"EU seeks alignment not only on Ukraine"

Serbia needs to harmonise its policies with those of the EU. Fair enough. If you aspire to join a club you will have to conform to its regulations. This way you reap the benefits but are expected to live up to certain obligations. Its give and take.
If Serbia scores so poorly then its high time for its politicians to get to grips with reality. The truth is there is no way to compromise. You either accept the rules of the EU organistation or you get out.

Serbia needs to harmonise its policies with those of the EU. Fair enough. If you aspire to join a club you will have to conform to its regulations. This way you reap the benefits but are expected to live up to certain obligations. Its give and take.
If Serbia scores so poorly then its high time for its politicians to get to grips with reality. The truth is there is no way to compromise. You either accept the rules of the EU organistation or you get out.
(T, 17 December 2014 10:35)

What "benefits" is the EU offering even its own member-states right now? Eroding national sovereignty and independence in exchange for an unelected commission like this "EC" setting dictates for everyone to follow. The arrogance of these pricks, pretending to still be a growing empire when the EU project has seen its best days a long, long time ago. Europeans are starting to catch on too. The fastest growing political parties in UK, France, Austria, Italy etc. are all EUroskeptic.

I agree Serbia should either accept the EU rules or get out. I vote for get out

Serbia will never join the EU. The politicians in Belgrade are only squeezing every last Euro out of Brussels they can. They get paid for singing the Euro song.

This topic is getting boring, does B92 have any other news?

Are there going to be some more famous 'unofficial non-conditions' yet again? What a joke. If Brussels cannot accept the letter of their own laws and rules, then why does Belgrade?

And after a condition and an obstacle comes another, and another and another .... in an endless succession of conditions. Usually, when someone demands something, is able to give something back, right? What gives the EU? Dilated promises only, in a time that never comes.

And what is Serbia's position on Iraq and Syria?!

Serbia's and EU's foreign policies do need harmonizing, and I wouldn't mind that at all.
I propose the following procedure:

"The procedure is as follows: either a statement similar in content to what was already published by Serbia is written, or it is just pointed out that the EU agrees with a specific Serbian declaration, which the administration in Belgrade then specifies in its document."

What "benefits" is the EU offering even its own member-states right now?
(Ari Gold, 17 December 2014 12:14)

It's offering enough to make their citizens want to be in the EU rather than out if it.
----------

Eroding national sovereignty and independence
(Ari Gold, 17 December 2014 12:14)

Well, that happens also when a country joins the United Nations, for example. By doing that it accepts, for example, the authority of the UN Security Council which is much less "elected" than the European Commission.
----------

in exchange for an unelected commission like this "EC" setting dictates for everyone to follow.
(Ari Gold, 17 December 2014 12:14)

The European Commission (the excecutive branch of the European Union) is appointed by the Member States and approved by the European Parliament and the Council (the legislative branch of the European Union) similarly to many civilized countries globally. Most governments globally are unelected, but they are appointed and approved by the national legislatures. Do you go to the ballot box and vote for who's going to be the Minister of Finance, Foreign Affairs, etc. etc.?
----------

I agree Serbia should either accept the EU rules or get out. I vote for get out
(Ari Gold, 17 December 2014 12:14)

Kosovars also agree with you here and vote for Serbia to not become an EU member. But just because you want Serbia not to be part of the European Union, it does not mean that the European Union is bad.

Serbia's and EU's foreign policies do need harmonizing, and I wouldn't mind that at all.
I propose the following procedure:

"The procedure is as follows: either a statement similar in content to what was already published by Serbia is written, or it is just pointed out that the EU agrees with a specific Serbian declaration, which the administration in Belgrade then specifies in its document."
(Sreten, 17 December 2014 21:51)

Sreten,
Stop trying to be cute.The kind of trick you are trying to pull off by rearranging words in a document, to you advantage, is the same that Serbia attempted at Rambouillet and ultimately got its ass bombed. Have you learned nothing from the whooping your country received back in 1999.

