Add a Comment

Comment by Schhaider Khalil on November 9, 2010 at 21:26

Being Tunisian, I believe this group might be of a great importance for me.

Cooperation made so far between European countries and neighboring countries highlights the fact that the latter are following a complying policy. That is to say, the EU is putting it clear that in order to enjoy full economic partnership there are several conditions to fulfill. Such a crackdown might be hard as many countries cannot stand it.
For example, Tunisian economy might not be able to reach the requested level. Then, in order to hammer out a deal, I believe that the EU should facilitate the task for neighboring countries. In fact, European nations are also benefiting from their partners. Taking oil production as an example, many oil services companies installed in Tunisia originate from European countries. They have contracts and an all-clear to work on Tunisian soil for their own benefits. Presumably, they are paying the local government for that, nevertheless,at the same time, they are making huge profits.
Adding to that, in the tourism sector, clubs and travel agencies from Europe invaded Tunisia. They rent hotels and fill it with European tourists who enjoy cheap yet good services.
To sum up, the EU is indeed a winner once establishing partnerships with neighboring countries. It is true that there are drawbacks, but with time and severe yet malleable policies, both partners can overcome it.

Comment by SAADIA SEHAR on October 5, 2010 at 19:29

Thank you for permission dear Emma I hope that I can share my feeling and thoughts with you .Take care

Comment by Emma Brewin on October 4, 2010 at 12:58

Please do Saadia, welcome!

Comment by Ari Rusila on October 3, 2010 at 12:21

Only to inform you that related to elections today in BiH I published an article "Bosnia on the road to the EU, sorry to Dissolution" in my main blog.

Comment by SAADIA SEHAR on October 2, 2010 at 19:52

I want to join you,May I .........

Comment by Nikos Vassiliades on October 1, 2010 at 12:29

In this process, we want Greece to be for the first time in modern history a powerfull partner of historical change for the countries of Southeastern Europe and Turkey.We want the Europeanization of our neighbors, we want to change our neighborhood and to change it we are utilising the dynamic of European integration

Comment by Nikos Vassiliades on October 1, 2010 at 12:18

Greece wants to be one of the countries that contribute positively to broad dialogue for a more powerful European Union. We believe in a Europe of people, in a powerful political Europe which meets the visions and everyday needs of its citizens

Comment by Irina Ursu on September 27, 2010 at 10:54

Here is an interesting statement of the French Ambassador in Romania, Henry Paul: ”There is no such thing as ”European Citizen”(...).Each country has to deal with its own citizens”. That would explain, to the most basic level, the lack of coherence of the EU, both internally and externally.
When it comes to the similarity with ex-Soviet-Union, this could be another one-was there a ”Soviet citizen”? Meaning by that a common ground of ”social feelings”- culture, identity, etc.
On the same time, this could help explain the enlargement process, by the ”diversity brand”.
About the advantages- would you see a benefit for EU to have Georgia as a ”privilegged partener”?
P.S. I totally agree with Ari”s view on E.P.Just adding that sometimes it is used as a ”launching point” for some young politicians, rarely promissing ones.

Comment by Ari Rusila on September 26, 2010 at 17:28

Thanks, Irina, for your views. You are right that old EU members disagree e.g. about external relations, enlargement etc. I like that original idea about EU as economical cooperation region during days of EEC. Today tasks of Union are much more as well bureaucracy to copy with them. With todays situation I doubt what is the benefit to EU enlarge more, I doubt what is the benefit for potential candidates to join EU which can not be meet with other arrangements. Also free movement is a political issue, not related to membership.

Forgetting EU’s organogram as illusion and speaking reality one can easily find different decision making practices in EU depending about importance of issue. Most important core group is cooperation between France and Germany sometimes adding UK to group. Commission of course has great de facto power not only on implementation level but also designing proposals handled in EU's inner cores; the same can be said about bureaucrats in national ministries who are designing policies decided EU meetings at summit/ministry levels. There is amazing similarity in decision making between EU and ex-Soviet Union. USSR had also some “democratic” institutions like parliament and government, but the real power was in party machine and its “politburo”.

So in my view the weakest link of EU is the European Parliament. EP is practical place to locate some second class politicians for retirement or out to not make any mess in national policy. They also can show good places to get fresh mussels while voters are visiting in EP as their quests. Designing EU policy happens anyway somewhere else. My view about EP one may find from my post “Let’s elect Donkey Parliament” .

Comment by Irina Ursu on September 26, 2010 at 16:45

Thanks, Ari, for clearing that up. Now: isn't dangerous, for the old EU itself (the old Member States) to use the "third way"? I mean, there are big issues even among the old states, and it seems that they can't reach to a conclusion. For instance, the problem of ethnic minorities, whose existence is admitted only by some of the European countries. By choosing, years ago, the "third way", let's ask ourselves, which states would be components of EU? ( It's an imagination exercise).
Secondly, I think that the Neighbourhood Policy, the Eastern one, for instance, shows that it's all about economics. Even though the European Parliament's 20th of May resolution advises EU institutions to have a "stronger" relation to the South Caucasus, the Comission said otherwise, so they keep on the same policy.What I want to say is that I'm not sure that the 3rd way would mean free movement, which is an important issue. Not even Romania or Bulgaria, who are full members, have'n entered the Schengen Area. Would a citizen from a "privileged partner" country have the possibility to travel across EU without bureucracy-passport control, visa, etc.?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page