Can a country outside Europe join the European Union?
SureMorocco had even their application refused because of not being in Europe. But if it's a possession of an European country, then is possible. Brazil borders French Guiana, that's itself European Union. Because of very different laws between both countries (Brazil & France), it was very hard to open the bridge between the two, especially regarding car insurance, visas and health insurance, as it's a bridge between Brazil and EU.France has a curious situation. It is the only country in EU, which all its territories are full EU members. So Tahiti, French Guiana and others grant European citizens freedom of movement, and even exemption of passport when going there (to most it’s not possible, as has no non-stop flight from Europe, so a passport is necessary to transit through a third country). Even like that, they are not part of Schengen, So to non-EU nationals the visa policy vary and everyone is subject to passport control. For example Brazilians are visa free to France, Tahiti, Guadeloupe, but not French Guiana, as there's a huge amount of Brazilian illegal immigrants in this place.Netherlands and UK have possessions as well as Denmark (Greenland) but they are not part of EU. In the case of Netherlands, people from those places (Aruba, Curaçao..) are eligible for Dutch citizenship and can move free inside EU, but people from Netherlands and other Europeans need authorization to settle in those islands. In the case of UK, people from British possessions are normally “British overseas citizens” (some are full British citizens, I don't know the criteria) , So they don't have right to live in UK and EU. Also EU and British people cannot move freely there. In the case of Greenland, Greenlandic people can have Danish EU passport, but just people from Nordic countries (including Denmark) can live there without visa.Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla are part of EU (and Schengen) even being located in Africa. Canary Islands, is full Schengen and EU member even also being located in the coast of Africa.
Should America kick California out of the union so that when the big earthquake destroys them, we don't feel obligated to help?
First off…I’m deeply insulted at such an idea! If you’re a fellow American then you should be ashamed of yourself for even promoting such an idea! California has been a state in the US for a 167 years as the 31th state. It is most populated state in the country, has the 6th largest economy in the world and is one of the United States most trade/research states. To just cut us off would be like the US cutting off a limb. It be more devastating to the country and while California would have issues, we’d get through it now we don’t have to pay federal taxes. All that money can be spend on managing our many state needs.We’ve had earthquakes in the past yet the last major earthquake that did serious damage was back in 2014 in the North Bay area yet overall this is a rare occurrence. Earthquake protect has vastly improved over the last decade now that we better understand the tectonic layout of the state. Buildings and infrastructure have been build or improved to better handle earthquake damage. This year alone the state government is starting to major effort to greatly improve the early warning system for detecting earthquakes which will in fact help all states along the west coast and neighboring California. If anything we suffer more damages from wildfires every year, earthquakes vary in magnitude and often can happen in isolated area where there is no human presence. Earthquakes are not like what you see in movies like 2012, that is outlandishly untrue.However in other state you see constant natural disasters. Every day I go to work the news constant talk about tornadoes ripping through the mid-states or how the southeastern states are suffering mass floods and rain. State like Florida and New Orleans have been hit by devastating hurricanes. The damage from Hurricane Katrina still lingers to this day because the government response was disorganized and lacking.Here in California, we all know some day a big earthquake may happen. Its such a rare occurrence compared to the near daily natural disasters in other states. Yet despite that I would never think of kicking any state out of our country because of such reasons. No matter what issues I may have towards them they are still states full of fellow Americans who deserve to be cared and respected for.So find a better excuse to throw us out. Just because our state views are different from others doesn’t make us any less American.
I want to work in the USA during the summer holidays. Can you tell me where are the best places to work a seasonal job? I prefer California. I’m a student from the EU.
Businesses in the Outer Banks area of North Carolina does substantial recruiting of European college-age students to work summer jobs in stores, restaurants and other tourist attractions because they can’t attract enough local people to fill those jobs.Foreign workers carrying local economy
Which is a better city to visit: Montreal or Toronto?
My fiance and I are looking for a cheap(er) honeymoon next summer and are thinking about visiting Canada. We are Americans. We love cities and have visited NYC, DC, and Chicago and loved them all (NYC maybe the best). For our honeymoon, we'd like to have a nice romantic time but we also want to see some sights. Relaxing is great, but only in short doses. We really appreciate science, architecture, family sites (Legoland was awesome!), and maybe some natural history. So anyway, I instantly picked out Toronto because of the CN tower. We noticed it has a city pass, so that might be cool. On the other hand, my brother mentioned Montreal would be neat, but I don't really know anything about that town. What do you think? Which would be better for a week of romantic evenings and fantastic sightseeing? Oh, and the usual honeymoon stuff. ;-) Thanks!
If the British areas that voted Leave and the areas that voted Remain were amalgamated into their own separate countries, which would do better?
No-one, because there would be a war.The Remain areas would presumably remain in (or apply to rejoin) the EU and would continue to enjoy the prosperity that it has brought the UK over the last forty years.The Leave areas of Great England, shorn of their capital and a significant proportion of their youngest and most educated citizens, would find that no-one of any significance would be interested in doing any trade deals with them. Brexitland would slump into a deep recession.Sooner or later the wealth disparity between the Remain enclaves and the surrounding Leave areas would reach an unsustainable level. Nationalist thugs in Brexitland would insist that the Remain areas still belonged to England and would start besieging some of the smaller enclaves. Armed and funded by their solitary ally Vladimir Putin, the Great England Defence League would undermine and annex the enclaves one by one, while claiming that the rebels inside them were not actually their soldiers.Scotland would be safely out of all of this, having successfully obtained an EU grant to meet half the cost of reconstructing Hadrian’s Wall. They would make Brexitland pay for the other half in return for giving a limited number of the impoverished rabble from northern England visas to work in southern Scotland.Eventually all the enclaves would fall and only London would be left. The Thames would be blockaded at Dartford and the EU would have to organise a continuous airlift of essential supplies to London via City airport because Heathrow would be within SAM range of Legoland Windsor. Sukhoi Su-34 fighter-bombers operating out of English Air Force bases in Lincolnshire would start dropping cluster bombs indiscriminately over the West End. Left with no effective backup due to President Trump’s abandonment of NATO, the EU city state of Londonstein would have eventually no choice but to instruct the submarines still under its command to launch a nuclear assault on the Brexitland capital, Great Yarmouth.Stranger things have happened.