Our Lands
Friday, April 30, 2004--Andis Kaulins [4/30/2004 03:22:00 PM] - Home
ATOM vs. RSS - Advantages of ATOM - The Monopolists Lose
ATOM vs. RSS - Advantages of ATOM - The Monopolists Lose
No one is bigger than the market.
Jason Cook at Hot Wired's WebMonkey (a great site for web development) has an article entitled "Mighty Atom: Really Similar Syndication?" in which Cook discusses the advantages of the ATOM feed format over RSS. Cook also includes the major ATOM specifications.
Law Pundit is of the opinion that the ATOM format may ultimately prevail over RSS because ATOM is a simpler, more modern, and more open information syndication platform.
Pros and Cons
For some of the arguments involved, see the discussion at:
XMLMania.com
and
Ten Reasons Why
LawPundit prefers ATOM
LawPundit prefers ATOM because at Blogger, the ATOM feed works perfectly and automatically - indeed, the average user does not want to - or have to - mess with programming his or her own syndicated feeds, as with RSS.
Prior to ATOM, LawPundit had nothing but trouble with RSS, including the inability to find a freely available RSS generator which would easily and automatically create reliable up-to-date RSS feeds of complex pages. See the previous posting for evidence that others shared this difficulty. RSS makers were concerned with THEIR format but not with the actual problems faced by the USERS.
Competition is the Way of Capitalism
Now that RSS has to face competition, the RSS makers - who were otherwise rigid in their copyright-based development inertia - have suddenly become conciliatory, but, in our opinion, it is too late.
The fact that the copyrighted RSS format was transferred to the Harvard Berkman Center is beside the point. The competition does not sleep and has not slept, that is the capitalistic way - that is the normal way of the world.
It is in fact remarkable that some people in the internet industry still have not learned that there are few things that the average user hates more than proprietary software formats which are forced on the user. In open competition against DOS and then later Windows, for example, where DOS was long the inferior product but was much more open to hardware manufacturers and software application programmers, both IBM and Apple lost the OS (operating system) battle because they persisted in monopolistic proprietary practices. IBM - once a holder of 85 percent of the computer market - paid the price of monopolistic greed and lost much of its market share. Apple not only persisted in monopolizing its operating system but forced users to buy only THEIR brand name hardware from distributors organized in a strict pyramid-like scheme (Apple Points and that kind of nonsense). This strategy proved more or less disastrous in the long term and the power and greed of monopoly thinking nearly killed the company.
Adobe and the .pdf Monopoly
Another candidate on our list of monopolists is Adobe and its .pdf format. For years, Adobe Reader was of course "free" to anyone who wanted to "read" a .pdf file, but if you yourself wanted to write a .pdf file you had to buy Adobe software costing thousands of dollars - absolutely out of the question for your normal user. In fact, such software is still exorbitant. This was and is a lucrative scam for Adobe at the COST of the user. But users have long memories.
Hence, when able, we at LawPundit use alternative formats to .pdf, for which we see no compelling advantage, quite the contrary - we still grumble whenever substantial time is again uselessly lost "downloading" a .pdf document on the internet. This is not what WE the users want. One alternative might be to pass laws prohibiting government agencies from using proprietary formats such as .pdf - by using .pdf we think that governments are throwing away the taxpayers' money. The universal .doc format is sufficient for documentation and there are many reasonably priced programs for the .doc format. There is no reason for the federal or state governments to line the pockets of monopolists.
Microsoft Windows is now suffering similar monopoly problems while facing increasing competition from Linux. Frankly, Microsoft would be better off in the long run in sticking to a more open policy. The more monopolistic Microsoft becomes, the greater will be the risk that the company crumbles down the road due to its own greed for power, a power which is illusory. The power is still in the hands of the people - as represented by every single computer user worldwide - ultimately, THEY decide, and not the companies who provide software or hardware services.
NO ONE is bigger than the market.
RSS may survive, but it will now have to play by the rules of competition.
In the long run, the USER will profit, and that is as it should be.
ATOM vs. RSS - Advantages of ATOM - The Monopolists Lose
ATOM vs. RSS - Advantages of ATOM - The Monopolists Lose
No one is bigger than the market.
Jason Cook at Hot Wired's WebMonkey (a great site for web development) has an article entitled "Mighty Atom: Really Similar Syndication?" in which Cook discusses the advantages of the ATOM feed format over RSS. Cook also includes the major ATOM specifications.
Law Pundit is of the opinion that the ATOM format may ultimately prevail over RSS because ATOM is a simpler, more modern, and more open information syndication platform.
Pros and Cons
For some of the arguments involved, see the discussion at:
XMLMania.com
and
Ten Reasons Why
LawPundit prefers ATOM
LawPundit prefers ATOM because at Blogger, the ATOM feed works perfectly and automatically - indeed, the average user does not want to - or have to - mess with programming his or her own syndicated feeds, as with RSS.
Prior to ATOM, LawPundit had nothing but trouble with RSS, including the inability to find a freely available RSS generator which would easily and automatically create reliable up-to-date RSS feeds of complex pages. See the previous posting for evidence that others shared this difficulty. RSS makers were concerned with THEIR format but not with the actual problems faced by the USERS.
Competition is the Way of Capitalism
Now that RSS has to face competition, the RSS makers - who were otherwise rigid in their copyright-based development inertia - have suddenly become conciliatory, but, in our opinion, it is too late.