The European Commission (the excecutive branch of the European Union) is appointed by the Member States and approved by the European Parliament and the Council (the legislative branch of the European Union) similarly to many civilized countries globally. Most governments globally are unelected, but they are appointed and approved by the national legislatures.

just because you want Serbia not to be part of the European Union, it does not mean that the European Union is bad.
(icj1, 18 December 2014 01:08)

And in none of that process do the people of Europe actually elect the decision makers in the EU. They elect the MEP's which are allowed to debate law but not allowed to actually enact any legislation or amend. Just like a rubber stamp kind of thing like the Soviet Parliament.

And besides, the whole point is that the EU isn't a country and the people of Europe never signed up to be in a superstate where democracy is only a formality. And the undeniable reality is as the EU has taken on more state-like abilities, Europe has declined rapidly. In the 80s, the EU had 40% of share in global trade. Today it's 25% projected to be at 12% in a decades time.

It's not just me who is seeing this EU for what it really is. Millions of people all over Europe are seeing it too. Left wing, right wing, northern Europe and southern, people for sometimes completely different reasons are against the EU's existence.

And in none of that process do the people of Europe actually elect the decision makers in the EU.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Of course, they do. Let me repeat it again. The people of the EU elect the legislative brach of the EU (i.e. the European Parliament and the Council) which, in turn appoints tht EU's government (the European Commission). Exactly the same happens in most civilzied countries where the people elect the legislative and the legislative appoints the government. What's so hard for you to grasp?! Do you live in a country on Earth?
----------

They elect the MEP's which are allowed to debate law but not allowed to actually enact any legislation or amend.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Well, the European Commission (the EU government) proposes most laws and the European Parliament AND the Council (the EU legislative branch) enact them. That is the same as, for example, both the US House of Representatives and the Senate have to agree on a law to be adopted. So, yes, the US Senate can't enact a law by itself, it needs the US House to agree as well, but what's the problem that you see in all of that?!

And besides, the whole point is that the EU isn't a country
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Ok, and what's the problem with that? The UN Security Council is not a country, too :) You appear to want to start with not liking something and then try to come up with the reasons why you don't like it. It normally works the other way around otherwise you may not find reasons, as you aren't indeed.
----------

and the people of Europe never signed up to be in a superstate where democracy is only a formality.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

The people of countries which are part of the EU did sign up for being in the EU otherwise they would not be there. Aren't you aware that each country which became part of the EU did so by ratifying a treaty on becoming an EU member?!
----------

It's not just me who is seeing this EU for what it really is. Millions of people all over Europe are seeing it too.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Ok, let's say it is so, but many more millions are seeing it differently.
----------

Left wing, right wing, northern Europe and southern, people for sometimes completely different reasons are against the EU's existence.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Ok, let's say it is so, but the majority of the people in each EU member country is for EU's existence and that's how things are decided in democracy. You understand that better than everybody, especially since you appear to be such a strong advocate for democracy.

And the undeniable reality is as the EU has taken on more state-like abilities, Europe has declined rapidly. In the 80s, the EU had 40% of share in global trade. Today it's 25% projected to be at 12% in a decades time.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Oh dear, that's how you measure the decline by the reduction of the share of the global trade loooool. Luxembourg has a miniscule share of the global trade, but it does not appear to be that bad living in Luxembourg compared to most of the rest of the world :)

So, yes, EU's share in global trade has decreased as other poor countries have become less poor. And than what? What does that have to do with EU's existence?! Even if the EU were not to exist, the sum of the shares of global trade of individual countries (which are currently EU members) would have declined regardless.

In other words you are confusing correlation with causation. For example, the undeniable reality is as the EU has taken on more state-like abilities the Earth's rotation has slown down. According to your logic, if the EU had not existed, that would not have happened. So, do you see mate that your "reasoning" is not making any sense. That's what happens when you just regurgitate unsubstantiated myths that you read on Serbianna.com or somewhere else similar to that.

