4 ms·

Bluntly: Aside from slightly cheaper holidays, I'm not seeing the advantages for Scandanavia. I'm also confused as to why you think that you would need some pol

by nagrom 14y ago

Bluntly: Aside from slightly cheaper holidays, I'm not seeing the advantages for Scandanavia. I'm also confused as to why you think that you would need some political union to benefit from their examples? Not so much for France, but a lot of Eastern Euro countries have huge problems with corruption and I'd love to see evidence that political union with, e.g. Sweden, will help, e.g. Bulgaria, aside from enabling mass-migration.

sakai 14y ago
Well, to put it into perspective, they joined during very different political and economic times: the Danes in the late 60s and the Swedes and Finns right after the Wall came down. Edit: Looks like Denmark applied in 1969 and was admitted in the early 1970s.
Svip 14y ago
Not all action should be seen as a political advantage for one self. Particularly not if you are a rich country, like all Scandinavian countries are. And Nordic countries for that matter as well. I feel it is about trying to help Eastern Europe obtaining the same standard of living as Western Europe. After the Wall fell, Scandinavia worked together to help the three Baltic country up. Work that has paid off well in Estonia. Latvia and Lithuania still needs some work. True, this was done without the help of the EU, but one of the main purposes of the EU is solidarity. Ensuring that all of Europe has a decent standard of living.
- nagrom 14y ago
  Not all political action should be seen as advantageous for oneself...but it should almost certainly be advantageous for oneself. I think that any politician that proposes sacrificing their own team's quality of life for the benefit of others won't last very long.
  - Svip 14y ago
    Touché. I believe European politicians have talked about how the prosperity of other European countries will benefit us all in the end. The EU has provided a much easier access for Scandinavia to other European countries' markets, allowing us to export more. But Scandinavians are not above helping others; selfless acts are never that, though, there is always some objective in mind. Like bringing the Baltic countries up? It's just smart to have stable neighbours. Bad economies leads to unstable countries, and that leads to trouble for its neighbours. And in a world as intertwined as ours, even beyond just neighbours. Besides, EU-friendly governments in Scandinavia hasn't been outed for their pro-EU stance anyway.
    - nagrom 14y ago
      I completely understand that it makes sense to have prosperous, stable neighbours. However, I'm not convinced that the EU as an institution is absolutely necessary to achieve that. Given that it has so many problems with corruption itself, it is not clear to me that it is learning very well from the better examples! It is surely possible to have some inter-cooperation without some of the downsides of the EU - mostly free trade and a certain minimum quality standard of living without the pernicious interference and bloated bureaucracy for which the european institutions are famed. Of course, I have no solid ideas to offer on that direction :-(

by nagrom 14y ago

sakai 14y ago

Well, to put it into perspective, they joined during very different political and economic times: the Danes in the late 60s and the Swedes and Finns right after the Wall came down. Edit: Looks like Denmark applied in 1969 and was admitted in the early 1970s.

Svip 14y ago

Not all action should be seen as a political advantage for one self. Particularly not if you are a rich country, like all Scandinavian countries are. And Nordic countries for that matter as well. I feel it is about trying to help Eastern Europe obtaining the same standard of living as Western Europe. After the Wall fell, Scandinavia worked together to help the three Baltic country up. Work that has paid off well in Estonia. Latvia and Lithuania still needs some work. True, this was done without the help of the EU, but one of the main purposes of the EU is solidarity. Ensuring that all of Europe has a decent standard of living.

nagrom 14y ago
Not all political action should be seen as advantageous for oneself...but it should almost certainly be advantageous for oneself. I think that any politician that proposes sacrificing their own team's quality of life for the benefit of others won't last very long.
- Svip 14y ago
  Touché. I believe European politicians have talked about how the prosperity of other European countries will benefit us all in the end. The EU has provided a much easier access for Scandinavia to other European countries' markets, allowing us to export more. But Scandinavians are not above helping others; selfless acts are never that, though, there is always some objective in mind. Like bringing the Baltic countries up? It's just smart to have stable neighbours. Bad economies leads to unstable countries, and that leads to trouble for its neighbours. And in a world as intertwined as ours, even beyond just neighbours. Besides, EU-friendly governments in Scandinavia hasn't been outed for their pro-EU stance anyway.
  - nagrom 14y ago
    I completely understand that it makes sense to have prosperous, stable neighbours. However, I'm not convinced that the EU as an institution is absolutely necessary to achieve that. Given that it has so many problems with corruption itself, it is not clear to me that it is learning very well from the better examples! It is surely possible to have some inter-cooperation without some of the downsides of the EU - mostly free trade and a certain minimum quality standard of living without the pernicious interference and bloated bureaucracy for which the european institutions are famed. Of course, I have no solid ideas to offer on that direction :-(