Do Countries Ever Unite?

[Ravenblade]

From your own sources:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-643945.html



The abused workers get send back, their abusers find new victims and it's all possible thanks to European laws. That is the core of the problem; Abuse is low risk, profitable and tolerated by the governments.

"But for law enforcement authorities, at least, the case of the mistreated cook in Speyer has proven valuable. Until this case, police investigations into Chinese restaurants in Germany tended to be focused on widespread protection payment rackets."

You ignored that line which kinda contradicts your claim of tolerance because here it clearly says that authorities know learned to not just look at rackets but at every restaurant instead which means they are always looking out for those. Indeed in my own town we have over 30 foreign restaurants and at least 6 had to close because police found out they were in violation with laws, either hygiene or work laws. If one is found to be acting against law and the violation is severe enough then fat chance the owner will keep his license. You like to put it like they are allowed to continue - in fact they are not because much like any other crime there is a limit to repeat offense. People have received hefty fines and jail sentences over Schwarzarbeit which continues to be a major employment crime. There are special taskforces to combat it, public registries for offenders and it is generally nothing to sneeze over if you get caught neither in short nor in long term.

[Cybran]

You like to put it like they are allowed to continue - in fact they are not because much like any other crime there is a limit to repeat offense. People have received hefty fines and jail sentences over Schwarzarbeit which continues to be a major employment crime. There are special taskforces to combat it, public registries for offenders and it is generally nothing to sneeze over if you get caught neither in short nor in long term.

The Abuse has been happening for decades and a few fines are not likely to make it stop. As the Human Trafficking report i liked earlier said "Trafficking and Abuse is on the rise".

Or, as is more likely, the peripheral countries will slide into irrelevance and be at the mercy of their betters, with no recourse against them.

Worst thing that could happen is us slipping back into the Russian sphere of influence. Which would be prefferable at this point, at least Russians used to view us as human beings. Another side of the abuse that comes from joining the EU can be seen here:

