Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: European Union
I agree with Rink. "Poorer" countries also get advantadges, especially in tourism. For instance, Praha has become over the last years one of the favourite destination for french travellers. I don't think the same would have happened if people still had to get visas and many authorizations to enter Czech Republic.
Working in projects financed by the EU, we also have to integrate in our projects teams institutions from many different countries, with a special emphazis on recent members, and many fundings dedicated to applicant countries and those who have special agreements with the EU (eg Switzerland).
As a ccl, the growth in "eastern" countries has increased since they are in the EU, and their growth is usually much higher than western countries such as France and Germany.
Let me remind you that most of the EU growth comes from poorer countries, which are now more involved in international trade, having more clients and more suppliers for every single product.
One question about pure politics: Do you think EU might one day have a president/instutional leader or shall we keep this European Council (all ministers gathering) to take critical decisions?
Working in projects financed by the EU, we also have to integrate in our projects teams institutions from many different countries, with a special emphazis on recent members, and many fundings dedicated to applicant countries and those who have special agreements with the EU (eg Switzerland).
As a ccl, the growth in "eastern" countries has increased since they are in the EU, and their growth is usually much higher than western countries such as France and Germany.
Let me remind you that most of the EU growth comes from poorer countries, which are now more involved in international trade, having more clients and more suppliers for every single product.
One question about pure politics: Do you think EU might one day have a president/instutional leader or shall we keep this European Council (all ministers gathering) to take critical decisions?
Talking about tourism, take Bulgaria for example. They are not in the EU (yet), but they get big advantages because tourists from the Western Europe are travelling to Bulgaria. This also includes Norwegians, Swedes and Danish people.
My point was to emphasize the growth of tourists that would not have come if they were not in the EU.
I am afraid French are not used to travel in foreign countries as much as Norwegians, Swedes and Danish (I would add Finns). I think nordic people are more keen in going abroad than latin people, for whom the freedom to travel has changed a lot of things. This comes from culture and traditions, e.g. latin people usually do not speak as many languages as you do.
I am afraid French are not used to travel in foreign countries as much as Norwegians, Swedes and Danish (I would add Finns). I think nordic people are more keen in going abroad than latin people, for whom the freedom to travel has changed a lot of things. This comes from culture and traditions, e.g. latin people usually do not speak as many languages as you do.
Of course its make grow in tourism but not radically how it looks from your text, we havent restrictions before againist French and had many tourists before our enter. More thanks to captalist transformation than EU membership. But it also made negative influences, I live in Prague so I know it very good...
That's right and I agree.
And I'm not really sure what was on your mind but I think that Europe is still not enough integrated to have one leader like European President. I think that maybe in far far future it may occur but not in closest 40 years. I hope that someone like EP won't be ever chosen because it could lead to EU"s fall apart not to its closer integration.
And I'm not really sure what was on your mind but I think that Europe is still not enough integrated to have one leader like European President. I think that maybe in far far future it may occur but not in closest 40 years. I hope that someone like EP won't be ever chosen because it could lead to EU"s fall apart not to its closer integration.
Hehe I read article that its first year when Czechs reach to table of organized crimes in Germany. They are in table of more involved nations. Proportion is 1,7 percents...its only start of our rise;-)
(edited)
(edited)
I'm sure that Poland is 'the best' in those stats ;(
Germans 41
Turks 8,8
Italians 4,4
Poles 4,3
Czechs 1,7
;-)
Turks 8,8
Italians 4,4
Poles 4,3
Czechs 1,7
;-)
We're not the best??? But the stereotype tells something different ;)
Somewhere are also drug dealers from Netherlands, but in the article were only these.
Its pity that EU dont know our masters of business. Europeans are lucky that main of our crime smart monkeys are already in Bahamas and Seychelles.
Its pity that EU dont know our masters of business. Europeans are lucky that main of our crime smart monkeys are already in Bahamas and Seychelles.
I did not write their were restrictions, it's just that since integration (and a few months/years implementation of EU laws) people can as easily travel to a nice and cheap foreign destination (whereas before, some froms had to be filled in, and french administrations are known for their slowness). Praha might not have been a good example. Anyway I admit this might be marginal. You know, just tried...
I see that the discussion has stopped so we can close...
Just a comment on the first part of this topic (agricultural subsidies - sugar sector). I actually wrote my thesis on that a month ago, and there were a few mistakes made in the posts.
- The subsidies for agriculture are down to about 42% of the EU budget
- The EU budget is only 1% of the European GDP, which means that the EU has a very small budget compared to national countries (who take 35-50% of the GDP)
- The UK has little to complain about aggriculture. The time that France got almost everything has passed. The UK is the 3th largest receiver of agricultural subsidies from the 15 countries. (If you look at all 25, they might be 4th, but the exact numbers are not yet available).
- Because of the rebate, the UK payed a lot less than most other countries (EU15) during the last budget round
- The claim that the European parliament only talks is justified, but that's because of the leaders of some of the bigger EU countries. The parliament has almost no power, and big decissions have to be made by the council of ministers, because some are hessitant to give power to the EU.
- EU-law makes up about 65% of the national laws in every member country. People don't know it, but the majority of the laws are European, and are only implemented by the national parliament. So the EU has a lot more output than any parliament. Not bad for an institution that only has 1/50th of the budget ;-)
- Dropping the European sugar prices will be bad for african and EBA-countries. At the moment there was a system that the EU bought suger from 21 poor countries at EU prices, which was a great help. Starting from 2008, all EBA countries were supposed to get the same privileges.
- The EU sugar subsidies have been altered recently. An agreement was reached in january 2006, which is being implemented since the beginning of this month.
- EU Sugar prices will drop 36%. EU farmers will be compensated by direct payments (for 64% of their income loss)
- The African countries will probably lose some income.
- If we made the sugar market completly free, the African sugar production would totaly collapse, because they are no way near the cheapest producers. That's Brasil by far. Brasil is already responsible for 35% of the world trade in sugar, and would take over a lot more if the markets were open (their production already trippled the last 15 years, and is still growing). There would be no African sugar export to the EU, only Brasilian). The only countries who come near are Thailand, India and Australia.
- The subsidies for agriculture are down to about 42% of the EU budget
- The EU budget is only 1% of the European GDP, which means that the EU has a very small budget compared to national countries (who take 35-50% of the GDP)
- The UK has little to complain about aggriculture. The time that France got almost everything has passed. The UK is the 3th largest receiver of agricultural subsidies from the 15 countries. (If you look at all 25, they might be 4th, but the exact numbers are not yet available).
- Because of the rebate, the UK payed a lot less than most other countries (EU15) during the last budget round
- The claim that the European parliament only talks is justified, but that's because of the leaders of some of the bigger EU countries. The parliament has almost no power, and big decissions have to be made by the council of ministers, because some are hessitant to give power to the EU.
- EU-law makes up about 65% of the national laws in every member country. People don't know it, but the majority of the laws are European, and are only implemented by the national parliament. So the EU has a lot more output than any parliament. Not bad for an institution that only has 1/50th of the budget ;-)
- Dropping the European sugar prices will be bad for african and EBA-countries. At the moment there was a system that the EU bought suger from 21 poor countries at EU prices, which was a great help. Starting from 2008, all EBA countries were supposed to get the same privileges.
- The EU sugar subsidies have been altered recently. An agreement was reached in january 2006, which is being implemented since the beginning of this month.
- EU Sugar prices will drop 36%. EU farmers will be compensated by direct payments (for 64% of their income loss)
- The African countries will probably lose some income.
- If we made the sugar market completly free, the African sugar production would totaly collapse, because they are no way near the cheapest producers. That's Brasil by far. Brasil is already responsible for 35% of the world trade in sugar, and would take over a lot more if the markets were open (their production already trippled the last 15 years, and is still growing). There would be no African sugar export to the EU, only Brasilian). The only countries who come near are Thailand, India and Australia.
OK so now we can close or maybe someone would like to share his/her opinion with us?
Having too many countries with a not improved economy is very bad for workers of important countries because they lose their job because companies transfer their production in other countries.