Should Croatia be given a spot in the E.U or not?

[Demontheses]

Recently I've heared that one the former Yugoslav Countries (Slovenia) has recieved a slot in the E.U. What about all the other Eastern European Countries? Like Croatia, who is also a Country of the Former Yugoslavian Republic. It has its flaws, like the fact that it as just been freed of communism, but other than that, it has a stable economy, great tourism, etc...
What do u think?

 

[DiveCon]

Recently I've heared that one the former Yugoslav Countries (Slovenia) has recieved a slot in the E.U. What about all the other Eastern European Countries? Like Croatia, who is also a Country of the Former Yugoslavian Republic. It has its flaws, like the fact that it as just been freed of communism, but other than that, it has a stable economy, great tourism, etc...
What do u think?

i'd say its up to the Croatians if they want to join or not

 

[WillowTree]

Don't ask us,, we are keeping our noses outta everybody else's business. The whole world loves us.

 

[aztech]

There is a process that countries must follow before they are allowed to fully join the EU. Countries had to sign a SSA (Stabilisation and Association Agreement), which Croatia did in 2001, which was not ratified by all member nations until 2005. This meant that they are now a candidate for membership.

It was expected to join the EU as a full member in 2010, but the expansion plans for 2010 have been put into doubt because of Irelands failure to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.

At the start of this month the EU report stated that Croatia should complete accession negotiations by the end of 2009, with membership following by 2011 at the latest.

 

[KGB]

that's between the EU & Croatia to decide.....

 

[Andrew2382]

I think the correct answer is

Who gives a fuck?

 

[aztech]

I think the Croat's do....

 

[Demontheses]

I mean, they want to, the E.U is just giving them a harder time due to Slovenias dislike of Croatians

 

[B L Zeebub]

I mean, they want to, the E.U is just giving them a harder time due to Slovenias dislike of Croatians

Would you explain that please?

 

[editec]

What the EU represents, folks, is the end of the nation states.

It is still in a transitional stage, but the inevitable outcome, (and the goal which isn't really being openly stated) is a one world government controlled by the international corporations.

Bladerunner, here we come!

 

[B L Zeebub]

What the EU represents, folks, is the end of the nation states.

It is still in a transitional stage, but the inevitable outcome, (and the goal which isn't really being openly stated) is a one world government controlled by the international corporations.

Bladerunner, here we come![/QUOTE

Would you like to expand your theory for me, as I live in the UK

 

[Epsilon Delta]

What the EU represents, folks, is the end of the nation states.

It is still in a transitional stage, but the inevitable outcome, (and the goal which isn't really being openly stated) is a one world government controlled by the international corporations.

Bladerunner, here we come!

I dunno, Editec. There are some positive things about about this trend of regional integration of transnational federations like the EU. For one, it certainly stabilizes the region. It is now virtually inconceivable [bar some serious catastrophes] that any of the countries in the EU would go to war with each other. They have basically cast their lot together. It works to Europe's advantage too that its pretty multi-polar; there's a lot of players (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK around in the sidelines, as well as some powerful smaller members) and nobody can really monopolize the field. That helps to keep it federalized and not centrally directed. At the same time, there's also lots of things in which a common policy across governments is much more effective, of which probably the most important example is stuff like environmental policy, but also immigration policy for example. It's also good that it provides people with freedom of movement across the continent, I think that would be a positive thing to have everywhere, eventually (i.e. the end of the nation state). I just feel like this would be a good thing to do in many places; and that it is an especially good model to follow for developing countries to form regional blocs (strength in numbers/political economies of scale) and be better able to secure their fair share in world trade. Besides, it appears (though I'm sure some will disagree) that the EU is [at least to a small degree] less business controlled than, say, the US, just judging by the regulations they have.

But of course, this "autonomous but working together" idea might be too optimistic. I guess I can see it just as likely being a further outgrowth of a super state run by the colluding interests of an international political and corporate elite. Shit just goes either way.

