Why would I want to join the EU? Sombody explain please

[HoreTore]

Unlike you EU-members, I have to listen to a an EU-debate that has no end. It usually consists of some west side punk screaming "our trade will collapse if we don't!!!" and a farmer yelling back "you're not getting my money you punk!". As I side with the farmer, I'm wondering: could anyone here come up with any good reason for me to support the EU? As far as I can see, the "benefits" are:

- Security experts who think it's a good idea to burn data for millions of people onto DVD's, then lose them.
- Idiotic politicians. I have enough of them here, why would I want more of them, with less chance to get rid of them?
- Market liberalism, EU style. Seems like a combination of all the bad aspects of all the ideologies. I did like the microsoft fine though.
- Polish presidents.
- "Amending treaties".
- More bureaucracy. I'm always amazed to see market liberals support the enormous bureaucracy of the EU. Am I missing something?
- Idiotic bureaucracy. If you have a committee to decide the bend of a banana or the proper glass to serve beer in, you have too much time on your hands.
- Tony Blair as president.


And probably a few more too. So, could anyone explain why I would want to support the EU?

[Fragony]

It's either that or misery poverty desperation and possibly nuclair holocaust, at least that is what they told me.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Why would I want to join the EU? Sombody explain please
Because if you think it would be funny to see your own money burnt up or flushed down the toilet, it seems so much cooler to give it to champagne and Pacific cruises to fat, rich men in the different EU member countries. :wall:

[Adrian II]

Unlike you EU-members, I have to listen to a an EU-debate that has no end. It usually consists of some west side punk screaming "our trade will collapse if we don't!!!" and a farmer yelling back "you're not getting my money you punk!". As I side with the farmer, I'm wondering: could anyone here come up with any good reason for me to support the EU? As far as I can see, the "benefits" are:

- Security experts who think it's a good idea to burn data for millions of people onto DVD's, then lose them.
- Idiotic politicians. I have enough of them here, why would I want more of them, with less chance to get rid of them?
- Market liberalism, EU style. Seems like a combination of all the bad aspects of all the ideologies. I did like the microsoft fine though.
- Polish presidents.
- "Amending treaties".
- More bureaucracy. I'm always amazed to see market liberals support the enormous bureaucracy of the EU. Am I missing something?
- Idiotic bureaucracy. If you have a committee to decide the bend of a banana or the proper glass to serve beer in, you have too much time on your hands.
- Tony Blair as president.


And probably a few more too. So, could anyone explain why I would want to support the EU?I'd rather have a committee deciding about the shape of beer glasses than the Norwegian state monopoly on alcohol itself. Particularly if the first was a lame joke and the second was very real. As for privacy, Norway is in the 'systemic failure to uphold safeguards' category (PI (http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-559597)).

Anyway, why should we want you as members? As it is, Norwegians pay for their right of entry to the common market and they have to comply with all EU standards, but they don't have a say in any of them. Which is fine by me. We have enough yelling farmers already.


When Norwegian voters rejected membership of the EU in 1994, Norway opted instead to join the European Economic Area. The EEA gives it access to the EU's internal market and its "four freedoms": freedom of movement for goods, services, people and capital. But this comes at a price. The Norwegians are obliged to accept every single piece of internal-market legislation, and they have no vote on these laws. Norway had to restructure its entire natural-gas industry to satisfy the EU's competition authorities. All European environmental and social legislation has also had to be adopted, including those irksome EU regulations on working-time and parental leave that drive British right-wingers to distraction. Norway even makes a sizeable contribution to the EU budget--as large as that made by a comparable-sized EU member, such as Denmark.



The Economist, October 7, 2004

[HoreTore]

As for privacy, Norway is in the 'systemic failure to uphold safeguards' category

I know. And I sincerely doubt that bringing in more control freaks is the solution to that problem.

As far as I can see, joining the EU means reinforcing everything I hate in this country, and taking away the things I do like, like the few monopolies and state controlled areas we have left.

