Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

The Copenhagen criteria are the most vague and nondescript criteria to be found. Completely and utterly useless. :P

Democracy also means that everyone can make a run for office.

What else should the EU have done? Let Greece go bankrupt? Nice member you are.
They (Ireland, Greece, Portugal) will just have to sweat this out and sit this through. If a country is going down the civilians should prepare to take up responsiblity. Because they voted for the wrong people, they didn't stop them in elections.


First... if "I" am good or bad member :-). It is just about border between help and irresponsibility.

1. I never said, that EU should not help to its members... yes, EU is here for help. But that help should be for some tragedy situation, accidents, development or for some serious economy problems which can not be expected !! (like Ireland, their orientation on bank/finance industry and world financial crises) Greece was taking big loans for decades and the most mistakes of EU is EU itself. EU didnt say "STOP this" and western banks were just giving them next and next loans and everybody had to know that they will be not able to re-pay it. EU is here to rule and control all EU zone and EU did nothing ! EU is weak and that is huge mistake.

2. Greece case is more ugly also because the fact that they were cheating in state bookkeepings. Greece lived decades beyond their means and now it is sad that honesty and more poor countries also (so not just western EU) must help them. Portugal (just my feeling) is like young brother of greece which get up earlier.

so it is about help, responsibility and EU control mechanism and EU strength to solve something.



and now about bankruptcy.

1. I dont think that Greece leaving EURO will be good step, for both sides. But Greece may not make this, bankruptcy can be make also with euro, I think. Like common bankruptcy of company.

2. so, Greece can declare bankruptcy, they will say, we are not able to repay loans and who will be injured the most > just banks which were giving them loans and didnt care what will happen. Greece doesnt guarantee for loans by all property of Greece... I dont know how exactly they can do this, but what I heard was that there is way how to cancel all loans, but also all savings (also retirement savings) of Greece. But there must be better economist expert to say how can Greece make this :-)
Of course, this way is not acceptable for western members, because their banks were giving that loans for Greece.
Every loans is sing maybe by Ministry of Finance of Greece, I dont know, so they will just close this institution down and create new Ministry... like bankruptcy of company and creating new one :-)


I think something like this point 2 would be the best, but I am just thinking loudly, I am not expert to say how do this exactly.

But this solution has more positives:
1. another states will not pay for Greece mistake
2. couple of banks (no matter if technically just "banks" or various owners of securities and so) will go to bankruptcy too, because of bankruptcy of greece
(this is not problem of everybody, just that "stupid" banks)
3. Greece can still use euro and every bank will be aware of giving loans to risk states and this is the best positive aspect :-) !!!



sorry, for long post, just dont read it... :-)

The problem is that the effect of a bankrupt Greece isn't limited to only Greece and the banks that were giving loans to Greece.

The bankruptcy would be a sign to financial markets, rating agencies and investors that the countries in trouble (Portugal, Ireland, maybe Italy, Spain and so on) are not reliable. This leads to severe downgrading by rating agencies which in turn makes loans for those countries much more expensive. This again leads to even more problems for them because it will become harder to pay back those loans.
Thus the EU policy is aimed at showing a strong EU market, strong Euro and reliable EU member countries to avoid increasing interests for the countries and a domino effect that might trouble even more EU countries.

I dont think.. for health countries (financial health) will not be higher interest, but yes, for a lot of countries with also not so huge debt like for ex. more than 100% will be interest higher and this is very good... this would be the best what can happen :-) !!!

but more positives.... stupid populist politics will not be able to buy votes by huge social benefits and massive investment to infrastructure because loans for such a populist governments will have really high interest :-).

Make this in EU and I will be celebrating and all EU will be much better !
(edited)

and yet they are in use ;-)

rumpil: Greece should suffer more, they cheated. The EU must and can not tolerate cheaters. We agree on this.

But as you now: a chain is as strong as its weakest part. The EU can't risk the cascade effect erik spoke off. So i propose we save them and let them clear up their mess + penalty for cheating.

