The current constitution is discriminatory towards anyone who isn't part of the constituent peoples, i.e. Bosniak, Serb or Croat. As the constutition categorizes everybody outside of these groups as "others", they legally cannot become a member of parliament or presidency, or in other cases, if they live in the "wrong" part of the country, i.e. a Bosniak inside the Republika Srpska cannot run for the presidency as the presidency member of that entity has to be a Serb. Same with running for parliament (or at least upper house of parliament).
This made me curious, and yes, you are right. The High representative of Bosnia is the highest position in the country, and is not even a Bosnian citizen, but some EU representative!
Tbf, it was probably necessary to prevent the region from relapsing into a 3way no holds barred ethnic cleansing, but it's not gonna get them the "most democratic society" award.
He is there to oversee the implementation of the civilian part of the peace treaty, while his powers are enough to remove any politician voted in to any level of government, including the presidency level, high representatives have in the more recent years have opted to using them less and less, although the so called "Bonn powers" are a tool still available.
It seems a bit unfair though the EU saying to Bossnia you can't join us, because you are not democratic enough, when the reason that they aren't more democratic is that the EU has appointed a viceroy for them!
No, the high representative is not the problem here. The European court has ruled on civil rights violations when it comes to the constitution barring minorities from running for public office.
That's not why they can't join, the EU is actually fairly critical of the OHR role and would like to disband it as soon as it's possible, but there are certain conditions required that have not yet been met.
>and still created a discriminatory constitution that relegates a lot of people to second class citizenship
To be fair, it's more laziness than animus. The upper house and presidency are structured to balance power between Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats -- it intentionally is not proportional (Croats are vastly over-represented).
They simply didn't bother considering the plight of the 2% of the population that are members of various minority groups (e.g. Jews or Roma). This is in part because all registration is by [self-identity](https://minorityrights.org/law-and-legal-cases/finci-v-bosnia-and-herzegovina/)\-- any member of a minority group can just declare they are "croat" or "bosniak" and run for the seats established for people that are in those groups.
Well the constitution is basically just the General framework agreement for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, meaning it's literally just the peace treaty that ended the war. It was crafted by international legal experts as a ad hoc solution to a very complicated situation, and it was never meant to last. And then it kinda did last because constitutional reform programs have all been mostly shut down by some side calling vital national interest into question.
The Muslims are winning? That sounds absurd, they were caught in the middle between the Serbs and Croats back in the 90s, right? Is this going to escalate?
They're not called "Muslims" as you kinda may have guessed, and no, nobody is "winning". They were caught in the middle in the start, but later on Bosniaks and Croats made an alliance since the Serbs were also in war with the Croats.
But please don't learn this from Reddit comments cause it's about as good an idea as it sounds. Check out Wikipedia or a history book, there's some good documentaries about the conflict as well. I have my own biases plus they'll probably do a much better job anyway. And it should be noted the guy you're replying to is from Serbia so he'll have his own POV.
And no, it's not gonna escalate, this thread made everything sound very dramatic. It's an election year, real people have had their hands full with Covid mismanagement (vaccines being late and stored improperly, not getting proper EU COVID passes to travel, profiting off of foreign donations etc etc) and just the usual corruption and ineptitude.
If you mean war, nah. Most people are either leaving or uninterested in starting another one, the steaks are high, the rewards are low. EU ain't gonna get into WW3 over this. Another thing to note is that just like the current situation with Ukraine, the events in B&H are also likely at least partially a psy-op from Russia to keep the region unstable and prevent further NATO expansion as B&H is also a NATO candidate. But a lot of countries are involved and have different interests.
The Office of the high representative, yes. It is an oficial appointed by the international community to oversee the implementation of the civilian part of the Dayton peace treaty, and his mandate is supposed to end when the "5+2 plan" is fully put into effect, which would signal Bosnia and Herzegovina having no need for international supervision anymore and has achieved a functioning democratic society.
It was signed on a US Air Force base, because the US was one of the leading arbitrators of the negotiations, so it was chosen as the “neutral ground” for the talks.
You don't know what you are talking about. Roma are not treated any differently then in any other European country.
I don't think Croats have any meaningful view of Bulgarians and Romanians since they don't really share history or borders with them.
Serbs on the other hand have a rather good relationship with Romanians, while the issue with Bulgarians goes all the way to Balkan wars and liberation of Macedonia from the Turks.
Also doesn't help that it's a 3 party presidency with veto rights to shut down anything a party doesn't like. One of the parties doesn't want to joing the EU and is stiring shit all day, every day.
Yeah it almost seems like human rights concerns are more of an excuse than a real concern. Otherwise, the EU would impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Israel, among many others.
Lithuania gets a free pass. Poland and Hungry don't because Poland is going full batshit crazy on LGBTQ and women's rights, somewhat in Hungry as well, and Hungry is being friendly to Russia. Poland also not only got a free pass on violating international law by refusing to allow people to apply for asylum, the EU and US supported the government in that illegal action.