http://www.irr.org.uk/news/eastern-e...-under-attack/

SELECTED ATTACKS AGAINST EASTERN EUROPEANS OVER THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS

23 April 2011: A Polish man in Exeter, on his way home from a bar, was attacked by three men who beat him unconscious and left him requiring extensive surgery on his face. (Exeter Express & Echo, 17 May 2011)
10 April 2011: Three men subjected two Bulgarian students in Plymouth to racist abuse before assaulting them. (Plymouth Herald, 15 April 2011)
26 March 2011: A 42-year-old Polish man was hospitalised after being set upon by about ten youths as he took a friend of his daughter to a bus stop in Rosehall, Scotland. The attackers punched and kicked him about the head and body. He later explained that the family had previously had their windows smashed. (Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser, 30 March 2011)
15 March 2011: A Polish family who had their car burnt out in Ballymena, just days after moving in, said they wanted to leave the area through fear of further violence. (Belfast Telegraph, 16 March 2011)
5 February 2011: A group of Polish men in a pub in Somerset were racially abused by a woman who was thrown out by security staff. She then confronted the men in the street and punched one in the face. (Chard and Ilminster News, 14 February 2011)
18 December 2010: A Romanian taxi driver picked up four white men and an Asian woman in Plymouth who subjected him to racist abuse before punching him repeatedly. The driver was left with scratches and bruises. (Plymouth Herald, 28 January 2011)
11 December 2010: A 22-year-old eastern European woman was racially abused by a man inside a shop. A witness informed the police, who arrested and bailed a man in connection with the incident, because the language used was so ‘severe’. (Isle of Wight County Press, 13 December 2010)
5 December 2010: A Polish man was chased by two men in Bristol who subjected him to racial abuse and punched him in the head. Although the victim escaped to his house, one of the men later returned and smashed a glass panel in the door. (This is Bristol 8 December 2010)
14 October 2010: Graffiti, reading ‘Polish c**ts get out of Scotland’, was scrawled in foot-high letters on a railway bridge in Inverness. (Inverness Courier 15 October 2010)
26 September 2010: A 23-year-old man was arrested for racially aggravated violence after a fight with a Polish man outside a pub in Haverhill. (Haverhill Weekly News 19 January 2011)
September 2010: A Polish couple gave up the lease on their pub in Edinburgh after an 18-month ordeal of racial harassment and abuse. The business partners claimed they received up to 20 threatening phone calls a day and, in one incident, a man smashed up the bar with a hammer. (Scotsman 6 December 2010)
29 August 2010: An eastern European man was hospitalised after being attacked by a group of youths at about 4am. (Northants Evening Telegraph 1 September 2010)
21 August 2010: A man who was refused re-entry to a nightclub in Lincoln subjected a Polish doorman to racist abuse and punched him in the face. (Lincolnshire Echo 11 September 2010)
11 August 2010: A Polish man travelling on a bus with his Hungarian girlfriend in North London was attacked by two white men who shouted racist abuse and slashed his face with smashed glass. (Islington Gazette 19 August 2010)
1 August 2010: A Romanian couple were attacked by six men in Halstead. The incident, which police described as a ‘brutal and unprovoked racist assault’, left the woman with three cracked teeth, damage to another tooth, two black eyes and a bruised nose. (Halstead Gazette 9 August 2010)
22 July 2010: A Polish bus driver in Aberdeen was subjected to racist abuse by a motorist. (BBC News 28 July 2010)
21 June 2010: A group of around eight masked men ransacked three houses in Belfast, smashing furniture and attacking the occupants. Although there was a sectarian dimension to the violence, some of the victims were eastern European. (BBC News 22 June 2010)
June 2010: A woman in West Lothian was sentenced for subjecting her Polish neighbours to racist abuse and harassment on a daily basis. (Scotsman 8 January 2011)
13 May 2010: A Polish woman who had finished a late shift at a pub in Edinburgh was grabbed by a man on her way home who threatened to stab her and offered her money for sex. When she refused, he called her a ‘Polish f***er’ and told her that she ‘did not belong here’. (Edinburgh Evening News 17 November 2010)

Being subjected to discrimination is not what people expected when they joined the EU.

[Ravenblade]

The Abuse has been happening for decades and a few fines are not likely to make it stop. As the Human Trafficking report i liked earlier said "Trafficking and Abuse is on the rise".
[...]

Which crime has ever been stopped from happening? Crime is crime and unless you are running a full-fledged police state with complete surveillance and deportation measures upon offense you are not likely going to stop them from happening but fines are usually the harshest punishment before jail and so is a reputation loss if it enters the registry for all to see.
All you are going to do is a reduction of them in frequency and shortening of the time of detection, the earlier the better and the less harm is done. The key is to find these people who do not follow the law and bring them to justice and to do so you require citizens to notify the authorities or authorities doing sample checks. But who are these people hiring others for no or very low pay anyway? It's not just citizens but in certain areas like catering services and gastronomy its immigrants with work permits exploiting others who could not get visa or permit. These cases are especially difficult to handle. I've seen how it goes myself, I could re-tell cases but I usually maintain the stance that in order to let things like these happen you require a certain mindset. One that things lowly of the authorities and the law, the reassurance that they are being overlooked as well as psychological pressure to the workers being hired. Needless to say if they are caught it's over. The authorities do not tolerate these cases, the state does not tolerate these cases. In fact there is an actual zero tolerance policy if caught which contrasts your claim that the states pursue an active exploitation policy.

However two more things:

People have always been coming from East Europe even before the respective countries became EU members. Generally spoken it has been a difficult time for this country as well. Germany was the country with the highest immigration rate in the EU and it has never been always easy or fair for all parties involved. But you will find that most immigrants coming here to work do so for a reason and that greatly involves a certain reputation. But a lot people are coming here with false hopes and completely wrong expectations. They are usually stranded in a country which is completely alien to them so they are easy prey for those looking for cheap workers, and it gets easier if they are even speaking the same language. It is far easier to get an alien worker out of the claws of a natural German citizen than a naturalized one or one just having work permit because of the cultural and language barrier between them not existing.

