the tough economic convergence criteria that had to be met to qualify for the single currency. The third and final stage of EMU started this January 1, 1999. The new single currency wa born.

www.ust.hk...

- You may recall that despite being involved with the negotiations in designing the Euro at that early stage it was at this point that the UK opted out of joining the Euro.



[edit on 2-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

The baltics are also joining in 2007.

Originally posted by thesnafued1
The baltics are also joining in 2007.

The Baltic countries joined on 1st May 2004

May

1
The Accession Treaty enters into force and the European Union's biggest enlargement ever in terms of scope and diversity becomes a reality with 10 new countries - Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia - representing all together more than 100 million citizens, joining the European Union.

Source

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by thesnafued1
The baltics are also joining in 2007.

The Baltic countries joined on 1st May 2004

May

1
The Accession Treaty enters into force and the European Union's biggest enlargement ever in terms of scope and diversity becomes a reality with 10 new countries - Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia - representing all together more than 100 million citizens, joining the European Union.

Source

My apoligies, i was totally wrong. Was thinking about them going to the Euro. Thank you for catching my error.

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
[ADDED]: OK, so you asked why I made mention of the EU's business with the US as such a bad thing. Well my statement that has a history that traces back to George Washington. His last speech to the people of America made a warning to all Americans 'not to have entangling alliances'. Of course this warning went without heeding.

Actually Washington's final advice to his nation was the guiding principal of US foreign policy(in regards to europe at least)for the first 140yrs of independence. That began to change as the world changed. The US became an industrial power and developed commercial relationships that needed to be defended.

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
And ever since ANY nation has had alliances with another problems have arised. So for the US to have such a large market with the EU, all I see in the future is higher inflation, a higher deficit [for the US at least], and many other problems that are directly attributed to 'entangling alliances'.

So no nation that has maintained a strict policy of isolationism has ever had problems? My friend you've been here in America a little to long. Isolationism worked for us while we were small and relatively weak. But the world changed and thankfully we had leaders in power who saw it changing. But actually since the end of the Second World War military alliances(i.e. NATO)and economic organizations(i.e. EEC later the EU)have actually led to a more stable and prosperous world.

Originally posted by danwild6
Actually Washington's final advice to his nation was the guiding principal of US foreign policy(in regards to europe at least)for the first 140yrs of independence. That began to change as the world changed. The US became an industrial power and developed commercial relationships that needed to be defended.

I know that these were guidelines followed in vain. But as soon as the first World War broke out the US was already underway to entangling alliances.

So no nation that has maintained a strict policy of isolationism has ever had problems? My friend you've been here in America a little to long. Isolationism worked for us while we were small and relatively weak. But the world changed and thankfully we had leaders in power who saw it changing. But actually since the end of the Second World War military alliances(i.e. NATO)and economic organizations(i.e. EEC later the EU)have actually led to a more stable and prosperous world.

If I meant isolationism I would have mentioned it. You can have foreign relations without the "entangling" alliances. And besides China had thrived off of isolationsim due to their culture. Isolationism isn't always bad. Now that they too are subject to so many alliances they've had more conflict than they did during their isolationism. And as for these "economic organizations", they merely lead the "richer to be richer, and the poor to be poorer". It's not that I've been in America too long, it's that I've seen enough.

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
I know that these were guidelines followed in vain. But as soon as the first World War broke out the US was already underway to entangling alliances.

True by the turn of the 20th century we were beginning to move away from the policy that Washington had suggested. We began too assert our selves on the international stage. But we didn't enter into our first peace time alliance until 1949.

Originally posted by PrimaFaciFacts
If I meant isolationism I would have mentioned it. You can have foreign relations without the "entangling" alliances. And besides China had thrived off of isolationsim due to their culture. Isolationism isn't always bad. Now that they too are subject to so many alliances they've had more conflict than they did during their isolationism. And as for these "economic organizations", they merely lead the "richer to be richer, and the poor to be poorer". It's not that I've been in America too long, it's that I've seen enough.

True isolationism isn't always bad. It wasn't bad for us in the beginning and it might not be a bad idea for thye US to return to an isolationist policy for a generation or so. But I would differ with you on your statement that China thrived off its policy of isolationism. China was the major power in its region when it tried to shut the foreigners out and all that did was allow the europeans to increase their presence in the far east and continue to subjugate China.