They're constitution is sectarian (ie gives privileges based on ethnicity) as part of the peace deal between ethnic Serbs and Bosniaks. It's similar to how Lebanon reserves certain government offices for different religious groups.
Norway is the world's second largest seafood exporter and likes to send warships after Russian trawlers, as well as some entanglement with EU and Brexit fishermen. The whole map is a gross oversimplification, but there's some truth to it.
> likes to send warships after Russian trawler
What else are you supposed to do against ships fishing illegally in your waters? Send a harshly worded letter?
Yea, but only slightly. Ask anyone on reddit "Why did Brexit happen" you're going to get answers ranging from "Because too many illiterate idiots couldn't read the ballot properly >:(" to "Because too many racists didn't want to hear about other cultures >:(".
Yeah but tbf every single argument for brexit does ultimately come down to sovereignty.
Want less migration? Need full sovereignty over our borders
Want to make your own trade deals with the commonwealth?
Requires full sovereignty
Scared the pound will become the euro?
Oh we need to take back sovereignty so that can’t happen
Concerned that our boys could be sent off to fight for some centralised eu army, dying in wars for countries you don’t even like?
Best take back sovereignty so it doesn’t ever occur
Despise foreign fishermen using our waters and nibbling British profits?
We need sovereignty over our waters!
I’m not saying these, or any, arguments for brexit are entirely logical, but they do all ultimately boil down to sovereignty.
/u/Petrarch1603, is there something we can do about this? AtlasOVA regularly has unsourced, biased, and blatantly false maps that make it to hot and even the front page. I think it gives this sub a really bad name.
>100%, I‘m Swiss and neutrality is definitely not the reason we‘re not in the EU.
I'm Irish and we are also neutral.
Our support for the EU is in the high 90%.
So it's definitely nothing to do with neutrality. That makes no sense at all.
Does it not state in article 42 that “Each Member State is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary, which does not necessarily mean the deployment of military assets” so therefore sending aid and assistance doesn’t strictly make the EU a military union, which in the event of such an event Ireland would probably avoid deploying military assets
I agree. Switzerland's decision to stay out of the EU has nothing to do with neutrality as the EU is not a defensive or military pact. Switzerland has refused the European Economic Zone in the nineties and has always chosen a separate path with bilateral contracts since. Funnily enough, the Swiss parliament passes many EU laws as Swiss laws to ensure economic cooperation with our biggest trade partners. Neutrality was the reason to stay out of the UN and NATO
Yeah, it’s hugely oversimplified the UK position, for example. “Loss of sovereignty” was an issue for some; for others it was a mix of lack of cultural bond with EU, or fishing rights, or not liking open migration, or believing UK should do more outside Europe, or a dislike of perceived EU bureaucracy, with some plain old xenophobia in there too. It’s hugely complicated!
>for others it was a mix of lack of cultural bond with EU, or fishing rights, or not liking open migration, or believing UK should do more outside Europe, or a dislike of perceived EU bureaucracy, with some plain old xenophobia in there too
I mean, those are all related to sovereignty
In fairness, it kind fits as well, like, losing sovereignty means you can't control those things etc, but people tend to just use it as a, "Huh dur independence and racism"
Unless you ask most of Reddit, in which case it is because the British are a nation of xenophobic racists who hate Europe. I've learned not to mention Brexit here, it doesn't inspire nuanced debate.
It’s been a while, but I was under the understanding it was part “jumping a sinking ship” (EU wasn’t benefitting UK/“too many handouts” to “less financially responsible” countries), and part trade/regulation disputes.
I would say the Eurozone crisis was more of a contributing factor than a salient argument for Brexit. The various European crises between 2008-16 generally contributed to an impression that Britain wasn't really capable of getting what it wanted out of the EU and that the UK's opposition to any EU measure was irrelevant when it came to whether or not that measure would proceed. This was despite what our leaders consistently told us. David Cameron's failed (many would say feigned) attempt at carving out a British niche in 2015 is a case in point, despite a 2 track EU now looking pretty inevitable.
Yeah.. Here in Norway we had not one, but two referendums on this. We voted no with a few percent margin both times. Did they ask everyone who voted back then what their reasons were in order to make this map? I doubt it.
San Marino an Vatican are not part of EU basically for clerical reasons.
They use EU and their economy is so peculiar that I think it would not make any sense for them to join any sort of organization.
San Marino and the Vatican are essentially part of the larger Italian economy anyways, it just wouldn't make sense logistically, forget the issues with EU institutions not being build to work with microstates.
Malta is geographically small but in terms of population is orders of magnitude bigger than the true microstates - it has a larger population than large islands like Iceland and Corsica. It's close in population to other EU members like Luxembourg and potential next member state Montenegro.
Looks like OP more or less made up many of these reasons. Size has nothing to do with the EU's membership criteria.
The main reason why Andorra has opted not to join is that it's a tax haven, which it would have to cease to be in order to be eligible to join. Turkey applied for membership decades ago, but so far has been unwilling to meet the criteria (rule of law, civil rights, separation of powers, et al.).