On the other hand you do have positive cases as well. Where Polish immigrant workers decided not to just come over by season but to permanently stay here and become naturalized. A lot companies here do have naturalized immigrants these days incl. mine. It obviously was far more beneficial to go through all this than going back to their original home countries. But these cases are of course overlooked intentionally because they cannot be instrumentalized in a negative way for this specific debate which only knows the offender, West Europe, and the victim, East Europe. A debate involving selective black-and-white mode switching.

[Cybran]

People have always been coming from East Europe even before the respective countries became EU members. Generally spoken it has been a difficult time for this country as well. Germany was the country with the highest immigration rate in the EU and it has never been always easy or fair for all parties involved. But you will find that most immigrants coming here to work do so for a reason and that greatly involves a certain reputation. But a lot people are coming here with false hopes and completely wrong expectations. They are usually stranded in a country which is completely alien to them so they are easy prey for those looking for cheap workers, and it gets easier if they are even speaking the same language. It is far easier to get an alien worker out of the claws of a natural German citizen than a naturalized one or one just having work permit because of the cultural and language barrier between them not existing.

Absolutely false. In 2004 the UK allowed open borders and most eastern europeans went there. This caused frictions and fears. These fears caused Germany to block eastern europeans until 2011 by which point it was too late, no one wanted to move there anymore.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/2012...l#.UXEgh6Lrwl8

The opening of the German labour market to eastern Europeans has not brought as many workers to Germany as expected, with many opting instead to go to Britain, Die Welt reported. From May 2011 to May 2012 about 100,000 immigrants came from that region to Germany looking for work, the paper says.

According to a recent report by the Federal Employment Agency, the demand in Germany for experts from the electronics, metal, mechanical and automotive, logistics, trade and health industries is currently high.

The agency says that as of September this year, 485,000 jobs are vacant – and are likely to take on average 78 days to fill, with Hamburg and Baden-Württemberg having the longest vacancy spans.

The federal agency is currently making special efforts to attract workers from Spain, Portugal, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Vietnam and Indonesia, according to the paper.

The western economies need the workers, but the workers are smart enough to avoid these economies. There are job fairs every few months, flyers, adds and billboards that urge people from here to move to western europe and work there. Whoever people are realizing the risks of going to countries that resent them.

[Ravenblade]

Absolutely false. In 2004 the UK allowed open borders and most eastern europeans went there. This caused frictions and fears. These fears caused Germany to block eastern europeans until 2011 by which point it was too late, no one wanted to move there anymore.

The western economies need the workers, but the workers are smart enough to avoid these economies. There are job fairs every few months, flyers, adds and billboards that urge people from here to move to western europe and work there. Whoever people are realizing the risks of going to countries that resent them.

This is not what I am talking about. If immigration would happen on invitation-basis only we wouldn't be having this debate at all because then everything would be sorted and fine. The article you have quoted is referring to something entirely different and I am very wary of "The Local" which doesn't shy from quoting out of context as well. We are lacking skilled experts for a reason and the lack of immigration policy is not the primary reason for it. Opening of the labour market was just a last ditch effort and the closing to immigrants before wasn't happening because the country resents Eastern Europeans otherwise how do you explain Eastern Europeans working in my company? Immigration is also not just about Eastern Europeans. Also don't dance around the issue please. Whether that remark you have quoted is wrong or false doesn't matter because it is not part of the primary context. The primary context was that we do not tolerate (or sanction) Schwarzarbeit and therefore do not have an actual state policy of exploitation. I also explained before that exploitation in strict sense is what everyone including you is doing on consumer level already but on state level we have a contra bonos mores rule.

[Deleted]

No.
It's national states that almost destroyed my cultures. Super-national states would be too busy making bucks as to enforce cultural assimilation (might happen, in the end, but in a voluntary, slow way, due to eclecticism and melting-pot effect.
It's national states who feel that they have to destroy the local identities by enforcing a "standard" of culture.