As for the state monopoly on alcohol; I actually love it. The stores have an extremely good selection of whisky, and if they don't have it, they'll order it and have it in a few days... If the monopoly is lifted, I fear a future where I'm forced to drink cheap vodka because it's impossible to find anything else without traveling across the country... And they have a good selection of local beer, a thing you can't find in any other store/bar here(the big companies force them out). The price I can live with, I only drink islay scotch so it's going to be expensive anyway :laugh4:

[Zim]

Do you really think ending a state monopoly on alcohol would have that serious of an effect? I live in America, and in a small economically depressed town, and I've never been forced drink Vodka from a plastic jug due to the lack of anything better.

It would be nice if someone could force concert venues to have decent beer, though...

~:cheers:


I know. And I sincerely doubt that bringing in more control freaks is the solution to that problem.

As far as I can see, joining the EU means reinforcing everything I hate in this country, and taking away the things I do like, like the few monopolies and state controlled areas we have left.

As for the state monopoly on alcohol; I actually love it. The stores have an extremely good selection of whisky, and if they don't have it, they'll order it and have it in a few days... If the monopoly is lifted, I fear a future where I'm forced to drink cheap vodka because it's impossible to find anything else without traveling across the country... And they have a good selection of local beer, a thing you can't find in any other store/bar here(the big companies force them out). The price I can live with, I only drink islay scotch so it's going to be expensive anyway :laugh4:

[Kagemusha]

Like Adrian II said. Just keep out and obey, you Norse.We are happy to get your money without you having anything to say on anything.:rulez:

[Pannonian]

Because the addition of Norway will mean Scandinavia has a less suggestive shape on the Euro (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Odd%20Pics%202/Eurodick.html)?

[KrooK]

If you are joining EU, you are loosing something but gaining something too.

You are loosing
1) part of your independence - there are debates about size of this part (its other thing so lets leave it) but something you are loosing.
2) you have to respect European Court of Justice
3) you have to allow other EU citizens on equal terms into works and similar

You are earning
1) You can drive from Lisbon to Helsinki without passport (Schengen)
2) EU gives many cash on agriculture (polish farmers earnt much on joining)
3) If you don't want allow on something ,you can use veto.
4) Polish president is generally OK - we have someone funny all the time :P
5) EU gives cash practically on everything :) More stupid is it - more cash they give :)


However Norway is already into EOG so most of mentioned points from both groups is already into use for you.

[Fragony]

Veto is finito with the constitution, that why the Polish pm made such a ruckus. Now we have a overarching government that is above our own, and what that can lead to when the dutch high-court could actually be evaded by the european court, goes directly against our legal system creepy as hell that they could do that. The setup Norway uses is fine I wish our government respected our vote.

[HoreTore]

If you are joining EU, you are loosing something but gaining something too.

You are loosing
1) part of your independence - there are debates about size of this part (its other thing so lets leave it) but something you are loosing.
2) you have to respect European Court of Justice
3) you have to allow other EU citizens on equal terms into works and similar

1. I'm not a fan of centralization when the regions are doing just fine.
2. We already are, and I have no real problem with that. Except the financial issues(ie. damn market liberals).
3. No, that's not how it is. Equal terms is a false statement. The truth is that we must allow (for example) polish workers to work here on polish terms. The trouble is, polish wages and work conditions are appalling compared to ours, and honestly, working here on a polish wage is like slavery. The way it is now, polish workers are entitled to norwegian wages when they work here, which I like.


You are earning
1) You can drive from Lisbon to Helsinki without passport (Schengen)
2) EU gives many cash on agriculture (polish farmers earnt much on joining)
3) If you don't want allow on something ,you can use veto.
4) Polish president is generally OK - we have someone funny all the time :P
5) EU gives cash practically on everything :) More stupid is it - more cash they give :)

1. Schengen is a seperate issue, you don't have to be part of neither the EU nor anything else for that to apply, all you need is to be a member of the Schengen.
2. They won't give that cash to us.
3. Politicians are way too weak to use the veto on anything that matters.
4. Bah.
5. I'm not really a big fan of wasting money like drunken sailors...

@ Frags: What you just said is what we're saying about the deal we currently have with the EU... We voted twice against membership, then the politicians ignored that and joined the EEA...


Because the addition of Norway will mean Scandinavia has a less suggestive shape on the Euro (http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Odd%20Pics%202/Eurodick.html)?