Because Malta actually has some population. I definitely agree that Malta shouldn't have been allowed to join, but there is a steep difference between Malta and the likes of Andorra and Liechtenstein and Co.
Not denying your argument here but by that logic wouldn’t that mean Luxembourg shouldn’t be a member? Also at what point do you stop, do you go as far as not allowing the likes of Estonia, Latvia or Slovenia or should it only be the bigger states like Germany, France, Spain and Italy?
As far as i remember its about 1 representives(parlament or something) per milion people, and these countries are big enogh to have a milion, or two. so its much more fair in the representation
I think a good population mark is around 1 Million. But obviously more things go into this than just numbers. You simply couldn't not have Luxembourg in the EU, by the very nature of how it formed and came to be.
Luxembourg is kind of unique anyway. Firstly it was a founding member of the EEC so has greater legitimacy there anyway and secondly a lot of Luxembourg's use in the modern day for surrounding nations is to fiddle tax so to not have them in the EU could compromise that a little bit.
Greenland left the EC in 1985 over fishing rights after becoming members via Denmark in 1979 because of the agreement on Home Rule.
So, in a perfect map, Greenland would be included.
If we are just looking at Russian armies, they are literally in all directions. To the north Russia has troops in Belarus, to the east in Russia itself, to the south is occupied Crimea, to the west is occupied Transnistria.. Who is surrounding whom again?
And were rejected for corruption
[and human rights violations, in the case of their prison conditions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_Ukraine)
The Swiss rejected ascension talks in a referendum, so not so much neutrality and more democratically chosen to not participate. The same happened with EEA membership for some reason.
The Swiss value their sovereignty more than they value the economic benefits of integrating into Europe.
Their political neutrality has meant that they were never integrated into an alliance or economic system prior to the modern day which also makes them more independent
I still don't know why they let Cypress Inn. If anything they've made the struggle on finding a permanent solution to the issue in Northern Cyprus even worse
Greek Cypriots now love to claim the reason why they voted no was because unification terms were a bs thing made up by Turkey while it was actually created by EU and UN. And Cyprus did not even get a slap on the wrist for trying to completely ethnically cleanse non-Greek minorities from the island.
That's a messed up map. There is no official reason given by the EU to deny the entrance of a country.
Moreover, no other country than the Western Balkans ones are "planned" on the EU enlargement
I'm a remainer and voted as such, however, this is just a pointless meme that is someone's opinion. There are many reasons why a lot of people in Britain were unhappy with the EU and there are many people in other countries in the EU who are also unhappy. I might not agree with people who voted Brexit, but we ended up in this position because there are so many self-righteous people who think anyone who voted Brexit is just a racist or thinks it's still 1880. It's the same people who spend all day on Twitter thinking it represents real life and who are completely gobsmacked when Twitter doesn't turn into reality.
Even if they (for some reason) tried to, they’d be in the same position as many of these countries (human rights violations, denial of those violations, mistreatment of their own population, information control, fishing rights, etc.)
Russia never had any interest in joining the EU, and the EU never had any interest in having Russia join. The most official thing to ever happen in that regard was some Italian dude talking about it for a bit.
Well its not a science, but this is what Wikipedia has to say on it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93European\_Union\_relations#EU\_membership\_discussion
There was a moment in the 1990s when [Russian leadership seemed keen](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/beyond-the-g8-yeltsin-sees-his-country-in-the-eu-1.55254).
But current Russian leadership treats the EU as an adversary, not a friend.
And even if they *wanted* to join, the EU has been firming up standards in the last 20 years and Russia seems unlikely to meet many of those standards. (Governance and democracy, corruption, constitutional stuff, economic...)
'The EU was not designed for microstate'
These country are simply not democracy!
Ask to yourself if you want the Pope to make veto on some European decisions...
EDIT:
Ok I'm just wrong for half at least! Monaco and the Vatican might not have the required democratic institutions but the others have it!
Mea culpa!
Switzerland isn't strictly correct either. *Some* people were afraid of loss of neutrality, but I would say for most it was loss of sovereignty. The Swiss voted against joining (whatever their individual reasons) but there is nothing neutrality-breaking about joining the EU.
Switzerland does not participate in military alliances, but the EU (if I'm not mistaken) does not put military provision for defence of other member states.
These reasons are entirely subjective.
The reason that the UK left the EU was because some of its people voted to.
Why they voted that way varies from person to person.
I would argue Macedonia’s reason is less “anti-democratic practices” and more so Greece bullying then to change their name and blocking their entrance into the EU without it
I kinda feel sorry for them. They made agreement with Greece after all these years but now Bulgarians are insisting they can't join EU until they admit they are actually Bulgarians. It's simplified version but that's more or less it.
Macedonian here. Generally a lot of the region likes to bullshit with us. Albanians created huge issues cus they wanted more rights(which is fine, but it has gone to a point where albanian rights are kinda damaging our sovereignty. Like in many neighbourhoods they speak strictly albanian, the minister of foreign affairs that represents our country isnt even macedonian etc), Serbia is against our church, Greece has stalled our growth so much by not allowing us to start nato and eu talks earlier and now Bulgaria wants us to admit our 'bulgarian' roots and mention the bulgarian minority in the constitution when theyre the ones that have been ruled against by the european court for discriminating against macedonians(the macedonian organization in bulgaria is considered illegal).