This is so true, see the latest exemple in France with the "ministère de l'idendité nationale" (ministry of national identity). Nations trying to dictacte one and true identity and forcing one history of the people on the people, but nation and people is not the same thing.

[Cybran]

This is not what I am talking about. If immigration would happen on invitation-basis only we wouldn't be having this debate at all because then everything would be sorted and fine. The article you have quoted is referring to something entirely different and I am very wary of "The Local" which doesn't shy from quoting out of context as well. We are lacking skilled experts for a reason and the lack of immigration policy is not the primary reason for it. Opening of the labour market was just a last ditch effort and the closing to immigrants before wasn't happening because the country resents Eastern Europeans otherwise how do you explain Eastern Europeans working in my company? Immigration is also not just about Eastern Europeans. Also don't dance around the issue please. Whether that remark you have quoted is wrong or false doesn't matter because it is not part of the primary context. The primary context was that we do not tolerate (or sanction) Schwarzarbeit and therefore do not have an actual state policy of exploitation. I also explained before that exploitation in strict sense is what everyone including you is doing on consumer level already but on state level we have a contra bonos mores rule.

The primary context for me has always been (post #87): The EU benefits the large economies and destroys the small ones. Skilled workers from the periphery are sucked in and used by the big economies. Low skilled workers are used for cheap labor which often results in exploitation. Women and Children fall victim to human trafficking, which has been on the rise (since the poorer countries joined) and is demand driven. Insane regulations that are forced upon all member states kill off traditional business and lead to land grabs and people being forced from their home countries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-dev...ng?INTCMP=SRCH

Although peasant farmers and smallholders have been moving off the land for decades, speculators and commodity crop farmers are taking over vast tracts of land, says the 200-page report.

This is seen widely in former Soviet states, say the 25 authors in 11 countries. In Ukraine, 10 giant agro-holdings now control about 2.8m hectares. One oligarch alone controls more than 500,000 hectares. Chinese companies have moved into Bulgaria on a large scale and Middle Eastern companies are now major producers in Romania.

The exploitation that is common in the EU is just one of the MANY problems caused by the attempts to create the super national state in Europe. My main point has always been; The EU is not in the interest of the people in the poor states. As long as we are part of the EU our economies will suffer and our people will be exploited.

[Deleted]

http://www.inquire-magazine.com/2013...ion-in-sweden/

I know what program they're from. It's very sensationalist at times. Come with something that's not two sensationalist reporters being sensationalist.

[Cybran]

I know what program they're from. It's very sensationalist at times. Come with something that's not two sensationalist reporters being sensationalist.

"I don't like what you are saying so I will attack the source"

http://www.thelocal.se/45880/20130129/#.UXE6w6Lrwl8

the majority of the permits have gone to workers in the restaurant, construction, and cleaning industries - areas that are already saturated with Swedish workers and where unemployment levels are high.

Ingesson estimates that at least half of the workers with two-year work permits in Sweden have paid for them.

He claims that between 5,000 and 10,000 permits have been sold, with prices from 30,000 kronor ($4,670) all the way up to over 100,000 kronor.

"Some buy their work permit contract, and get a safer way through the Schengen area, but they don't necessarily get a job," he explained.

"Or they buy it through 'installment' - that is, foreigners working for slave wages, thereby dumping the labour market for the unemployed in Sweden."

Using the law to make money from people's desperation and misery. What I have been saying all along.

[Deleted]

Using the law to make money from people's desperation and misery. What I have been saying all along.

Have you watched the program? I have, and I know that while there is a lot of truth, they spice it up a lot so they get more viewers. You know, like most of media.

I'm not denying there are problems and loopholes. I'm saying there are no laws that allow this stuff. What I'm getting sick of hearing is your constant whining about it. I don't like it. I don't support it. I'm not responsible for it either in any way. I don't support politicians that thinks this is okay. I don't know who they are either. I don't know why they allow these loopholes. Perhaps they're not fixable? Perhaps fixing them would impact the Swedish economy more than it's worth, or the freedom of our 9 million inhabitants.

