Why do countries join the European Union?
it all started with a set of agreements on coal and steel production, which was desperately needed if all these countries were going to rebuild their industrial economies after the war. the way stalin ruled eastern europe, it was also pretty clear to europe that the old days when they ruled the world were over and they would have to work together if they were going to stand up to anybody. then a small free trade bloc developed between the netherlands, belgium, and luxembourg. as more and more agreements were made, one of the goals became preserving many of their common social democrat values of modern europe. what they're really after is an economy that's large enough to consume it's own production, so that democratically elected governments don't have to adjust their policies to suit the multinational corporations. and one major advantage in joining europe instead of nafta, is that the european union invests heavily in new members. the goal is to improve the economies of new members so there isn't this huge stampede of cheap labour in one direction, and jobs in the other, but rather create an actual market for west european goods. an especially attractive offer for southern europe, and the former soviet bloc that often had neither goods, or money to buy them with before the checks from brussels began arriving. then there is turkey. turkey raised a few eyebrows because it's the first coloured country to join europe, and some europeans were openly apprehensive about the idea given their previous experience wtih turkish immigration. but its the geo-political implications that are most interesting. turkey had little choice really but to move to europe after her economy was ruined by the sanctions on iraq. the way things are going i don't know what country would want anything to do with that part of the world. but the EU has grown quite a lot and is basically finding itself in the backyard of the former soviet union, and the near and middle east. the case of ukraine's shift to the west is also very interesting, because it shows how eastern european nations are starting to see the eu as a good defence against russian, even american hegemony
European Union: Why do countries want to join the EU?
Many good answers have already been given, let me add one: it provides a safe roof over the heads of small nations.Small nations have always been trampled upon to the detriment of their citizens. They are always accused of being ‘against political unity’ and punished for not accepting second rate citizenship by the Napoleons, Gengis Khans and Stalins of this world.In the EU they can enjoy the benefits of economic and political union without being repressed or trampled upon. This is why so many that struggled for their freedom and sovereignty quite recently, like Croatia, Estonia or -a bit longer ago- Ireland are willing to share that precious bit of sovereignty with others who experienced the same indignities. Would they do that if the EU were really a ‘Fourth Reich’ as some enemies of the EU claim?In reality the EU is much more kept together by the small countries than it is ‘dominated by the Germans’. The big difference between the Germans and the Brits is that the Germans have come to understand, respect even enjoy it. The Brits didn’t and still don’t. This is why they are now running into Norwegian, Danish, Romanian and Maltese problems more than German ones when it comes to the brexit negotiations.
Do the 'weak' countries of European Union (EU) make their voices heard in EU, or do always 'big fish eat little fish'?
A2A, Aziz DidaI don't really know what a "weak" country means, but I'm going to translate it as a economically insignificant nation with a small population. In that case, yes, they do. The European Parliament & Council and, as an extension, the Commission, is actually tipped in support of the less populated countries, since European nations don't really get representation exactly according to their populations. That means that Germany, one of the more populous European countries and also a financial powerhouse, can't solely dominate the politics of the Union without the support of several smaller states. Well, at least not de jure. Angela Merkel doesn't have any more authority in the European Council than any other head of state and neither do German MEPs have any more influence in the Parliament than Romanian ones.So, while Germany's economy and France's military are certainly some of the EU's more important assets, in theory, the "weak" countries and their populations have just as much of a say in political matters as their larger counterparts do. Despite the criticism you may hear, the EU is a pretty democratic institution.
How did Europe end up being a bunch of small countries rather than a couple of large ones?
I have answered this partly in this post: Brief History of the World. How Geography Shaped Cultural Boundaries A lot of Europe's division is attributed to geography. Britain is separated from Europe by the English channel; Iberian Peninsula by the Pyrenees; Italy by the Alps; Hungary by Carpathian mountains & Alps. It is not easy for an alien invader to dislodge a sufficiently large, determined opponent sitting behind the geographical boundary. On the other hand, in large countries such as China, Russia or India, there were no huge barriers in the center to prevent an unification. It is the North European Plains stretching from France to Russia that is the only real open territory for the Empire builders. Predictably, this was the center of some of the major wars in the past few centuries.One of the most notable such regions is the France-Germany border north of the Alps. It is not a natural border and not a very easily defensible one either. Thus, all ambitious European leaders - Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, would start from making this border meaningless before capturing elsewhere. For centuries, there have been attempts to merge France, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium through projects such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Napoleonic Empire. However, the powers are somewhat evenly matched and the powers surrounding them are often fearful, picking sides between the groups leading to stalemate for nearly 1200 years. Thus, people have become tired of unifying through force and trying more through an economic integration. The latest successor to the Holy Roman Empire is the EU and if history is any indication this might not last more than a couple of centuries either.