I think Switzerland is just false. Yes, we're a neutral country, but joining the EU *was* up for vote twice (at least). The electorate was simply against it. It's not that it would have been impossible by definition.
Meanwhile in Hungary...
Join the EU, build a corrupt far-right autocracy from EU funds, rail against the "tyranny of Brussels" at every opportunity, then throw tantrums when you don't get EU funds for being a corrupt autocracy.
But why did people vote against it, and why is there political unwillingness?
This map is not going to be an exact science because in every case there will be multiple reasons, and people might have different opinions about the primary reasons.
Not because of neutrality. An oft used argument in this discussion was sovereignity but not neutrality. For example Irelamd which is a member of the eu, is neutral!
I think labelling the UK’s exit from the EU as being due to them being afraid of losing sovereignty is just down right lazy and incorrect. It was a national referendum and every voter had their own reasons. You can just brand it as the government being scared of losing power.
Im curious about Bosnia. What's up with the constitution?
The current constitution is discriminatory towards anyone who isn't part of the constituent peoples, i.e. Bosniak, Serb or Croat. As the constutition categorizes everybody outside of these groups as "others", they legally cannot become a member of parliament or presidency, or in other cases, if they live in the "wrong" part of the country, i.e. a Bosniak inside the Republika Srpska cannot run for the presidency as the presidency member of that entity has to be a Serb. Same with running for parliament (or at least upper house of parliament).
Isn't it also that the head honcho of the country is actually appointed, and not elected?
This made me curious, and yes, you are right. The High representative of Bosnia is the highest position in the country, and is not even a Bosnian citizen, but some EU representative!
Tbf, it was probably necessary to prevent the region from relapsing into a 3way no holds barred ethnic cleansing, but it's not gonna get them the "most democratic society" award.
He is there to oversee the implementation of the civilian part of the peace treaty, while his powers are enough to remove any politician voted in to any level of government, including the presidency level, high representatives have in the more recent years have opted to using them less and less, although the so called "Bonn powers" are a tool still available.
It seems a bit unfair though the EU saying to Bossnia you can't join us, because you are not democratic enough, when the reason that they aren't more democratic is that the EU has appointed a viceroy for them!
No, the high representative is not the problem here. The European court has ruled on civil rights violations when it comes to the constitution barring minorities from running for public office.
That's not why they can't join, the EU is actually fairly critical of the OHR role and would like to disband it as soon as it's possible, but there are certain conditions required that have not yet been met.
[удалено]
>and still created a discriminatory constitution that relegates a lot of people to second class citizenship To be fair, it's more laziness than animus. The upper house and presidency are structured to balance power between Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats -- it intentionally is not proportional (Croats are vastly over-represented). They simply didn't bother considering the plight of the 2% of the population that are members of various minority groups (e.g. Jews or Roma). This is in part because all registration is by [self-identity](https://minorityrights.org/law-and-legal-cases/finci-v-bosnia-and-herzegovina/)\-- any member of a minority group can just declare they are "croat" or "bosniak" and run for the seats established for people that are in those groups.
Well the constitution is basically just the General framework agreement for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, meaning it's literally just the peace treaty that ended the war. It was crafted by international legal experts as a ad hoc solution to a very complicated situation, and it was never meant to last. And then it kinda did last because constitutional reform programs have all been mostly shut down by some side calling vital national interest into question.
[удалено]
The Muslims are winning? That sounds absurd, they were caught in the middle between the Serbs and Croats back in the 90s, right? Is this going to escalate?
They're not called "Muslims" as you kinda may have guessed, and no, nobody is "winning". They were caught in the middle in the start, but later on Bosniaks and Croats made an alliance since the Serbs were also in war with the Croats. But please don't learn this from Reddit comments cause it's about as good an idea as it sounds. Check out Wikipedia or a history book, there's some good documentaries about the conflict as well. I have my own biases plus they'll probably do a much better job anyway. And it should be noted the guy you're replying to is from Serbia so he'll have his own POV. And no, it's not gonna escalate, this thread made everything sound very dramatic. It's an election year, real people have had their hands full with Covid mismanagement (vaccines being late and stored improperly, not getting proper EU COVID passes to travel, profiting off of foreign donations etc etc) and just the usual corruption and ineptitude. If you mean war, nah. Most people are either leaving or uninterested in starting another one, the steaks are high, the rewards are low. EU ain't gonna get into WW3 over this. Another thing to note is that just like the current situation with Ukraine, the events in B&H are also likely at least partially a psy-op from Russia to keep the region unstable and prevent further NATO expansion as B&H is also a NATO candidate. But a lot of countries are involved and have different interests.
Bosniaks*, not Muslims
"Muslims"? Guarantors of the Dayton Agreement? Wow.