You can throw out how many links you want, the thing is: You still don't know jackshit about how things work here, or how it works in the Western world in general. Neither do I or a gigantic part of media. So you're insulting my country and telling it to do reforms that you have no real idea of what impact they'll do and then telling the population we're assholes because we're not listening to you. How about this: Stop complaining about my country, that is generally considered one of the most fair, prosperous and free countries in the world and look at your own country. What are you going to do to make it better than mine?

[Cybran]

You can throw out how many links you want, the thing is: You still don't know jackshit about how things work here, or how it works in the Western world in general. Neither do I or a gigantic part of media. So you're insulting my country and telling it to do reforms that you have no real idea of what impact they'll do and then telling the population we're assholes because we're not listening to you. How about this: Stop complaining about my country, that is generally considered one of the most fair, prosperous and free countries in the world and look at your own country. What are you going to do to make it better than mine?

I am stating the state of affairs in the EU. If you don't like to hear it you are free to ignore me or unsubscribe from this thread. As long as people are abused and their economies are destroyed by the EU and western countries I will keep objecting the Abuse.

[Deleted]

I am stating the state of affairs in the EU. If you don't like to hear it you are free to ignore me or unsubscribe from this thread. As long as people are abused and their economies are destroyed by the EU and western countries I will keep objecting the Abuse.

Okay, just wanted to say you're being unrealistic about your criticism, and if you're aware of that then I have nothing else to add.

[Ravenblade]

The primary context for me has always been (post #87): The EU benefits the large economies and destroys the small ones. Skilled workers from the periphery are sucked in and used by the big economies. Low skilled workers are used for cheap labor which often results in exploitation. Women and Children fall victim to human trafficking, which has been on the rise (since the poorer countries joined) and is demand driven. Insane regulations that are forced upon all member states kill off traditional business and lead to land grabs and people being forced from their home countries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-dev...ng?INTCMP=SRCH


The exploitation that is common in the EU is just one of the MANY problems caused by the attempts to create the super national state in Europe. My main point has always been; The EU is not in the interest of the people in the poor states. As long as we are part of the EU our economies will suffer and our people will be exploited.

Yes, and you went on quibbling about prostitutes, legalized prostitution, people working illegally here at low or no wages etc. when the greater picture was that no state using said rule about exploitation does so as part of a state or sanctioned policy of exploitation and slavery. The state governments are merely regulators and mediators and if economy screws up they have to act as saviours as well.

As for your article, you are preaching to the choir here, everyone knows that CAP is a controversial measure. I have even mentioned it early in the beginning (cue: milk quota). So I am not going to debate that again. But it has merely something to do how subsidies are truly distributed in the end and how it affects local economies. The criticism of that has long been going on and it did not just affect small and poor countries but actually all member states incl. the richer ones. Since they are reforming it again there is hope that certain practices will end. So all in all it does not serve your argument that the EU is an organization for sanctioned slavery that well, if your argument would have been that CAP sucks and encouraged non-EU landgrabbers to cash in on EU subsidies then this would have been an excellent article indeed.

Fact: With or without the EU the rich countries would still economically exploit less rich countries as this is the case with capitalism in general, this rule does not only apply to the EU but other rich economical entities as well. Everybody with a socialist interest would most likely agree with you that there are still roads not taken for improving labour standards and dealing with inequalities. You are only in the EU since six years and you want to quit, other countries have been threatening with quitting since decades, in the end instead of running away from problems which will catch up with you anyway through another hidden path it's better to deal with them heads-on. But not with a populist spin please especially in a case where there's no single saint left.

[Recurrence]

Saw something about the UK earlier, and this is an example that unification does not always satisfy a country or regions needs.

Scotland are currently seeking independence as they feel they have the short straw in the UK, economically they do suffer; but they would still be worse off as an independent country in my opinion.

But yeah there will always be one country in a unification that will always be on the bad end, nobody wants that - however in some cases even if countries are on the bad end of the deal they may still be better off than when they were in the first place.

