talkingtocactus
Coroner
^ you did well at multiquotes! I'll reply properly when I'm at my computer tho...
i don't mind the speed so much as the lack of checking that's being done, and also i think it's kind of wrong that the "big" nations (ie the ones that have always been in) have no financial scrutiny or at least less scrutiny than new members. as has been proved by spain, just because you're an established member, it doesn't mean you're doing well with your finances!
actually i didn't have a problem with those - after all they haven't been as bankrupt or corrupt as greece which was a nation that went through a lot less scrutiny to join (which is my point above). bulgaria and romania were probably brought in partly because they needed the financial input as well as the financial output - their tourism industry is now doing well (bulgaria's is nothing short of booming) and it's probably been a good thing for them to join. i think the thing is about the different amounts of time, is that there were different circumstances. i think for the former soviet bloc especially a promotion of western culture and financial ways was probably needed sooner not later. and like i said these countries arean't the ones causing problems now really, it's the old, established ones like spain (definitely established), greece an ireland (both old and established relative to the soviet bloc nations)
i don't think it's just their economy tho, it's also about what they can bring to europe, and how they can benefit from the things that go with membership like free movement and so on. it's about being more open as well as finance. which explains why these countries are growing (economically) so fast. budget tourism has made tallinn (and places like it, riga, for instance) very prosperous and ok, that's just the capital, but that kind of prosperity has a habit of spreading to the rest of the nation. damn, i sound like a capitalist
agreed. i don't think we ever could be like the US, there's too much history at stake. and i think the generations that grow up having only known the eu as it is (approximately), ie with one currency, many member states and a good spirit of cooperation but a few problems too, can learn to manage it better in financial terms. it is a very new entity (when i was a kid it didn't really exist) so of course there are teething problems but i think on the whole it's quite positive.
ducky said:I'm not against EU itself (except huge piles of forms I have to fill every spring) but the speed really pisses me off.
i don't mind the speed so much as the lack of checking that's being done, and also i think it's kind of wrong that the "big" nations (ie the ones that have always been in) have no financial scrutiny or at least less scrutiny than new members. as has been proved by spain, just because you're an established member, it doesn't mean you're doing well with your finances!
Seriously, on what grounds there was to take Bulgaria and Romania tu EU? And with Euro, how way too fast it has spread. We've dealt well because depression at early 90s was horrible here and we learnt our lesson damn well. I just cannot understand when it's taken decades countries to form themselves to be what they are, we try to put everything together in short time.
actually i didn't have a problem with those - after all they haven't been as bankrupt or corrupt as greece which was a nation that went through a lot less scrutiny to join (which is my point above). bulgaria and romania were probably brought in partly because they needed the financial input as well as the financial output - their tourism industry is now doing well (bulgaria's is nothing short of booming) and it's probably been a good thing for them to join. i think the thing is about the different amounts of time, is that there were different circumstances. i think for the former soviet bloc especially a promotion of western culture and financial ways was probably needed sooner not later. and like i said these countries arean't the ones causing problems now really, it's the old, established ones like spain (definitely established), greece an ireland (both old and established relative to the soviet bloc nations)
Like now Estonia joined the EU. The country is basicly bankrupt (well it was 2 yrs ago at least) I cannot understand how economy like that can be accepted. Of course former Soviet Countries have potential to grow and develop in a very different way and e.g in Tallinn I've seen such a huge progress in past 10 years (visited there first in 2000, 2nd time 2006 and then 2008) And at least the capital has changed.
One farmer joked, that in the 1900s they were occupied by Russians, in the 2000s they are occupied by Finns (kind of rude to compare us to Russians, after all it's a damn lots of money and damn lots of construction that we've brought to that country)
i don't think it's just their economy tho, it's also about what they can bring to europe, and how they can benefit from the things that go with membership like free movement and so on. it's about being more open as well as finance. which explains why these countries are growing (economically) so fast. budget tourism has made tallinn (and places like it, riga, for instance) very prosperous and ok, that's just the capital, but that kind of prosperity has a habit of spreading to the rest of the nation. damn, i sound like a capitalist
Erm, anyways. EU is here to stay and I think once new generations come to adulthood, it (hopefully) get easier. Of course we'll never ever ever be United States of Europe. Oh god no.
agreed. i don't think we ever could be like the US, there's too much history at stake. and i think the generations that grow up having only known the eu as it is (approximately), ie with one currency, many member states and a good spirit of cooperation but a few problems too, can learn to manage it better in financial terms. it is a very new entity (when i was a kid it didn't really exist) so of course there are teething problems but i think on the whole it's quite positive.
Last edited: