So, Poland's going to join the EU if they can get their act together.

From reading Polish news sites (http://www.gleefulextremist.com/2003_11_01_archive.html#106874775871528250) (not in Polish, of course. I'm an American, so I speak Spanish.) I gather that Poland's entry is causing some heartburn in the larger EU powers, in particular France and Germany. Authorities from those two countries have been quoted as suggesting that Poland needs to decide whether it is part of Europe or a lackey of America (apparently being European means you must hate America unless you're a Brit).

I'm interested in what those with some knowledge of the subject think about the effects of Poland's entry to the EU.

I am for the enlargement of EU on all levels, I think it is the way to go for a future peaceful Europe and world. For Poland it is all good to join the EU, no matter what some may say or think. Financially, growthwise and security wise. I think it is important to erase the old east/west distinction that still exist in Europe and by admitting Poland among many a great step is taken. For Poland it will be a great boon to join the EU market and get rid of high tariffs. It is mostly Poland that wants to join the EU, not the EU who mostly wants Poland to join, especially in the short run. Poland will be a cost for EU for many years to come with huge amounts of money pumped in to build up the country and the Polish agriculture will get much money. Here is really the biggest division, France especially arent too keen on sharing the money that now goes to their ineffective and redudant farmers go to the Polish ineffective and redundant farmers. In general so is EU agricultural policies one of my main peeves with the EU, if the farmers cant support themselves then it is too bad but they cant live on grants. That is just stupid.

As for the US/EU "conflict" I think it is blown a bit out of proportion, the point was that the EU is trying to show a united front, we all know how succesful that is though... However if Poland wishes to join the EU it should try to align itself somewhat with the majority and not as they have in the past tried to squeese the most out of most the EU and the US by sucking up to both. There is no great conflict here, the EU isnt united in most international matters but many of the former eastern European countries tries to play all "sides", milking everything they can from everyone as long as it isnt Russia.

My point is that Poland is immensly better off being "ruled" from Bruessels than it is now, that Poland will gain much more than it might lose. Growth will be much better, I really dont see what you base your thoughts on Shralp. The EU wants the Eastern countries for political reasons, financially it will be a drain for decades to come. There is a quite idealistic dream of a somewhat united Europe without the borders we see now and without the tensions between peoples and countries that we still see in this day.

Two things that I know were perceived as a 'little' galling:

1. Germany promoted Polands entry and pushed the process. Too bad Poland was very quick to go against Germany and supported the US and the war against Iraq.

2. Poland received billions from the EU to develope its infrastructure and do investments. Too bad that Poland was very quick to spent that money and bougth some fighters or other from the US.

Didnt gain them much friends.
Of course they are entitled to their own decisions but it wasnt excatly smart. My two cents.

Poland received billions from the EU to develope its infrastructure and do investments. Too bad that Poland was very quick to spent that money and bougth some fighters or other from the US This post could also be cross-posted to Whatnots "The Quote Game 2" :)

You know, it used to be when you bought a politician, that son-of-a-***** stayed bought!

No no, Snook. This post is stayeth put, for it has nothing to do with buying someone. :nono:

My apologies. I meant my quote could be cross-posted.

Of course it has to do with buying someone. I doubt the EU cares that Poland bought some fighter jets. What they care about is that they didn't buy them from a EU vendor/manufacturer.

That was my point, Snook. ;)
Maybe I wasnt clear enough on this.
Spending EU funds on US industries instead of the european. Makes one doubt the spirit of some people.

>edit< No need to apologize. I misunderstood the crossposting part.

My understanding is that the Germans were quick to push Poland in order to move the "power center" (that's "centre" for you Brits and Canucks) of the EU farther east, not because of anything altruistic.

And the response you first gave ("Hey, we let you into our club so now you should do what we say.") is one of the reasons I would advise Poland to forego the EU. (The other is that, while it's true they will benefit economically at the beginning if the French allow it, they could very well end up having their economic growth stunted in the long run.)

I agree that, if Poland was given money intended for a specific use and spent it on defense as you claimed, Poland erred. That's the first I've heard of it.

But, really, I don't want to make this thread about me and my crazy views or what Poland is doing right now.

I want to hear what people think the repurcussions of Poland's entry to the EU will be.

@ Shralp

And its MY understanding that Germany wants a stable and secure border by having a stable and secure neighbourhood to the east.
I know nothing of this shift of a "power centre". Our government is quite careful about the matters of "power", you see. It will make everyone in Europe feel uneasy.

Furthermore, its not about domination. :rolleyes: There is a purpose to the EU. Unity. That is now even farther away.

Good point. If you think that the EU will encourage stability, it makes sense to want such a large neighbor in the club.

When are you guys going to invite Russia in? :1eye:

I truly hope that Russia will one time join the future, in the near future it wont happen and even in a very long perspective it is highly unlikely. Sadly. I think neither Moscow or Bruessels is very interested in that. I however am of the opinion "the more the merrier", this world needs less borders, not more.

Actually the invitation of the Eastern countries is altruistic, from a certain point of view, namely the financial and economical. The current EU countries have very little to gain by admitting these country which will need to be supported for many years to come. Politically, it is, according to all books and articles I have read, both from scholars and politicians about advocating unity, dismantling of borders between peoples. The EU actually is that simple at the base. Then of course there are a ton of other question playing in on top of that basic foundation but they dont change the fundament.

For Poland I think this is a great oppurtunity to, believe it or not Shralpie, shape their own destiny, to no longer be a country wedged in between rivalling powers and economies. The stability that the EU both demands and hopefully brings to Poland will help it to grow and move into the 21st century. 10 years from now we will hopefully not think of carthieves and prostitutes when someone says Poland but of good beer and whatever Polish cuisine have caught our fancy. No longer will Poland be the site of the chasm between east and west but hopefully the place where the bridge stands.
Wow, I sound poetic today.

The problem with the US is that it expects people to do what it wants and alternatively bribes or threatens other nations to do what it wants. I'm quite certain that is despicable because I've seen it stated many times here.

Poland should just do exactly what France and Germany say because Germany helped in getting money for Poland and if Poland doesn't do what those nations want then Poland should be kicked out of the club. Those ungrateful Poles, don't they know when they should step in line?

I agree that, if Poland was given money intended for a specific use and spent it on defense as you claimed, Poland erred. If that were the case, I would agree too, but if $N arrives from EU and $N is spent on fighters, it doesn't mean the same $N that arrived from EU went to US for the fighters. The fighters were needed for NATO purposes. If we bought mirage fighters, there wouldn't be any fuss on the part of the Union.

Germany promoted Polands entry and pushed the process. Too bad Poland was very quick to go against Germany and supported the US and the war against Iraq. Going with US doesn't mean going against Germany if Germany goes against US. Basically, US government made the wat, German government chose to go against and Polish government chose to go with US. It would be self-centrism to claim it was about Germany.

For Poland it will be a great boon to join the EU market and get rid of high tariffsInstead, we will face contingents. Arbitrary limits from Brussels on how much we can produce (not even sell abroad, but produce), how much we can export and how much we have to import. Tariffs will cease to apply to us, but it will work both ways. Poland will be open to the West, with the difference in average pay being like 2,5-3 (average income of a citizen is 2,5-3 times bigger in EU than in Poland). Guess how we'll do in competition. It's comparable to a huge giveaway of our industry and trade that has already started and lasted for some time. In short, we'll get bought up. Welcome monopolies, welcome price dictate. Pay folks, pay.

While it's right we'll have EU markets open, we'll also be a market for EU products. So, it's not a one-way benefit. In the same time, our East border will be a Maginot line of a EU border. Actually, the latter has already started and impaired our trade with the East severely. Simply put, we're losing that market. And it's the Union who profits from this.

Given the above conditions and together with implementation of EEC law and standards, we're going to be quite a profitable colony or, perhaps, convinient buffor at the outskirts. Or both.

Poland will be a cost for EU for many years to come with huge amounts of money pumped in to build up the country and the Polish agriculture will get much moneyAnd we've pumped huge amounts of money into Brussels. Meeting EU's partly unjust and partly absurd conditions already costs us. Cutting ties with the East already costs us. Maybe an average EU citizen won't profit, but EU companies surely will. In a country where everything is twice cheaper and everyone earns at least thrice less. With a dumb and weak government that will agree on everything to secure posts in Brussels for Some People. Do you know why and how Western hypermarkets prosper here? They're immune to taxation for eons. At the same time, they get preferential conditions over native capital... who pays taxes. Brilliant, isn't it?

Ah, and we will get 25% EU contries' rate for agriculture funds. Proportionally, one quarter of what EU countries get. We'll pay full contribution to Brussels from the beginning, though.

My point in brief is that we should get into EU but not on these conditions. Perhaps do what Denmark did. Refuse the treaty in the referendum and accept it only when the terms improve.

We did have a different path, though. The almost biggest and the most powerful in the region. The neighbours and their neighbours down South being natural allies. Trade with the East developing nicely. Of course, politicians screwed up. Anyway, we're ruled by commies again. It's only called SLD (the Alliance of Democratic Left) now, but the same red pigs as before. We had Moscow, we'll have Brussels. Heard they're commies too, so that should work ;)

How can lower prizes and lower wages in Poland be a bad thing for Poland in relation to the other EU countries? If anything it is going to lead to many companies building their plants in Poland to both enjoy the lower wages but still be withing the free trade zones. It will also give Polish workers an edge on the borderless workmarket with them being able to compete workers all over Europe for the same jobs. This wont last forever, as it shouldnt but I wonder at how you see things chev.
You also seems to overestimate Polands bartering situation, Poland gets much more than any other Eastern country and in my opinion they get a lot more than they should because Poland at first appeared to agree to sign one agreement and then a scant few days before it was to signed started demanding a lot more than before and to not set back the process for many years the EU agreed.
As for whatever money you think you are pumping into Bruessels I wonder what that can be, the so called "unfair" standards you talk about are the same that all EU countries live by, those standards are also for the betterment of Poland and Poles itself, or you perhaps think it is ok with no control animal treatment, no health inspections and so on?
All countries suck up to big corporations to get them to their countries, do you really think it is the corporations that sets those tax reductions? Hell, no, it is your government who does it to lure foreign investors into Poland which will create new jobs and be another boost to the economy. There are many EU countries doing the same.

I think you highly overestimate Poland's bargaining power chev, they got a sweet sweet deal. The reason why they "only" got 25% of the EU average is that Poland has an immense agricultural industry which is unmodern and ineffective. If Poland would have got as large a piece per acre/person as the EU average a large chunk of EU's entire budget would go to subventions for Polish farmers. They already get too much. As I said in a previous post, EU's agricultural policy is insane and letting Poland get the full benefits of it would completely shatter it into tiny little pieces. Hmm that might have been a good thing cause then it could be completely scrapped and the Polish farmers wouldnt get anything, which they shouldnt, neither should Swedish, French, Spanish or German farmers get anything.

I, for one, welcome the enlargement of the EU. The EU is good for proseperity and it ensures peace. War between EU states is not only highly improbable but actually unthinkable. Prior to the formation of the EU, Europe was in an almost permanent state of conflict.

Chev, membership of the EU will certainly benefit Poland, as it already has done for the poorer EU states such as Spain, Protugal, Greece and Ireland. Indeed, Ireland can no longer be numbered among the poorer states. There may be some initial hardship, particularly among the samll farmers, but this will ultimately be no great loss: small farmers generate nothing but poverty. Having lower prices and lower wages is a great benefit. Poland will attract a lot of overseas investment. When employment has increased, wages must inevitably go up as skilled workers become scarcer. Eventually, you'll end up in a situation where Poland is as prosperous, more or less, as the rest of Europe.

In the short term, taking less developed economies, such as Poland, into the EU will cost the richer European countries money, since they will be net recipients of EU funding. Ultimately, however, we will benefit, if only because the more proseperous citizens of the former Eastern bloc will buy more of our goods and services.

Poland took foreign aid from Germany and bought aircraft from the US? Good for them. Tying aid to arms contracts is a scandalous practice and the Americans make the best tanks and aircraft anyway. Projects like the Eurofighter are simply vanity affairs. Why spend billions developing a fighter aircraft when you can already buy superior F-16s?

As for Poland supporting us in the recent Iraq war, all I can say is thank you. I'm glad to see that Poland has treated the rumblings from Berlin, Paris and Brussels with the contempt they deserve. Poland's membership of the EU is not their gift to make. The EU is a partnership of equals and its members are under no obligation to present a unified foreign policy and they are certainly under no obligation to go along with the foreign policy of France and Germany. Indeed, as I recall, the member states of the EU were split fairly evenly on the issue, with France, Germany and Belgium coming out anti-war and the UK, Italy, Netherlands and Denmark pro.

With close to forty million citizens, Poland will be one of the larger member states. The fact that they will be unlikely to toe the Paris-Berlin line may explain the misgivings expressed by France and Germany.

The EU is a partnership of equals and its members are under no obligation to present a unified foreign policy and they are certainly under no obligation to go along with the foreign policy of France and Germany. Just a quickie here.

This may sound pompous but the EU also has fundamental principles, among those are democracy, respect for the law and policy based on peaceful means.

By engaging, presumably against the will of the majority of their citizens, in a military action disregarding international law and treaties, the Polish authorities did more than show the finger to France and Germany, they also shattered some of the most important guidelines of the union they are about to join.

Actually EU is not a military pact. Neither is it a Franco-German alliance. Whoever joins, signs Community treaties, not a declaration of allegiance to Germany and France as a good vassal.