Why is European Union killing the Southern countries?
No.The problem southern European have are:Riddled by corruptionBloated bureauracyTax evasionInadequate industryInefficienciesUniquely those countries are culturally Catholics compare to Lutheran club of Nordic countries, Netherlands and GermanyWith joining €urozone, their problems increase as:Fiat and Seat (to some extent Renault) still don't have any Global leverage compare to Mercedes or VWNorthern countries has way lighter regulation, better efficiency, better transparency, high-trust culture. Germany trust culture may not high as Netherlands but they compensate with the so-called Federal RepublicMentality of “let's spend some, don't worry about it” aren't compatible with “Check and Balance” philosophy of Protestant-EUAs point number #2 explaining that many foreign investor are rather to put their money in Estonian bank rather than Italian bank. You need trust to gain investor and investmentGermany (I refer them because they're the most dominant) have history for being mercantile (re: Hanseatic) so, they have higher-competitiveness than Italy and France. ExperienceItaly and France in fact are net-contributor for the EU, but they needs to develop their “Intrinsic” value and it cannot be develop overnight. And southerners decision to join Euro when their economy weren't ready to face high-competitveness and atlanticist experience of the German industry, cause them steamrolled by the German.I'll take some exampleEstonia. Their Independence just short as 28 years from Iron Curtain but, this country is progressing quickly thanks to EU budget and thanks to Protestant work-ethic influence that embrace highly-egalitarian society as it has in their peers (re: NL, IS, NO, SE, DK and FI). In short: EU Investment works!Singapore. You may argue “it's a small country”, thing I want to emphasize here is culture. How Lee Kuan Yew’s government single-handedly turns this poor peasants nation into one of the richest country in the world!In conclusion, despite takes few decades Southern (and France) region must be embrace anti-corruption society. The rich German can't forever bail everyone out, they can't bail corruption and uncompetitiveness.
Which is the only European Union country that has a colony within the territory of another European country?
It´s United Kingdom, there isn´t doubt. Gibraltar is a Spanish territory because the Article X of Utrecht Treaty states Great Britain hasn´t the jurisdiction over the Gibraltar´s land and can´t trade from its colony with the nearest coast of any other country (this expression, "other country", refers logically to Spain). Also, this Article X cedes only to Gibraltar an aerial space which can´t surpass the vertical height of the famous Rock and don´t recognize any maritim jurisdiction to this colony. Therefore, Gibraltar hasn´t teorically right to have a seaport neither boats saliling around it. Similarly, every airplane that takes off from Gibraltar airport and exceeds the height of the Rock is flying across Spanish sky and committing an aggression against the Spanish sovereignty. On the other hand, Fernando, you should remember the United Nation´s General Assembly have already passed two resolutions on the called "Question of Gibraltar" during the 1.960 years (the first one is the 2231 XXI and the second one is the 2353 XXII). Both resolutions recognize the colonial status of Gibraltar and invite to United Kingdom to putting end to this unusual situation, which is an european country has a colony within the territory of another european country, returning inmediately Gibraltar to its only legitim owner, Spain. Edit: Wether you want to know the truth, Gibraltar is only a small grain with few square miles, that hasn´t any importance for Spain. The key of the Gibraltarian´s prosperity isn´t a secret for anyone: this British colony is a tax heaven, whose function is washing large amounts of black money which come from the drugs and weapons trafic that is made throughout the world.
Why european countries are so small? no wonder why people treat europe as a country?
Because there was almost constant competition between European rivals that prevented any one nation from growing too large within Europe itself. Russia is only the size it is because it could expand continentally eastwards thus creating a landlocked Russian Empire. Attempts to expand west or south met with constant defeat. Other European nations created whole new nations in other areas; Brazil itself, along with places like Australia and Canada are the legacy of that. It's worth pointing out that most of America (north and south) and the nations within it were created by Europeans. How many nations have China, Brazil, or India built? Or, for that matter, why has their net contribution to the world - despite their sizes - been so very proportionately small? It's because 'size' isn't always everything. European countries are now member states of the European Union, which isn't much different to the concept of the United States.
Why the 15 Countries in Europe didn't Join EU?
I wonder the 15 European Countries(Albania,Andorra,Belarus,Bosnia... Marino,Switzerland...)...Why they didn't (wanna) join European Union??~I wanna know the reasons and the factors...MORE IS BETTER!!~Who give me the most answers will be chosen as the BEST answer!!!