That said, Croatia will probably be in he next round of EU expansion.

After Slovenia, Croatia has recovered best from the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and so hopes to become the second former Yugoslav state to become a member. It has a stable market economy, and has had better statistical indicators than Bulgaria and Romania which joined in 2007.

In late 2005, the EU officials projected that the accession of Croatia would likely happen between 2010 and 2012. In October 2006, Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn stated: "If Croatia will be able to reform its judiciary and economy with rigour and resolution, then it is likely to be ready around the end of this decade."[4]

The finalisation of all chapters of the acquis communautaire is expected in September 2009, while signing the accession treaty would happen in the year after. Before starting negotiations with Croatia, the acquis was divided into 35 chapters, 4 more than the usual 31; the new chapters, previously part of the agricultural policy, are areas expected to be troublesome, as they were with the other applicants. Croatia was expected to be a full EU member by 2010,[5] though this presupposed ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Accession of Croatia to the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Future enlargement of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[B L Zeebub]

Having a Serbian mother in law, a Croatian father in law, and a Croatian wife, a second home in Croatia where I spend a good deal of the time Epidermis I think you are correct re Croatia

 

[editec]

What the EU represents, folks, is the end of the nation states.

It is still in a transitional stage, but the inevitable outcome, (and the goal which isn't really being openly stated) is a one world government controlled by the international corporations.

Bladerunner, here we come![/QUOTE

Would you like to expand your theory for me, as I live in the UK

Economics is (currently )more powerful than every other aspect of a culture.

Economics is now how we organize our societies.

Give people the same international currency, break down the national borders such that investment can travel from one place to the other (seeking whatever local advantage that place offers investment -- while not allowing the workers the same opportunities, which is how it is done, right?) and we basically have a one world government for the monied class.

The people meanwhile are still basically trapped in the archiac nation state which exists to sole dominate and control them, but does not have the same control over the monied class.

Citizens are much like the serfs of Tsarist Russia, forever tied to the land, while the peers of that realm were free to live wherever they want.

The USA's trade laws are basically bankrupting our nation to be benefit of the monied class of the world, but not to the benefit of the workers of the world.

If you're rich enough, or if you're a immortal corporation, you owe alligance to no nation.

Don't like the local laws and taxes? The effect of your existance there has made a mess of things and now some investment in that nation is necessary to mitigate that mess you corporation helped make of things?

You move your CAPITAL to someplace that doesn't have expensive laws and taxes, even if YOU BECAME RICH UNDER THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OF THE ORIGINAL NATION.

So if your money is international, and you are not forced to be part of the social contract of the nation where you originally made your pile, where is you REAL social/national alligiance?

It is to the corporation or (if you're wealthy enough) it's to yourself only.

Citizens do not have the ability to move to seek advantages like money does. They are prisoners of that social contract.

If the UK gives up its currency, and it opens its borders, it won't JUST BE goods coming into the UK, it will be wealth of the UK wealth going out.

Why?

Just as heat naturally travels toward the cold, soo too money naturally seeks to invest in places where money can purchase advantages without social obligations attached to those investments.

Why?

Because in those places that money buys more value, and weak governments will bend to the will of big investors. As we see happening in communist China an Russia, right now.

I believe that what the American master class is doing is basically destroying the United States by systematically sucking the money out of this nation and investing it elsewhere. (Atlas Shrugged, anyone?)

The current myth they're telling themselves is that nation states can do horrible things, but that corporations won't, and that's why what they're doing is, in the long run, moral.

So Agreements about the economy (like NAFTA and GATT) that are necessary for FREE TRADE inevitably ursupt local authority, overide local customs, and don't give a rat's ass about social contracts in those societies, either.

Eventually local authority is so beholden to pandering to internation money, that it become a minion of that capital class.

Government are, for better or worse, understandable social contracts.

Representational governments give citizens some measure of control over their leaders and that social contract.

Corporations do NOT really sign onto these social contracts, if they can pick and leave.

Corporations are basically fascistic systems, not represenational governments.