Take a closer look at Scandinavia, and see what southern norway, southern sweden and denmark look like together... :laugh4:

[gibsonsg91921]

Without the EU, Da Vinci Code would have had the worst ending as Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu are unable to cross the Franco-Swiss border without a passport to get the keystone from the bank in Zurich.

[Brenus]

"Sophie Neveu are unable to cross the Franco-Swiss border without a passport to get the keystone from the bank in Zurich." Sophie Neveu, being French didn't need a passport but a ID card would be enought. The US guy would have more problem. By the way, Swiss isn't in EU, and I am quite sure it is not in Shengen...

[Sigurd]

Without the EU, Da Vinci Code would have had the worst ending as Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu are unable to cross the Franco-Swiss border without a passport to get the keystone from the bank in Zurich.
Wait...
I can't remember that they ever crossed the border to Schweiz in the book.
The bank (Depository bank of Zurich ) was located at 24 rue Haxo in the suburbs of Paris.

[gibsonsg91921]

Ooops, the depository bank of Zurich part threw me off.

[English assassin]

On the original question, I've been to Norway. It doesn't seem to be broken. Therefore I suggest you don't need to fix it.

Euro-nuts always trot out the line about ha ha, you have to obey our laws, but you get no say in them. Yeah, fine, so what. Laugh it up, dirigiste fan boys. This differs from being a member in what way? The UK is a member, we have to obey the laws, and we STILL get no meaningful say in them. (I prefer the French approach, where you ignore all the laws, and write them all too.)

Besides the global economy is tied to the US (for now), and for better or worse US foreign policy largely dictates the world agenda, but no one says we should get a vote on who runs the Fed, or tell the US where to send its carriers.

Stay out. Free trade was a good idea but the political project sucks.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is it poor form to have to suppress giggles when the poor EU people are complaining about another layer of government above them, except they have even less say in it?

CR

[InsaneApache]

That sociopath Tony Blair as President should be more than enough reason not to join.

[JAG]

Well, firstly if you want Norway to play any role internationally - which admittedly you may not, and that is fine - being a member of the EU is the only realistic way that any of us insignificant European nations can affect change on the global scene. For instance there was a good leader in the Observer today - http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,2251584,00.html - which illustrated the point. Alone any one European nation cannot do a damn thing about China's human right abuses, pollution and political situation, but inside the EU and working within the context of the largest single market in the world, European nations have a powerful voice and more importantly, a strong economic voice. China cannot hurt the EU economically if it dislikes what we say without significantly hurting its own growth. Norway at the moment plays no part and you may say that the very fact you are outside of the EU gives you some kind of voice, but that would be both naive and wrong.

EA - it is easy for you to deride and laugh off what some people have said here - but if I was in Norway I would be angry. It is a fact Norway have to play by our rules for their own economic benefit - yet they do not get a chance to effect them. For whatever you say about the way the EU goes about it's business and whatever you may think of 'our' say, we do have a significant seat at the table - a disproportionate one, really - and we effect what happens. What UKIP - and having met and argued with the deputy leader of them, I can assure you they are clueless - and other Eurosceptics don't realise, is that by pulling ourselves out of the EU, we may have a theoretical and aesthetic look of independence and control but realistically we loose whatever control we had over the state of our affairs, in this increasingly globalised world.

Hore - the argument is not now simply between the businessman wanting to join and the worried farmer and worker not wanting increased competition. No, the argument is how best a nation in such an increasingly globalised economy in which more than ever, companies half way around the world directly effect prices at home, how every nation can best ride the wave and do the best for their people. Within the EU it is, quite simply, easier. Forget old arguments - and for the record, the anti EU ones are quite poor anyway - they are increasingly meaningless.

In 20 years time when the Eastern block of new states are economically sound and pumping the EU economy forward, the EU will be in an even stronger position, it is better to get on board now and enjoy the ride, rather than be left behind.

[caravel]

The EU is simply a farcical "jobs for the boys" club, 'nuff said.

