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

[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. 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

[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!

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.

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.

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!

[HoreTore]

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

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.