[Cybran]

Fact: With or without the EU the rich countries would still economically exploit less rich countries as this is the case with capitalism in general, this rule does not only apply to the EU but other rich economical entities as well. Everybody with a socialist interest would most likely agree with you that there are still roads not taken for improving labour standards and dealing with inequalities.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-e...icle621422.ece (2010)

http://www.thelocal.se/35756/20110825/#.UXFGrKLrwl8 (2011)

http://www.economist.com/node/21559956 (2012)

http://www.thelocal.se/42192/20120723/#.UXFGjKLrwl8 (2012+)

When the same country (Sweden) exploits people year after year it becomes obvious that there is no desire to solve the problem and that worker abuse will continue (even deteriorate). Why stay in such a union?

You are only in the EU since six years and you want to quit, other countries have been threatening with quitting since decades, in the end instead of running away from problems which will catch up with you anyway through another hidden path it's better to deal with them heads-on. But not with a populist spin please especially in a case where there's no single saint left.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...he-crisis.html

The only thing that the EU has to offer is continued poverty. We have been following orders from Brussels and Berlin for the past 20 years. It's enough.

[Ravenblade]

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-e...icle621422.ece (2010)

http://www.thelocal.se/35756/20110825/#.UXFGrKLrwl8 (2011)

http://www.economist.com/node/21559956 (2012)

http://www.thelocal.se/42192/20120723/#.UXFGjKLrwl8 (2012+)

When the same country (Sweden) exploits people year after year it becomes obvious that there is no desire to solve the problem and that worker abuse will continue (even deteriorate). Why stay in such a union?

So Swedish companies and employment agencies playing with non-NP-complete sets of laws and regulations of their country is because of the EU? As far as I am aware there is nothing within the EU labour law which would stop them from doing what they could do if the intentions went for the better.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...he-crisis.html

The only thing that the EU has to offer is continued poverty. We have been following orders from Brussels and Berlin for the past 20 years. It's enough.

I doubt you have listened to Berlin since 20 years. Besides I like how the word "German" in that article has a very negative connotation already. The coalition in charge is fiscally conservative, naturally so is their stance on EU matters but it is not de-facto German. If any all German parties have different views on EU matters, the leftist think we should get Euro bonds now, open the labour market, start aggressively campaigning for more immigrants and fall into a perpetual mea culpa mode; the conservatives retain that austerity will save us all and that their way is best and anyone thinking otherwise is an Euro-destroying scumbag who deserves to be called names like 'reactionary populist'.

[Cybran]

So Swedish companies and employment agencies playing with non-NP-complete sets of laws and regulations of their country is because of the EU? As far as I am aware there is nothing within the EU labour law which would stop them from doing what they could do if the intentions went for the better.

Sweden is one of many EU countries that has high demand for cheap labor. EU means that this cheap labor role will be filled by nationals of the less fortunate states. I don't want to see any more Bulgarians, Romanians or Baltic nationals exploited.

I doubt you have listened to Berlin since 20 years. Besides I like how the word "German" in that article has a very negative connotation already. The coalition in charge is fiscally conservative, naturally so is their stance on EU matters but it is not de-facto German. If any all German parties have different views on EU matters, the leftist think we should get Euro bonds now, open the labour market, start aggressively campaigning for more immigrants and fall into a perpetual mea culpa mode; the conservatives retain that austerity will save us all and that their way is best and anyone thinking otherwise is an Euro-destroying scumbag who deserves to be called names like 'reactionary populist'.

Fair. 20 years was an overstatement. After the finantial crisis that wiped away the savings of 3 generations of people (including my grandparents and parents) people have been voting for different parties, but they all followed orders from Brussels and Berlin. Our currency was pegged to the Deutsch Mark in 1999. Every institution has been monitored.

http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/...dossier-188292

Since 1997 every government has been bending over backward to please the EC. So it's been 16 years, not 20. However the end result has been terrible and a waste.