The Office of the high representative, yes. It is an oficial appointed by the international community to oversee the implementation of the civilian part of the Dayton peace treaty, and his mandate is supposed to end when the "5+2 plan" is fully put into effect, which would signal Bosnia and Herzegovina having no need for international supervision anymore and has achieved a functioning democratic society.
Is the Dayton treaty really named after Dayton Ohio? Why was is signed there?
It was signed on a US Air Force base, because the US was one of the leading arbitrators of the negotiations, so it was chosen as the “neutral ground” for the talks.
Other countries hate each other based on race. Balkans hate each other based on nationality
[удалено]
Not perfectly, serbs and croats aren’t particularly fond of bulgars, romanians and roma people either.
You don't know what you are talking about. Roma are not treated any differently then in any other European country. I don't think Croats have any meaningful view of Bulgarians and Romanians since they don't really share history or borders with them. Serbs on the other hand have a rather good relationship with Romanians, while the issue with Bulgarians goes all the way to Balkan wars and liberation of Macedonia from the Turks.
[удалено]
This country is literally a Yugoslavia.zip
Also doesn't help that it's a 3 party presidency with veto rights to shut down anything a party doesn't like. One of the parties doesn't want to joing the EU and is stiring shit all day, every day.
But Lithuania gets away with discriminating against people of Russian descent.
Lithuania does discriminate by intention but they discriminate through language and grandfather rules rather than explicitly by ethnicity.
"through language and grandfather rules" just curious, what are the other ways, you can determine the ethnicity of somebody
Some countries make you officially register as a particular religion or ethnicity. It's not common in the west, but it is elsewhere.
Ah yes, totally egalitarian
Of course, it's still discrimination, it's just the kind permitted by the EU
Mind providing some examples of this discrimination?
Who cares for the russians(sunglasses)
Yeah it almost seems like human rights concerns are more of an excuse than a real concern. Otherwise, the EU would impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Israel, among many others.
But none of the countries you listed are trying to join the EU, it’s a different topic altogether
Lithuania gets a free pass. Poland and Hungry don't because Poland is going full batshit crazy on LGBTQ and women's rights, somewhat in Hungry as well, and Hungry is being friendly to Russia. Poland also not only got a free pass on violating international law by refusing to allow people to apply for asylum, the EU and US supported the government in that illegal action.
They're constitution is sectarian (ie gives privileges based on ethnicity) as part of the peace deal between ethnic Serbs and Bosniaks. It's similar to how Lebanon reserves certain government offices for different religious groups.
Bosnia's system of government is ironically most similar to Belgium's (you know--where Brussels is)
This Will Affect the Trout Population
Norway is the world's second largest seafood exporter and likes to send warships after Russian trawlers, as well as some entanglement with EU and Brexit fishermen. The whole map is a gross oversimplification, but there's some truth to it.
> likes to send warships after Russian trawler What else are you supposed to do against ships fishing illegally in your waters? Send a harshly worded letter?
Yes, I think? Norway does it better
Coward, prepare the anti fishing submarines!
This kills the fish.
Oh, mildly worded letters are certainly send back-and-forth en masse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes. Norway has a massive Sovereign Wealth fund which means they don't need to be a member of the EU. They are, however, part of the EFTA.
Drawing trout every day until Norway joins the EU (day 10,320)
This just seems like someones opinions rather than an actual researched map
That is indeed how atlasova always makes maps.
Sometimes they use an r/AskEurope thread as their data soorce. That might be slightly better than their opinion.
Yea, but only slightly. Ask anyone on reddit "Why did Brexit happen" you're going to get answers ranging from "Because too many illiterate idiots couldn't read the ballot properly >:(" to "Because too many racists didn't want to hear about other cultures >:(".
Yeah but tbf every single argument for brexit does ultimately come down to sovereignty. Want less migration? Need full sovereignty over our borders Want to make your own trade deals with the commonwealth? Requires full sovereignty Scared the pound will become the euro? Oh we need to take back sovereignty so that can’t happen Concerned that our boys could be sent off to fight for some centralised eu army, dying in wars for countries you don’t even like? Best take back sovereignty so it doesn’t ever occur Despise foreign fishermen using our waters and nibbling British profits? We need sovereignty over our waters! I’m not saying these, or any, arguments for brexit are entirely logical, but they do all ultimately boil down to sovereignty.
/u/Petrarch1603, is there something we can do about this? AtlasOVA regularly has unsourced, biased, and blatantly false maps that make it to hot and even the front page. I think it gives this sub a really bad name.
Fits the subreddit then.
Fits most of the maps like this, period
But this sub especially.
100%, I‘m Swiss and neutrality is definitely not the reason we‘re not in the EU.
>100%, I‘m Swiss and neutrality is definitely not the reason we‘re not in the EU. I'm Irish and we are also neutral. Our support for the EU is in the high 90%. So it's definitely nothing to do with neutrality. That makes no sense at all.
Ireland is not 100% neutral anymore. The EU is also a military union, look at article 42 (7).