:bow:

[English assassin]

EA - it is easy for you to deride and laugh off what some people have said here - but if I was in Norway I would be angry. It is a fact Norway have to play by our rules for their own economic benefit - yet they do not get a chance to effect them. For whatever you say about the way the EU goes about it's business and whatever you may think of 'our' say, we do have a significant seat at the table - a disproportionate one, really - and we effect what happens. What UKIP - and having met and argued with the deputy leader of them, I can assure you they are clueless - and other Eurosceptics don't realise, is that by pulling ourselves out of the EU, we may have a theoretical and aesthetic look of independence and control but realistically we loose whatever control we had over the state of our affairs, in this increasingly globalised world.

UKIP may be morons but it doesn't follow the EU is a good idea.

The glaring lack of democratic accountability is just unacceptable. Or any accountability really: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7092102.stm


The auditors for the EU have refused to sign off the bloc's financial accounts - for the 13th year in a row.
A report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) criticises nearly every major area of the EU's expenditure.

The auditors say there are weaknesses across the board and complain of neglect and presumed attempts at fraud.

...

Errors of legality and regularity still persist in the majority of the EU's 106bn euro annual budget (£75bn), according to the Court of Auditors. Its President, Hubert Weber, calls on the commission to lead by example in making improvements.

But mainly, the EU is a gamble on an economic fortress europe being possible. I doubt that it is possible, and I am pretty sure it is not possible without control of migration, which the EU does not have now and certainly will not have when and if things get bad.

I suspect that the EU economy will go the way of the old eastern european command economies: for a while, maybe a long while, you can defy economic gravity, but the longer you hold out the worse the crash will be when it comes.

The European social model is a losing bet.

Nice to see you here BTW

[JAG]

There is democratic accountability, it may not be the best in the world, but neither is many states around the globe - dare I say including ours. I would say to you that fine, we may agree that democratic accountability is a problem the EU has to get over - and don't think the EU MEP's and people in Brussels as well as the member states leaders, don't know it, hence some measures in the constitution and increasing focus on it - but we are better inside it, fixing it than outside scorning at it on the touchlines. Be involved and help or shut up, in the UK we are doing neither at the moment - being inside and doing nothing productive or not getting out and leaving the rest to sort it.

The EU is not a gamble, I would like to see your reasons for stating that - the EU has been beneficial to our economy and many other states - hell Thatcher entrenched us into the EU, because of the economic arguments.

Plus, it isn't the european social model that is being followed by the EU, unfortunately far from it and with the new states, ever increasingly further from it. The centre right have had the upper hand in the EU parliament for some years now, the socialist block reforms made are not exactly mind blowing either.

Nice to see you too :p

[Geoffrey S]

I'm fine with economic and to a degree political integration. Where it goes wrong is linking membership to some supposed cultural link, based on the arbitrary interpretations of history. What have Scots and Greeks got in common? Even inside countries we can't decide what makes one a Dutchman, for instance - why should we even begin looking for the European?

Economic integration is fine, and nothing worth keeping will lose if free trade is implemented consistently. That's why I'm throughly against such outdated and politically unstable policies such as agricultural subsidies. Any subsidies should be based on infrastructure, making a member state fit into the EU rather than upholding outdated protectionism.

[Quid]

Original title question:

You wouldn't - no explanation needed.

Clarifacation:

Switzerland has agreed to Schengen but is not in the EU - and won't be in the near future. I will not forfeit my vote to some bleeding politicians in Brussels or anywhere else for that matter.

I am quite happy with the current understanding between the EU and Switzerland - no need to extend those agreements any further at present.

Quid

[HoreTore]

Well, firstly if you want Norway to play any role internationally - which admittedly you may not, and that is fine - being a member of the EU is the only realistic way that any of us insignificant European nations can affect change on the global scene.

Actually, I'd say Norway's voice as of now is far greater than our size. We're a very small country, yet we've done things like the oslo accords.

Besides, I don't care at all whether we have a say internationally.

As for our current situation, where we have to obey but not influence, well, that's no reason to join at all, is it? The real solution to that situation, would be to leave the EEA and make a deal like the swiss.

[InsaneApache]

If you want to be a part of an anti-democratic, corrupt cabal run by a clique of failed socialists leaders who will decide what is best for them you, then by all means join up.

If, however, you feel that Norways interests are best served by the Norwegians and their democratically elected and accountable government, then stay out.

Remember, once in this 'jobs for the boys' club you will be ignored, bullied, lied to and ripped off.