[Ettan]

Other benefits for small countries in EU:
- subsidies, especially infrastructure, primary sectors (agriculture etc), and research
- disproportionately large power within EU governance. Power in EU is not based on population or economics. It is almost always one country, one vote. This means small countries have the same technical and legislative power as Germany or France
- freedom of travel
- freedom of labor. People in small countries within the EU do not have to feel trapped. They can travel to work anywhere within the EU
- the smaller a country you are, the more benefit you gain from joining a single currency. Centralized monetary policy has the least impact, but you gain massively from currency confidence and stability, plus the ability to borrow from the single currency market participants via public and private debt issuance and other means. Of course, if you do way too much of this to the point where it is unsustainable or commit strongly to a country business model that could never exist independently, then you could be in BIG trouble later (as Cyprus is finding out)...

There's basically no downsides to joining the EU. It is effectively "free money" and a permanent economic and political boost on the international stage.

By contrast, there are very serious downsides to joining the Eurozone as a large country, both for yourself and existing members. The balance is overall positive, even now, let alone increasingly in the future to being within just the EU though. Also, possibly unlike the Euro, the EU for sure is never going anywhere.

Your full of shit.
No downside? Free money?
1. Loss of sovereignty, your people are no longer free to govern their own nation, loss of freedom.
2. If you are a wealthy nation (tiny or large), what is there to gain? Absolutely nothing.
You will end up financing shittier countries, paying their welfare checks.
3. Agricultural subsidies is not one of the bonuses of joining the EU, Note free trade.
(EEC-> EU) is very opposed to the whole notion of subsidies and tariffs within the union, it is founded to limit that.
For a wealthy outside nation joining EU it would naturally mean reduced subsidies for their farmers.

[Elegiac]

Your full of shit.
No downside? Free money?
1. Loss of sovereignty, your people are no longer free to govern their own nation, loss of freedom.

Which is why the EU government isn't composed of people elected by voters or appointed by those elected officials, right?

2. If you are a wealthy nation (tiny or large), what is there to gain? Absolutely nothing.

A common market, an unhindered flow of goods and people, more political strength internationally.

3. Agricultural subsidies is not one of the bonuses of joining the EU, Note free trade.

The CAP is by nature a subsidy; I'd call that a bonus since it improves the quality of product for consumers in every EU state.

---------- Post added 2013-04-19 at 09:46 PM ----------

Sweden is one of many EU countries that has high demand for cheap labor. EU means that this cheap labor role will be filled by nationals of the less fortunate states. I don't want to see any more Bulgarians, Romanians or Baltic nationals exploited.

Which would happen with or without the EU. Do you think America has to be in a Union with Mexico in order to acquire cheap labor from its nationals?

The critical difference is that under the EU, nationals of the peripheral countries have or might obtain more recourse against such practices. It is better to be an insider when trying to resolve a systemic problem.

[Cybran]

Which is why the EU government isn't composed of people elected by voters or appointed by those elected officials, right?

The number of officals is dictated by the size of the country.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/map.html

Germany has the most and gets to call the shots. Plus, the parlament is useless.

A common market, an unhindered flow of goods and people, more political strength internationally.

The people who benefit from a global market are the rich countries that can afford the EU taxes, regulations and bureaucracy. New members are usually failing to comply with all EU restrictions and their market becomes dominated by the richer countries.

The CAP is by nature a subsidy; I'd call that a bonus since it improves the quality of product for consumers in every EU state.

The CAP is there to make sure EU vegetables are able to compete with non-EU vegetables pricewise. CAP is also extremely hard to get and locked behind bureaucracy and regulations. This is why large companies have been cashing in and killing off traditional farmer's livelihood.

Which would happen with or without the EU. Do you think America has to be in a Union with Mexico in order to acquire cheap labor from its nationals?
The critical difference is that under the EU, nationals of the peripheral countries have or might obtain more recourse against such practices. It is better to be an insider when trying to resolve a systemic problem.

The difference is the Scale. It's been happening more than ever before, because people are fooled by their EU citizen status failing to see that they are second class.