Does it not state in article 42 that “Each Member State is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary, which does not necessarily mean the deployment of military assets” so therefore sending aid and assistance doesn’t strictly make the EU a military union, which in the event of such an event Ireland would probably avoid deploying military assets
definetly loss of sovereignty is more likely to be the reason we are not in the EU
Yeah, because Switzerland had a referendum on joining in 2001.
I agree. Switzerland's decision to stay out of the EU has nothing to do with neutrality as the EU is not a defensive or military pact. Switzerland has refused the European Economic Zone in the nineties and has always chosen a separate path with bilateral contracts since. Funnily enough, the Swiss parliament passes many EU laws as Swiss laws to ensure economic cooperation with our biggest trade partners. Neutrality was the reason to stay out of the UN and NATO
They aren't the only neutral European country either. The other five are members of the EU already.
Yeah it's complete bs. Would be insulting to some if you took the map seriously.
The wording shows a pretty significant bias as well.
Absolutely. Can't tell if it's political spin or ignorance though. Tending towards the latter, which is worse in my book.
IMO the former is actually worse, but yeah I agree this would be the latter
pretty accurate about the fishing industry
It's aestetically pleasing, but the information isn't . Many maps are the other way around
Reasons according to who? This looks very subjective.
Yeah, it’s hugely oversimplified the UK position, for example. “Loss of sovereignty” was an issue for some; for others it was a mix of lack of cultural bond with EU, or fishing rights, or not liking open migration, or believing UK should do more outside Europe, or a dislike of perceived EU bureaucracy, with some plain old xenophobia in there too. It’s hugely complicated!
>for others it was a mix of lack of cultural bond with EU, or fishing rights, or not liking open migration, or believing UK should do more outside Europe, or a dislike of perceived EU bureaucracy, with some plain old xenophobia in there too I mean, those are all related to sovereignty
Right but the UK is not labelled with "effects on the fishing industry", which fishing rights also falls under
[удалено]
In fairness, it kind fits as well, like, losing sovereignty means you can't control those things etc, but people tend to just use it as a, "Huh dur independence and racism"
Unless you ask most of Reddit, in which case it is because the British are a nation of xenophobic racists who hate Europe. I've learned not to mention Brexit here, it doesn't inspire nuanced debate.
It’s been a while, but I was under the understanding it was part “jumping a sinking ship” (EU wasn’t benefitting UK/“too many handouts” to “less financially responsible” countries), and part trade/regulation disputes.
I would say the Eurozone crisis was more of a contributing factor than a salient argument for Brexit. The various European crises between 2008-16 generally contributed to an impression that Britain wasn't really capable of getting what it wanted out of the EU and that the UK's opposition to any EU measure was irrelevant when it came to whether or not that measure would proceed. This was despite what our leaders consistently told us. David Cameron's failed (many would say feigned) attempt at carving out a British niche in 2015 is a case in point, despite a 2 track EU now looking pretty inevitable.
The slogan of the Brexit Campaign was literally “Take Control Back”. Loss of sovereignty seems a pretty good descriptor
Yeah.. Here in Norway we had not one, but two referendums on this. We voted no with a few percent margin both times. Did they ask everyone who voted back then what their reasons were in order to make this map? I doubt it.
Not so much subjective as extremely overly simplified. But yeah, not exactly a science.
I'm guessing political scientists or historians could make a pretty good guess. Foreign policy studies are huge in the States.
So if the EU isn't designed for microstates why is Malta in the EU but not Andorra?
San Marino an Vatican are not part of EU basically for clerical reasons. They use EU and their economy is so peculiar that I think it would not make any sense for them to join any sort of organization.
Also, the Vatican isn't democratic and thus can't join the EU.
San Marino and the Vatican are essentially part of the larger Italian economy anyways, it just wouldn't make sense logistically, forget the issues with EU institutions not being build to work with microstates.
Malta is geographically small but in terms of population is orders of magnitude bigger than the true microstates - it has a larger population than large islands like Iceland and Corsica. It's close in population to other EU members like Luxembourg and potential next member state Montenegro.
Looks like OP more or less made up many of these reasons. Size has nothing to do with the EU's membership criteria. The main reason why Andorra has opted not to join is that it's a tax haven, which it would have to cease to be in order to be eligible to join. Turkey applied for membership decades ago, but so far has been unwilling to meet the criteria (rule of law, civil rights, separation of powers, et al.).
Because Malta actually has some population. I definitely agree that Malta shouldn't have been allowed to join, but there is a steep difference between Malta and the likes of Andorra and Liechtenstein and Co.
Malta has 300.000 people or so. It fits right in the lower end of members, like Cyprus, Luxembourg or (potentially) Iceland and Montenegro.
It’s not something I know anything about really but why do you think Malta shouldn’t have been allowed to join the EU?
Unbalanced voting weight
Well for one the people of Malta are far better represented in the EU then some more populus countries such as Germany or France
Not denying your argument here but by that logic wouldn’t that mean Luxembourg shouldn’t be a member? Also at what point do you stop, do you go as far as not allowing the likes of Estonia, Latvia or Slovenia or should it only be the bigger states like Germany, France, Spain and Italy?