They have total control over their workers and if the workers don't like it? TOUGH SHIT. (this is why union busting is SO GOD DAMEND IMPORTANT TO THE MONIED CLASSES, BTW)

They owe nothing to the citizens or their workers, either.

They can and do make as much money as they can, and when things get rough in a nation, or the obligations of the social contract make it more expensive to exist there?

They can, and do, just leave, taking with them they wealth they created in the society they are now abandoning.

 

[sparky]

from an old flick that rings truth.....

Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it!! Is that clear?! You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance!

You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels.

It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state -- Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.

And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

Beale: But why me?

Jensen: Because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.


Beale: I have seen the face of God.

Jensen: You just might be right, Mr. Beale.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Economics is (currently )more powerful than every other aspect of a culture.

Economics is now how we organize our societies.

Give people the same international currency, break down the national borders such that investment can travel from one place to the other (seeking whatever local advantage that place offers investment -- while not allowing the workers the same opportunities, which is how it is done, right?) and we basically have a one world government for the monied class.

The people meanwhile are still basically trapped in the archiac nation state which exists to sole dominate and control them, but does not have the same control over the monied class.

Citizens are much like the serfs of Tsarist Russia, forever tied to the land, while the peers of that realm were free to live wherever they want.

The USA's trade laws are basically bankrupting our nation to be benefit of the monied class of the world, but not to the benefit of the workers of the world.

If you're rich enough, or if you're a immortal corporation, you owe alligance to no nation.

Don't like the local laws and taxes? The effect of your existance there has made a mess of things and now some investment in that nation is necessary to mitigate that mess you corporation helped make of things?

You move your CAPITAL to someplace that doesn't have expensive laws and taxes, even if YOU BECAME RICH UNDER THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OF THE ORIGINAL NATION.

So if your money is international, and you are not forced to be part of the social contract of the nation where you originally made your pile, where is you REAL social/national alligiance?

It is to the corporation or (if you're wealthy enough) it's to yourself only.

Citizens do not have the ability to move to seek advantages like money does. They are prisoners of that social contract.

If the UK gives up its currency, and it opens its borders, it won't JUST BE goods coming into the UK, it will be wealth of the UK wealth going out.

Why?

Just as heat naturally travels toward the cold, soo too money naturally seeks to invest in places where money can purchase advantages without social obligations attached to those investments.

Why?

Because in those places that money buys more value, and weak governments will bend to the will of big investors. As we see happening in communist China an Russia, right now.

I believe that what the American master class is doing is basically destroying the United States by systematically sucking the money out of this nation and investing it elsewhere. (Atlas Shrugged, anyone?)

The current myth they're telling themselves is that nation states can do horrible things, but that corporations won't, and that's why what they're doing is, in the long run, moral.

So Agreements about the economy (like NAFTA and GATT) that are necessary for FREE TRADE inevitably ursupt local authority, overide local customs, and don't give a rat's ass about social contracts in those societies, either.

Eventually local authority is so beholden to pandering to internation money, that it become a minion of that capital class.

Government are, for better or worse, understandable social contracts.

Representational governments give citizens some measure of control over their leaders and that social contract.

Corporations do NOT really sign onto these social contracts, if they can pick and leave.

Corporations are basically fascistic systems, not represenational governments.

They have total control over their workers and if the workers don't like it? TOUGH SHIT. (this is why union busting is SO GOD DAMEND IMPORTANT TO THE MONIED CLASSES, BTW)

They owe nothing to the citizens or their workers, either.

They can and do make as much money as they can, and when things get rough in a nation, or the obligations of the social contract make it more expensive to exist there?

They can, and do, just leave, taking with them they wealth they created in the society they are now abandoning.

So we are dooooooooomed

 

[editec]

So we are dooooooooomed

Possibly, yes.

But remember that old adage (which I just made up):

There's many a schism twix nation states and world-wide neo-fuedalism

What it lacks in poetic meter it more than makes up for in accuracy, I hope.