Are there going to be some more famous 'unofficial non-conditions' yet again? What a joke. If Brussels cannot accept the letter of their own laws and rules, then why does Belgrade?

Serbia will never join the EU. The politicians in Belgrade are only squeezing every last Euro out of Brussels they can. They get paid for singing the Euro song.

Serbia needs to harmonise its policies with those of the EU. Fair enough. If you aspire to join a club you will have to conform to its regulations. This way you reap the benefits but are expected to live up to certain obligations. Its give and take.
If Serbia scores so poorly then its high time for its politicians to get to grips with reality. The truth is there is no way to compromise. You either accept the rules of the EU organistation or you get out.

Serbia needs to harmonise its policies with those of the EU. Fair enough. If you aspire to join a club you will have to conform to its regulations. This way you reap the benefits but are expected to live up to certain obligations. Its give and take.
If Serbia scores so poorly then its high time for its politicians to get to grips with reality. The truth is there is no way to compromise. You either accept the rules of the EU organistation or you get out.
(T, 17 December 2014 10:35)

What "benefits" is the EU offering even its own member-states right now? Eroding national sovereignty and independence in exchange for an unelected commission like this "EC" setting dictates for everyone to follow. The arrogance of these pricks, pretending to still be a growing empire when the EU project has seen its best days a long, long time ago. Europeans are starting to catch on too. The fastest growing political parties in UK, France, Austria, Italy etc. are all EUroskeptic.

I agree Serbia should either accept the EU rules or get out. I vote for get out

The European Commission (the excecutive branch of the European Union) is appointed by the Member States and approved by the European Parliament and the Council (the legislative branch of the European Union) similarly to many civilized countries globally. Most governments globally are unelected, but they are appointed and approved by the national legislatures.

just because you want Serbia not to be part of the European Union, it does not mean that the European Union is bad.
(icj1, 18 December 2014 01:08)

And in none of that process do the people of Europe actually elect the decision makers in the EU. They elect the MEP's which are allowed to debate law but not allowed to actually enact any legislation or amend. Just like a rubber stamp kind of thing like the Soviet Parliament.

And besides, the whole point is that the EU isn't a country and the people of Europe never signed up to be in a superstate where democracy is only a formality. And the undeniable reality is as the EU has taken on more state-like abilities, Europe has declined rapidly. In the 80s, the EU had 40% of share in global trade. Today it's 25% projected to be at 12% in a decades time.

It's not just me who is seeing this EU for what it really is. Millions of people all over Europe are seeing it too. Left wing, right wing, northern Europe and southern, people for sometimes completely different reasons are against the EU's existence.

Serbia's and EU's foreign policies do need harmonizing, and I wouldn't mind that at all.
I propose the following procedure:

"The procedure is as follows: either a statement similar in content to what was already published by Serbia is written, or it is just pointed out that the EU agrees with a specific Serbian declaration, which the administration in Belgrade then specifies in its document."

This topic is getting boring, does B92 have any other news?

What "benefits" is the EU offering even its own member-states right now?
(Ari Gold, 17 December 2014 12:14)

It's offering enough to make their citizens want to be in the EU rather than out if it.
----------

Eroding national sovereignty and independence
(Ari Gold, 17 December 2014 12:14)

Well, that happens also when a country joins the United Nations, for example. By doing that it accepts, for example, the authority of the UN Security Council which is much less "elected" than the European Commission.
----------

in exchange for an unelected commission like this "EC" setting dictates for everyone to follow.
(Ari Gold, 17 December 2014 12:14)

The European Commission (the excecutive branch of the European Union) is appointed by the Member States and approved by the European Parliament and the Council (the legislative branch of the European Union) similarly to many civilized countries globally. Most governments globally are unelected, but they are appointed and approved by the national legislatures. Do you go to the ballot box and vote for who's going to be the Minister of Finance, Foreign Affairs, etc. etc.?
----------

I agree Serbia should either accept the EU rules or get out. I vote for get out
(Ari Gold, 17 December 2014 12:14)

Kosovars also agree with you here and vote for Serbia to not become an EU member. But just because you want Serbia not to be part of the European Union, it does not mean that the European Union is bad.