As for those who bleat on about how the EU is good for individual members economies (France excepted :wink:) can you furnish some independent figures to prove it?

Don't bother to watch this space. :yes:

[Adrian II]

The European social model is a losing bet.There is no European social model, unless you count the 2000 "Lisbon Agenda', a wet firecracker which no one bothered to light anyway. All we have is a set of more or less similar social policies of the separate member states.

The EU is a zone of highly developed economies with a high degree of cooperation, mutual dependence and exchange, to the point where we have practically banned war from the heart of Europe. Within this zone the living is very pleasant, maybe not compared to Norway, but certainly to most other parts of the world. Hence the mass immigration, which proves that we are not an ethnic fortress either. Spreading this zone is in the interest of peace and prosperity.

An exporting nation like Norway has profited enormously from the EU's existence, from the markets, stability and cooperation it provides. Which is precisely why the benefits of its accession at this late stage would be marginal, both for Norway and for the EU, whereas they would be huge for a country like Turkey.

It would be helpful though if Norway would contribute to the economic and social stabilization of Eastern Europe, which is where all the EU money goes at this moment. And for a reason. The isolationist view that member states should go their separate ways and face mass migration, Chinese competition, energy problems, Russian nationalism, international terrorism and the collapse of rogue states on their own is out-dated. We need an integrated European Army and an integrated European foreign policy.

Anyone who thinks we can rely on the US (or NATO, the OSCE or Sesame Street) for our future cohesion and safety - sleep tight.

[Fragony]

An integrated european army, that has to be the greatest recipe for another european war ever, especially with the inclusion of less then stable regions, if it falls apart it will fall apart hard.

[JAG]

Actually, I'd say Norway's voice as of now is far greater than our size. We're a very small country, yet we've done things like the oslo accords.

Besides, I don't care at all whether we have a say internationally.


I actually covered both those points in my original post....

It's fine if you don't want your nation not to be left behind internationally and economically - because economically you will soon run into problems - but I am sure other people in your nation don't want that to happen. Oslo was also a long time ago, the global climate is very different now.


The isolationist view that member states should go their separate ways and face mass migration, Chinese competition, energy problems, Russian nationalism, international terrorism and the collapse of rogue states on their own is out-dated. We need an integrated European Army and an integrated European foreign policy.

Exactly, could not agree more. As I tried to highlight earlier, it is only through the EU and the collection of states in Europe that we will have any political control or say in world affairs. Furthermore a European army and integrated foreign policy is just a further, neded, extension of it. Some see that now, the rest will come round to understanding its need, it will just take some time - it will happen though.

[Vladimir]

There have been enough wars in Europe. I hope you all will continue to coalesce in the future. Like Democracy, it's not about having the best but avoiding the worst.

[JR-]

Unlike you EU-members, I have to listen to a an EU-debate that has no end. It usually consists of some west side punk screaming "our trade will collapse if we don't!!!" and a farmer yelling back "you're not getting my money you punk!". As I side with the farmer, I'm wondering: could anyone here come up with any good reason for me to support the EU? As far as I can see, the "benefits" are:

- Security experts who think it's a good idea to burn data for millions of people onto DVD's, then lose them.
- Idiotic politicians. I have enough of them here, why would I want more of them, with less chance to get rid of them?
- Market liberalism, EU style. Seems like a combination of all the bad aspects of all the ideologies. I did like the microsoft fine though.
- Polish presidents.
- "Amending treaties".
- More bureaucracy. I'm always amazed to see market liberals support the enormous bureaucracy of the EU. Am I missing something?
- Idiotic bureaucracy. If you have a committee to decide the bend of a banana or the proper glass to serve beer in, you have too much time on your hands.
- Tony Blair as president.


And probably a few more too. So, could anyone explain why I would want to support the EU?
you are correct, there is no good reason for Norway to join the EU, congratulations on living in an ace country.

the federalised EU in the 2090's has a very good chance of being a bigger and nastier version of the balkans in the 1990's.

[HoreTore]

There is no European social model, unless you count the 2000 "Lisbon Agenda', a wet firecracker which no one bothered to light anyway. All we have is a set of more or less similar social policies of the separate member states.