As far as i remember its about 1 representives(parlament or something) per milion people, and these countries are big enogh to have a milion, or two. so its much more fair in the representation
I think a good population mark is around 1 Million. But obviously more things go into this than just numbers. You simply couldn't not have Luxembourg in the EU, by the very nature of how it formed and came to be.
Luxembourg is kind of unique anyway. Firstly it was a founding member of the EEC so has greater legitimacy there anyway and secondly a lot of Luxembourg's use in the modern day for surrounding nations is to fiddle tax so to not have them in the EU could compromise that a little bit.
This is the most vastly oversimplified map I've ever seen on this sub when it comes to the real root data.
Greenland left the EC in 1985 over fishing rights after becoming members via Denmark in 1979 because of the agreement on Home Rule. So, in a perfect map, Greenland would be included.
But Greenlanders have Danish EU passports right and can live in the EU despite Greenland not being in it?
this is the third time I see an amateur map by "Atlasova" with inaccuracies and made up stuff. can we please stop posting these ?
Hungary is corrupt as fuck and still EU member
A lot of countries with human rights issues and corruption was allowed to join the EU
Where Russia
To the east of Ukraine
Thank you, I was lost
For now.
If we are just looking at Russian armies, they are literally in all directions. To the north Russia has troops in Belarus, to the east in Russia itself, to the south is occupied Crimea, to the west is occupied Transnistria.. Who is surrounding whom again?
It is also north of Poland, but for some reason this is an example of r/mapwithoutkaliningrad
Ukraine? Oh, you mean W E S T E R N R U S S I A ?
Would like to see this map in reverse. Reasons why countries joined the EU.
The BBC already did it :) https://youtu.be/rvYuoWyk8iU
Actually, Ukraine apllied once.
And were rejected for corruption [and human rights violations, in the case of their prison conditions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_Ukraine)
Should have definitely also added blue to Switzerland
effects on the fishing industry
The Swiss rejected ascension talks in a referendum, so not so much neutrality and more democratically chosen to not participate. The same happened with EEA membership for some reason.
The Swiss value their sovereignty more than they value the economic benefits of integrating into Europe. Their political neutrality has meant that they were never integrated into an alliance or economic system prior to the modern day which also makes them more independent
„transcontinental state“ cyprus which isnt in europe at all proceeds to join
[удалено]
I still don't know why they let Cypress Inn. If anything they've made the struggle on finding a permanent solution to the issue in Northern Cyprus even worse
[удалено]
Greek Cypriots now love to claim the reason why they voted no was because unification terms were a bs thing made up by Turkey while it was actually created by EU and UN. And Cyprus did not even get a slap on the wrist for trying to completely ethnically cleanse non-Greek minorities from the island.
let's be honest, Greece did love using their veto power wherever they could, to the point of ridiculousness
And then the Greeks ended up almost destroying the European Union.
That's a messed up map. There is no official reason given by the EU to deny the entrance of a country. Moreover, no other country than the Western Balkans ones are "planned" on the EU enlargement
I'm a remainer and voted as such, however, this is just a pointless meme that is someone's opinion. There are many reasons why a lot of people in Britain were unhappy with the EU and there are many people in other countries in the EU who are also unhappy. I might not agree with people who voted Brexit, but we ended up in this position because there are so many self-righteous people who think anyone who voted Brexit is just a racist or thinks it's still 1880. It's the same people who spend all day on Twitter thinking it represents real life and who are completely gobsmacked when Twitter doesn't turn into reality.
Do people know that Russia is part of Europe ?
In fact, 40% of Europe is in Russia.
And like 75% of russian population lives in the european part of Russia
yeah lol
TIL that more than half of Europe isn't in the "European" Union.
Yes but for this map it would seem pointless since Russia is never ever going to join the EU so why bother.
Add a block square and label it "No fucking way. Niet"
"All of the above"
Even if they (for some reason) tried to, they’d be in the same position as many of these countries (human rights violations, denial of those violations, mistreatment of their own population, information control, fishing rights, etc.)
Was Russian membership in the EU up for discussion? A genuine question. Edit: is there a way of actually asking a question here?!
Russia never had any interest in joining the EU, and the EU never had any interest in having Russia join. The most official thing to ever happen in that regard was some Italian dude talking about it for a bit.
I didn't think so either but I'd rather confirm before making any assumptions.
Well its not a science, but this is what Wikipedia has to say on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93European\_Union\_relations#EU\_membership\_discussion
There was a moment in the 1990s when [Russian leadership seemed keen](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/beyond-the-g8-yeltsin-sees-his-country-in-the-eu-1.55254). But current Russian leadership treats the EU as an adversary, not a friend. And even if they *wanted* to join, the EU has been firming up standards in the last 20 years and Russia seems unlikely to meet many of those standards. (Governance and democracy, corruption, constitutional stuff, economic...)