Serbia's and EU's foreign policies do need harmonizing, and I wouldn't mind that at all.
I propose the following procedure:

"The procedure is as follows: either a statement similar in content to what was already published by Serbia is written, or it is just pointed out that the EU agrees with a specific Serbian declaration, which the administration in Belgrade then specifies in its document."
(Sreten, 17 December 2014 21:51)

Sreten,
Stop trying to be cute.The kind of trick you are trying to pull off by rearranging words in a document, to you advantage, is the same that Serbia attempted at Rambouillet and ultimately got its ass bombed. Have you learned nothing from the whooping your country received back in 1999.

And after a condition and an obstacle comes another, and another and another .... in an endless succession of conditions. Usually, when someone demands something, is able to give something back, right? What gives the EU? Dilated promises only, in a time that never comes.

And what is Serbia's position on Iraq and Syria?!

And in none of that process do the people of Europe actually elect the decision makers in the EU.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Of course, they do. Let me repeat it again. The people of the EU elect the legislative brach of the EU (i.e. the European Parliament and the Council) which, in turn appoints tht EU's government (the European Commission). Exactly the same happens in most civilzied countries where the people elect the legislative and the legislative appoints the government. What's so hard for you to grasp?! Do you live in a country on Earth?
----------

They elect the MEP's which are allowed to debate law but not allowed to actually enact any legislation or amend.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Well, the European Commission (the EU government) proposes most laws and the European Parliament AND the Council (the EU legislative branch) enact them. That is the same as, for example, both the US House of Representatives and the Senate have to agree on a law to be adopted. So, yes, the US Senate can't enact a law by itself, it needs the US House to agree as well, but what's the problem that you see in all of that?!

And besides, the whole point is that the EU isn't a country
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Ok, and what's the problem with that? The UN Security Council is not a country, too :) You appear to want to start with not liking something and then try to come up with the reasons why you don't like it. It normally works the other way around otherwise you may not find reasons, as you aren't indeed.
----------

and the people of Europe never signed up to be in a superstate where democracy is only a formality.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

The people of countries which are part of the EU did sign up for being in the EU otherwise they would not be there. Aren't you aware that each country which became part of the EU did so by ratifying a treaty on becoming an EU member?!
----------

It's not just me who is seeing this EU for what it really is. Millions of people all over Europe are seeing it too.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Ok, let's say it is so, but many more millions are seeing it differently.
----------

Left wing, right wing, northern Europe and southern, people for sometimes completely different reasons are against the EU's existence.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Ok, let's say it is so, but the majority of the people in each EU member country is for EU's existence and that's how things are decided in democracy. You understand that better than everybody, especially since you appear to be such a strong advocate for democracy.

And the undeniable reality is as the EU has taken on more state-like abilities, Europe has declined rapidly. In the 80s, the EU had 40% of share in global trade. Today it's 25% projected to be at 12% in a decades time.
(Ari Gold, 18 December 2014 10:17)

Oh dear, that's how you measure the decline by the reduction of the share of the global trade loooool. Luxembourg has a miniscule share of the global trade, but it does not appear to be that bad living in Luxembourg compared to most of the rest of the world :)

So, yes, EU's share in global trade has decreased as other poor countries have become less poor. And than what? What does that have to do with EU's existence?! Even if the EU were not to exist, the sum of the shares of global trade of individual countries (which are currently EU members) would have declined regardless.

In other words you are confusing correlation with causation. For example, the undeniable reality is as the EU has taken on more state-like abilities the Earth's rotation has slown down. According to your logic, if the EU had not existed, that would not have happened. So, do you see mate that your "reasoning" is not making any sense. That's what happens when you just regurgitate unsubstantiated myths that you read on Serbianna.com or somewhere else similar to that.