The EU is a zone of highly developed economies with a high degree of cooperation, mutual dependence and exchange, to the point where we have practically banned war from the heart of Europe. Within this zone the living is very pleasant, maybe not compared to Norway, but certainly to most other parts of the world. Hence the mass immigration, which proves that we are not an ethnic fortress either. Spreading this zone is in the interest of peace and prosperity.

An exporting nation like Norway has profited enormously from the EU's existence, from the markets, stability and cooperation it provides. Which is precisely why the benefits of its accession at this late stage would be marginal, both for Norway and for the EU, whereas they would be huge for a country like Turkey.

It would be helpful though if Norway would contribute to the economic and social stabilization of Eastern Europe, which is where all the EU money goes at this moment. And for a reason. The isolationist view that member states should go their separate ways and face mass migration, Chinese competition, energy problems, Russian nationalism, international terrorism and the collapse of rogue states on their own is out-dated. We need an integrated European Army and an integrated European foreign policy.

Anyone who thinks we can rely on the US (or NATO, the OSCE or Sesame Street) for our future cohesion and safety - sleep tight.

You only mention foreign policy and the internal market here, while you forget about the idiotic bureaucracy, silly legal system, lack of democracy and Tony Blair. I really don't see why we should have to suffer the last 4 to benefit from the first 2. As for wars, well, unless the russkies start WW3, I'd say we're pretty safe. I sincerely doubt that neither Sweden, Denmark, Finland or England will come for us... And if the russkies do invade, they're more than welcome to take northern Norway off our hands.

[Kagemusha]

You only mention foreign policy and the internal market here, while you forget about the idiotic bureaucracy, silly legal system, lack of democracy and Tony Blair. I really don't see why we should have to suffer the last 4 to benefit from the first 2. As for wars, well, unless the russkies start WW3, I'd say we're pretty safe. I sincerely doubt that neither Sweden, Denmark, Finland or England will come for us... And if the russkies do invade, they're more than welcome to take northern Norway off our hands.

The only good things i see in EU are free movement of workforce and business, the monetary union and hopefully in the future a mutual defense clause. While EU has very limited means of projecting power over seas, in effect a mutual defense clause would create a threat so large, that it would most probably make any other nation think twice before attacking any of the EU countries. A strict defensive pact would serve the interest of many countries lot better then current NATO, which forces individual countries to send their forces over seas to global conflicts, that doesnt create any kind of threats to the security of the European countries.
About Euro army, im more then sceptic how it would turn out. In ideal world we could make huge savings in our individual defense budgets, by cutting over arching costs, but in real world, with the huge and incompetent EU bureucracy, i think EU army would be just an huge extra cost for the member states.

[Vladimir]

You only mention foreign policy and the internal market here, while you forget about the idiotic bureaucracy, silly legal system, lack of democracy and Tony Blair...

Nothing else matters because after that, I can't take you seriously anymore. Are you trying to say George Bush but can't stand the taste in your mouth? Disregarding an entire political system based on one person (who may or may not head it, I don't know) makes you look childish. I could also be misunderstanding you.

Oh, and anything European will require a large bureaucracy, deal with it.

[Justiciar]

Vladimir's right. For something like Europe to work you NEED bureaucracy. It's fairly inescapable. The only way around that would be to bring down the nation states and set up a single government. Few people want that - though I'm personally on the fence. Sceptics also often rattle on about a lack of democracy. Problem there is they're treating it as a single country, which it isn't.

I'm not sure how I feel about a greater, paneuropean army, frankly. :no: I can see the benefits, but it could only ever be a defence force. Plus the aforementioned bureaucracy would problably be present there, too. And where as that's fine for a transnational organisation, in a military I can only imagine it would be a bleedin' hinderance.

[doc_bean]

could anyone here come up with any good reason for me to support the EU?

Not me !

[KrooK]

HoreTore- if you don't like - don't join. Maybe we don't need Norwegian malcontents :)
I can say from polish perspective - Poland earned much more than it lost.
And without polish workers you would still live into Igloo :)

[HoreTore]

And without polish workers you would still live into Igloo :)

Bah. we only use you because you're available. If you decide to quit, we'll simply turn to another poor eastern bloc/3rd world country ~;) Those aren't in short supply, you know...