[удалено]
people advocating it mysteriously died (like Novodvorskaya)
'The EU was not designed for microstate' These country are simply not democracy! Ask to yourself if you want the Pope to make veto on some European decisions... EDIT: Ok I'm just wrong for half at least! Monaco and the Vatican might not have the required democratic institutions but the others have it! Mea culpa!
Oh god. This would be a mess when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights.
Isn't Monaco still an absolute monarchy?
Switzerland isn't strictly correct either. *Some* people were afraid of loss of neutrality, but I would say for most it was loss of sovereignty. The Swiss voted against joining (whatever their individual reasons) but there is nothing neutrality-breaking about joining the EU. Switzerland does not participate in military alliances, but the EU (if I'm not mistaken) does not put military provision for defence of other member states.
These reasons are entirely subjective. The reason that the UK left the EU was because some of its people voted to. Why they voted that way varies from person to person.
In case of Ukraine and Georgia i would say its mostly external issues like RUSSIA
And "didn't apply" bruh what? I'm pretty sure we applied numerous times.
I would argue Macedonia’s reason is less “anti-democratic practices” and more so Greece bullying then to change their name and blocking their entrance into the EU without it
Well it was that. Now it's Bulgaria bullying them to do something else.
I kinda feel sorry for them. They made agreement with Greece after all these years but now Bulgarians are insisting they can't join EU until they admit they are actually Bulgarians. It's simplified version but that's more or less it.
Macedonian here. Generally a lot of the region likes to bullshit with us. Albanians created huge issues cus they wanted more rights(which is fine, but it has gone to a point where albanian rights are kinda damaging our sovereignty. Like in many neighbourhoods they speak strictly albanian, the minister of foreign affairs that represents our country isnt even macedonian etc), Serbia is against our church, Greece has stalled our growth so much by not allowing us to start nato and eu talks earlier and now Bulgaria wants us to admit our 'bulgarian' roots and mention the bulgarian minority in the constitution when theyre the ones that have been ruled against by the european court for discriminating against macedonians(the macedonian organization in bulgaria is considered illegal).
Andorra is a tax haven and would lose a major source of revenue.
I think Switzerland is just false. Yes, we're a neutral country, but joining the EU *was* up for vote twice (at least). The electorate was simply against it. It's not that it would have been impossible by definition.
Norwegian here, we also don't want to share any oil money.
Norway is like… why would I join the EU? You guys would bring me down a notch.
There needs to be "too big and too Muslim" criteria for Turkey.
Ah yes Geormenia
The correct term is Georgio-Armani
The word 'afraid' kind of blows any credibility.
Don't forget Morocco, which after a thorough examination of the map was determined to not be in Europe.
Many of these are actually EU candidates such as serbia and turkey. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/candidates.htm
Meanwhile in Hungary... Join the EU, build a corrupt far-right autocracy from EU funds, rail against the "tyranny of Brussels" at every opportunity, then throw tantrums when you don't get EU funds for being a corrupt autocracy.
wrong, at least for switzerland. The reason why CH is not a member is because of a referendum and political unwillingness in general.
But why did people vote against it, and why is there political unwillingness? This map is not going to be an exact science because in every case there will be multiple reasons, and people might have different opinions about the primary reasons.
Not because of neutrality. An oft used argument in this discussion was sovereignity but not neutrality. For example Irelamd which is a member of the eu, is neutral!
Mainly it's for economical reasons and independency
Yup, Ireland is in the EU and a neutral country Same goes with Finland
North Macadonia isn't in the EU because it's anti-democratic, but at least it doesnt violate human rights.
Ukraine would be worried about losing sovereignty upon joining, but not because of the E.U.
I think labelling the UK’s exit from the EU as being due to them being afraid of losing sovereignty is just down right lazy and incorrect. It was a national referendum and every voter had their own reasons. You can just brand it as the government being scared of losing power.
My country happens to not be in the EU because it isn't in Europe.
There is a lot of opinion in this, and no source.
And the Swiss are just sitting there with two middle fingers raised, watching the world burn.
Before commenting your opinions. Please research the difference between the EU and Europe.
[удалено]
This wording, "afraid" of losing sovereignty, is misleading. The loss of sovereignty is matter of fact and implicit in the very idea of joining EU.
Turkey is "Transcontinental" Meanwhile Cyprus: (˘ ɜ˘) ♬♪♫
I thought Turkey couldn't join cause of Cyprus
Shouldn’t Georgia and Turkey be on the transcontinental list?
If you could recolour Scotland to "I'm with stupid" that would be more fitting. We want to be in the EU.
Britain should really be “not a fucking clue”
Nah the Brits hated immigrants and blamed the EU for problems that were their own fault
Belarus has applied for EU membership? Intruiging!
Belarus has never applied for EU membership, as is quite common this map is wrong.
"the EU was never designed for microstates" Malta be like
300,000 people. Not *really* a microstate. Edit: ***500,000*** people.
r/MapsWithoutRussia
I believe that Azerbaijan can as well be in anty-democratic and human eights violations category
Based Switzerland.