I really cannot understand the protests in Greece, it were those guys who voted. Bear the consequences of your voting I'd say. But that's maybe because i'm not in the middle of it.

I know. They are very much part of my Eastern European studies. They are a (bad) tool, mainly developed to keep all member states happy and are deliberately vague as to make it possible to change requirements over time. It's not the criteria as such, but the meaning given to the Copenhagen criteria in the progress reports and various talks that matter. They aren't used outside the context of possible accension. They cannot pertain to current memebers.

Are they that vague? We learn them in the course 'law of the EU' and they seem clear with margins of appreciation :p

The problem is not just Greece I am angry more on EU that [u]EU did nothing and allow this. I think we all dont believe that western banks didnt think about that Greece could go to bankruptcy in future in couple of years, but they have known that EU will save the Greece. Banks ought to pay for this mistake/financial abusing too! It is more about banks and EU than just about Greece.

If EU would say "we are setting up new very strict and serious rules for all countries and their debts and after this new laws and their acceptation by all EU members we will help Greece, portugal and next...."

I would very like help them, also from my wallet.

Some of you just dont think about what is really going on... why is here problem, who make this problem (greeks are not the only one who is guilty !!! ) and what to do to prevent us so such a situation will never be here again.

Read them for yourself. None of the qualifications are quantified in any way. Nor are the qualifications explained. If they were law, judges could and would make clear what is meant. But the criteria aren't law. From one country to another, the actual meaning of the criteria is completely different.

By the way, to put them in such a course is slightly curious at the very least as they aren't really part of the body of EU law. The relevance of criteria stops as soon as country joined, whereas EU law is relevant for member states. Of course, one might argue that they are relevant for member states as the criteria give a tool to judge the progress of potential new members. However, a country does NOT have to conform to these criteria. They are something of a benchmark.

Edit: Conversely, if a country obviously meets the criteria, that alone does not mean the country gets to join.


Edit 2: Are you sure you're not confusing them with the Maastricht criteria? They are very much part of the body of EU law.
(edited)

Nope they go together with article 49 of the Union treaty.
And yes it seems a bit like a la tete du client-policy.

We learned they had to be fulfilled before you could enter the union.
But i'll redouble check it in the future =p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm

I read today that rebel army in Libya is so amatuer that they are firing some kinds of rockets without exact target/ just blind firing at the Misurata that they dont care about civilians. It can be true, French army is sending there its officiers to coordinate them.

so EU according to Copenhagen criteria should stand on human rights and laws so if UNO said that world should save civilians as first EU should make pressing on NATO to destroyed that bad rebels. you want say something like this :) ?

It says that we have our values and we should defend them. When you say that when european countries go abroad and fight for those values and it's nonsens then that is mad.

One time you say(when signing) that you will do what is needed to defend those values and the other time when one is defending them outside the eu that that is cruel and unnecessary?

I know those values are only binding within the union but even though when one stands up for human rights, democracy and freedom and attacks you should not critisise that after all you said those values were worth defending?

And if that doesn't convince you: it's a state's own call when it decides to attack another state.
When you say we musn't interfere in Libya's bussiness because it's a sovereign nation then why do some interfere in France's or Britain's or Belgium's bussiness?

Maybe, just maybe, this discussion should end between this post and let's say 2 pages =p

As world celebrates Good Friday, 25 die in protests in Syria

At least 20 were killed on Friday in clashes during protests in Syria, Reuters reports citing human rights activists in place. Earlier it became known the police opened fire at protesters using live ammunition and teargas and caused 15 deaths.

Libya is in Africa, Syria is in Asia, so it doesnt matter where country is located, so just question, where is NATO or EU (individual eu states's) forces ;-P

My guess would be: 1) Libya is a neigbour of the EU
2) France always had connections with Maghreb countries
3) Nato is lazy and it's way easier to send airplanes and fighters to linya than to Syria :p

Making this reasonable is easy if "we" have right purpose :-DDDDD