[Fragony]

Is it just me or did this euro-discussion spark some norwegian populism

[HoreTore]

Every once in a while it's my turn, Frag :whip:

[Marshal Murat]

Oh Lord, save us from the North Men!

[Ice]

Bah. we only use you because you're available. If you decide to quit, we'll simply turn to another poor eastern bloc/3rd world country ~;) Those aren't in short supply, you know...

ouch

[HoreTore]

Nothing else matters because after that, I can't take you seriously anymore. Are you trying to say George Bush but can't stand the taste in your mouth? Disregarding an entire political system based on one person (who may or may not head it, I don't know) makes you look childish. I could also be misunderstanding you.

No, I mean the political system Blair created. And he may be the first EU president, which quite frankly freezes my spine.

[Zim]

Actually, Poland would have been a member of the Second World while under the Soviet sphere of influence and, insofar as these distinctions really matter any more (and they really don't with the collapse of the Soviet Union) a member of the Democratic First World now.


Even Wikipedia agrees! :clown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World

"Many "Second World" countries are now considered part of the "First World". These countries include Russia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic."


Bah. we only use you because you're available. If you decide to quit, we'll simply turn to another poor eastern bloc/3rd world country ~;) Those aren't in short supply, you know...

[HoreTore]

Actually, Poland would have been a member of the Second World while under the Soviet sphere of influence and, insofar as these distinctions really matter any more (and they really don't with the collapse of the Soviet Union) a member of the Democratic First World now.

As far as wages are concerned, they're most definitely not.

[JAG]

No, I mean the political system Blair created. And he may be the first EU president, which quite frankly freezes my spine.

Er, what 'political system'????

And it is not even certain that 1 - Blair really wants the job, seeing as he is tied to corporate and other interests now and 2 - he would be allowed to have the job. Plus the fact that the whole thing is still up in the air about a President.

Basing a whole argument about why you shouldn't join the EU on this is, as Vlad said, quite stupid.

[Zim]

Wages don't really come into it. First, Second, and Third World are political terms from the Cold War era. They separate the world into Democratic nations, the Communist Bloc, and the non-aligned countries. They've since gained a connotation for referring to economic status, mainly because the First World countries are mostly fairly wealthy and developed and the Third World countries less so, but even then Poland is a middle income country at worst. They are certainly not "Third World". They have a decent per capita GDP and score high on the U.N.'s Human Development Index.


As far as wages are concerned, they're most definitely not.

[Adrian II]

Even under Reagan and Thatcher, two staunch advocates of small government, state bureaucracy in the U.S. and UK increased substantially. Bureaucracy is a common problem of modern states because life is becoming more complex by the day. 'Bureaucracy' has become a platitude, easily invoked against any and all political ideas by people who have essentially given up thinking.

The real issue is this: how to make today's inevitable bureaucracy work for you instead of the other way round?

[Vladimir]

No, I mean the political system Blair created. And he may be the first EU president, which quite frankly freezes my spine.

:laugh4: Well then. On that, I have no clue.

[HoreTore]

Er, what 'political system'????

New Labour. A socialist movement advocating privatization induces vomiting.

@Zim: Wages have everything to do with it when discussing cheap labour...

[Vladimir]

New Labour. A socialist movement advocating privatization induces vomiting.

:inquisitive: Divided by a common language?

[JR-]

Vladimir's right. For something like Europe to work you NEED bureaucracy. It's fairly inescapable.
maybe it can be seen that the cure is worse than the condition...............?

[Vladimir]

You say that now but when you bring your perfectly formed, shaped, and firmed bananas home you'll thank them! :thumbsup:

[HoreTore]

You say that now but when you bring your perfectly formed, shaped, and firmed bananas home you'll thank them! :thumbsup:

Can't have a pint with that though...

[KrooK]

What can I say.
Typical Norwegian populism. "We are so rich and so happy." As for now true but.... What is Norway without OIL - just a cold piece of stone. So when oil finish, what will be Norway :) On the other hand Poland and Ireland will be only EU countries with natural supplies. So situation probably turn.

Anyway I wonder - if you hate EU so much, why Norway want join?