It will also give Polish workers an edge on the borderless workmarket with them being able to compete workers all over Europe for the same jobs.I don't see what edge are Polish workers getting in comparison to EU workers. But I know that it'll take a few years before they'll be allowed to work in other EU countries.

As for whatever money you think you are pumping into Bruessels I wonder what that can be, the so called "unfair" standards you talk about are the same that all EU countries live by,Not only do we get accession conditions to meet as EU sees fit, but we also get quite specific directives. This and that has to be done, period.

As for Fighters Part II, the money spent on fighters did not come from foreign aid. When foreign funds are given, they're given and received for a named purpose, so it's not a cash injection. We receive funding for a specific purpose and the money goes there. That we also spend some of our money on fighters, that's a different story. We didn't choose Mirage, hehe, did we? ;)

[ November 26, 2003, 23:19: Message edited by: chevalier ]

All EU countries gets directives from Bruessels, why do you think there is such a hubbub right now about France and Germany not following some of those directions? Poland is not singled out, if anything they are being let off easy.

About the fighters...

It wasnt the exact same sack of money you received from the EU that was given to US Lockheed - so what?

The EU funded some of your investments which means you did not have to dig it out of your own fiscal budget, giving Poland financial surplus. And the way you used it is telling. :thumb:

The problem with the Germans and Poland considering troops in Iraq has nothing to do with the EU. It was a faux-pas of the Polish minister of defense, as he proposed to get German troops into Iraq. Which angered the Germans.

In concreto, the Polish suggested, that they would take Danish and German troops, which are under Polish NATO command.

Speaking to The Washington Times on Tuesday, Polish Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski had suggested that the joint Polish-German-Danish NATO corps stationed in northwestern Poland since 1999 could be used for a "stabilization force" in Iraq.

'Structure in place'

"A commando structure is already in place" for the peacekeeping operation in Iraq, Szmajdzinkski told the Post. "We would like to have German troops." The Polish defense minister said he was convinced that Washington would be interested in such a proposal, despite strained relations with Berlin.

The joint Polish-German-Danish NATO corps in Szczecin, Poland, has a current force of 130 soldiers with German and Danish soldiers making up the lion’s share of the officers. It is widely believed that the multinational corps is the only one in the country that is capable of tackling a daunting military operation such as commanding an occupied zone in Iraq.

Berlin reacted frostily to a surprise proposal from Poland that its soldiers team up with German and Danish troops to keep the peace in postwar Iraq.

"Considering that we haven't even discussed it with a single word before," German Defense Minister Peter Struck said the suggestion was "a complete surprise to the German government," and showed irritation that his Polish counterpart had floated the idea in the American press

Polish Defence Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski suggested in talks with his US counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld, that Germany and Denmark might contribute troops to the Polish sector.

German surprise

But his call appears to have only angered the Germans - who say they were not consulted in advance.

The Poles are thought to have suggested that the three-way force draw on an existing German-Danish-Polish corps.

German Defence Minister Peter Struck said he was surprised by the suggestion and would discuss it on Wednesday, when he is due to have talks in the Danish capital Copenhagen.

And Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz later appeared to play down his defence minister's suggestion, saying it should not be treated as an official proposal.

"There is some misunderstanding connected with this issue, with regard to what precisely our defence minister said in Washington," he said.

"But it concerns most of all a certain intention, the stating of a certain intention, that here we would like to co-operate with our European partners and also with countries which are members of the European Union.

"We would be extremely happy, of course, if they were also our Western neighbours."

The Polish plans have been denounced in some German newspapers

One paper described Poland as America's "Trojan ass" and another accused Warsaw of supplying the US with mercenaries. here (http://www.taz.de/pt/2003/05/09/a0047.nf/text)
and here (http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_860341,00.html)

My biggest concern is the new EU borders, when considering smuggling risks. But with Chev as the vigilant defender of Poland I guess he can keep the entire russian mafia at bay alone, let alone aid Turkey versus the middle east. :heh:

[ November 28, 2003, 00:35: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

"Might" is not "will". An unofficial suggestion isn't a claim backed up by 100% certainty. "Might" denotes speculation. Guess some undereducated journalists are bored and have no better idea of earning their lunch.

Of course, however, our current ministers are commies, so you eat them up if you will, I don't care.

Please do not connect any money we get from Brussels with the money we spend on defence. A state has several duties and obligations and a budget. If we're getting into EU, fine. It's not charity, it's a win-win. We adjust to their standards and they cover part of the costs for us. For joint benefit. Fighters are bought to enable some half-decent level of air defence, as it's a state's duty to provide defence to its citizens.

However, there are still people hungering for sensational news.