Lets take a look on "poor" Poland and "rich" Norway.
Tell me HORETORE what care are you using into Norway. I have heard that you got 100% tax on cars so typical citizen of Norway uses 10-years-old car.
Here 5 years-old is just a old piece of scrap and we are buying new one :)

How about houses - Poland without his own (or his own flat into city) is being seen as a loser. How about Norway? Ar you owning or renting?.

Today Poland is completely different than Poland 10 years ago. Its one of the fastest developing countries in the world. So please without talking how rich and happy are we - cause in 50 years you won't be.

[HoreTore]

Even under Reagan and Thatcher, two staunch advocates of small government, state bureaucracy in the U.S. and UK increased substantially. Bureaucracy is a common problem of modern states because life is becoming more complex by the day. 'Bureaucracy' has become a platitude, easily invoked against any and all political ideas by people who have essentially given up thinking.

I'm not a fan of a small state, I'm a fan of a big state. However, I'm against the completely ridiculous bureaucracy of the EU.

As far as I can see, market liberals dominate that bureaucracy, as well as the rest of the EU. I hate market liberals. And they're not in charge here. Please tell, why would I want to join the EU, when that means having those I hate dominate my life?

[HoreTore]

What can I say.
Typical Norwegian populism. "We are so rich and so happy."

Never said that.

[KrooK]

thx Kurkikhan

[Adrian II]

I'm not a fan of a small state, I'm a fan of a big state. However, I'm against the completely ridiculous bureaucracy of the EU.

As far as I can see, market liberals dominate that bureaucracy, as well as the rest of the EU. I hate market liberals. And they're not in charge here. Please tell, why would I want to join the EU, when that means having those I hate dominate my life?So the EU bureaucracy is ridiculous because it is dominated by liberals? Is that what you are saying?

Let's go bananas for a moment.

Since 1993 there is a pretty precise European standards regulation for bananas: EU Regulation 2257/94. To outsiders, and on the face of it, this regulation may seem ridiculous. Until you compare it to the wide array of previous standards of the 27 separate member states. A madhouse! Some British papers are past masters at ridiculing the EU regulation, all the while forgetting about their own previous Statutory Banana Instruments, their silly import restrictions (based on shape and length and substance and ripeness and God knows what other criteria) and their preferential treatment of certain Commonwealth banana producers and other Imperial remnants that modern European consumers frankly don't care a rat's behind about.

What this EU regulation does is standardize shapes, degrees of ripeness etcetera in ways that are familiar and perfectly acceptable to the sector. It makes the banana trade much easier and opener and frees up the entire European market to fair competition. Have you ever heard of complaints from EU consumers, importers, retail traders, transporters or others concerned about EU 2257/94? I can't remember any. It's only the nincompoops who read the Daily Mail who are ever up in arms about it.

Of course you, as as private person, couldn't care less in what way the banana you eat for lunch is bent. But when you are a trader and you are buying and selling bananas by the millions every day, packing them in crates and transporting them over thousands of kilometers, the number of bananas per crate does matter, the possible uses of the fruit and its skin are a cost-benefit issue and so is question when your bananas start to rot, believe you me.

[HoreTore]

So the EU bureaucracy is ridiculous because it is dominated by liberals? Is that what you are saying?

Not so much ridiculous as evil, ie. wanting to take away monopolies and all that free trade mumbo jumbo.

[Zim]

I meant that wages have nothing to do with a countries designation as a first, second or third world country, since those are politically based distinctions from an era that ended over a decade ago.

Even taking the popular use of "third world" as another way of saying poor, it doesn't fit. Poland may not have Norway's standard of living, but out of the 180+ countries in the world, it is still one of the richer ones, with a decent HDI rating and higher wages than most of the other countries in the world.


New Labour. A socialist movement advocating privatization induces vomiting.

@Zim: Wages have everything to do with it when discussing cheap labour...

[HoreTore]

I meant that wages have nothing to do with a countries designation as a first, second or third world country, since those are politically based distinctions from an era that ended over a decade ago.

Even taking the popular use of "third world" as another way of saying poor, it doesn't fit. Poland may not have Norway's standard of living, but out of the 180+ countries in the world, it is still one of the richer ones, with a decent HDI rating and higher wages than most of the other countries in the world.

Yes, but they're still a source of cheap labour. If they quit, we can simply find another source, be that eastern bloc, third world or whatever.