The fact that the copyrighted RSS format was transferred to the Harvard Berkman Center is beside the point. The competition does not sleep and has not slept, that is the capitalistic way - that is the normal way of the world.
It is in fact remarkable that some people in the internet industry still have not learned that there are few things that the average user hates more than proprietary software formats which are forced on the user. In open competition against DOS and then later Windows, for example, where DOS was long the inferior product but was much more open to hardware manufacturers and software application programmers, both IBM and Apple lost the OS (operating system) battle because they persisted in monopolistic proprietary practices. IBM - once a holder of 85 percent of the computer market - paid the price of monopolistic greed and lost much of its market share. Apple not only persisted in monopolizing its operating system but forced users to buy only THEIR brand name hardware from distributors organized in a strict pyramid-like scheme (Apple Points and that kind of nonsense). This strategy proved more or less disastrous in the long term and the power and greed of monopoly thinking nearly killed the company.
Adobe and the .pdf Monopoly
Another candidate on our list of monopolists is Adobe and its .pdf format. For years, Adobe Reader was of course "free" to anyone who wanted to "read" a .pdf file, but if you yourself wanted to write a .pdf file you had to buy Adobe software costing thousands of dollars - absolutely out of the question for your normal user. In fact, such software is still exorbitant. This was and is a lucrative scam for Adobe at the COST of the user. But users have long memories.
Hence, when able, we at LawPundit use alternative formats to .pdf, for which we see no compelling advantage, quite the contrary - we still grumble whenever substantial time is again uselessly lost "downloading" a .pdf document on the internet. This is not what WE the users want. One alternative might be to pass laws prohibiting government agencies from using proprietary formats such as .pdf - by using .pdf we think that governments are throwing away the taxpayers' money. The universal .doc format is sufficient for documentation and there are many reasonably priced programs for the .doc format. There is no reason for the federal or state governments to line the pockets of monopolists.
Microsoft Windows is now suffering similar monopoly problems while facing increasing competition from Linux. Frankly, Microsoft would be better off in the long run in sticking to a more open policy. The more monopolistic Microsoft becomes, the greater will be the risk that the company crumbles down the road due to its own greed for power, a power which is illusory. The power is still in the hands of the people - as represented by every single computer user worldwide - ultimately, THEY decide, and not the companies who provide software or hardware services.
NO ONE is bigger than the market.
RSS may survive, but it will now have to play by the rules of competition.
In the long run, the USER will profit, and that is as it should be.
Permalink
Tuesday, April 20, 2004--Andis Kaulins [4/20/2004 10:59:00 PM] - Home
RSS and ATOM feed generation
RSS and ATOM feed generation
Frederic R. Abramson - at his new blawg Law, Current Events and Culture - raises a question about RSS feed generation. My answers to his question, including additional links for purposes of this website posting, are as follows:
My site, LawPundit, also runs through Blogger - as does yours - and they have their own ATOM syndicating format, which is read without problem by aggregators such as e.g. Newsgator and Bloglines. Since about 50 percent of all blogs in the US run through Blogger, I imagine all aggregators will be ATOM-compatible within a short period of time, so that being RSS-compatible (the competing original technology) will become a moot issue. Dave Winer, father of RSS, has recently made some overtures to the ATOM-makers to combine the two formats, but in view of the fact that Google now owns Blogger, I would imagine that ATOM is here to stay.
See
http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=697
and
http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=698&topic=36
for how you make an ATOM feed.
You can of course have both an ATOM feed and an RSS feed on your site at the same time.
Feedster has a page devoted to RSS generation at
http://www.feedster.com/tools.php
and you can create an RSS feed with Feedster starting at that page.
BlogStreet has an RSS generator but it does not work with LawPundit.
RSS and ATOM feed generation
RSS and ATOM feed generation
Frederic R. Abramson - at his new blawg Law, Current Events and Culture - raises a question about RSS feed generation. My answers to his question, including additional links for purposes of this website posting, are as follows:
My site, LawPundit, also runs through Blogger - as does yours - and they have their own ATOM syndicating format, which is read without problem by aggregators such as e.g. Newsgator and Bloglines. Since about 50 percent of all blogs in the US run through Blogger, I imagine all aggregators will be ATOM-compatible within a short period of time, so that being RSS-compatible (the competing original technology) will become a moot issue. Dave Winer, father of RSS, has recently made some overtures to the ATOM-makers to combine the two formats, but in view of the fact that Google now owns Blogger, I would imagine that ATOM is here to stay.
See
http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=697
and
http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=698&topic=36
for how you make an ATOM feed.
You can of course have both an ATOM feed and an RSS feed on your site at the same time.
Feedster has a page devoted to RSS generation at
http://www.feedster.com/tools.php
and you can create an RSS feed with Feedster starting at that page.
BlogStreet has an RSS generator but it does not work with LawPundit.
Thursday, April 15, 2004--Andis Kaulins [4/15/2004 09:55:00 PM] - Home
The Euro - Currency in Europe and in the European Union Member States as of May 1, 2004 - Map
The Euro - Currency in Europe and in the European Union Member States as of May 1, 2004 - Map
Status of the Euro and other Currencies in Europe
On May 1, 2004, ten (10) additional countries will become New Member States of the European Union (EU).
The map below shows the status of the Euro in Europe as of that date.
The Previous 15 EU Member States
12 of 15 of the previous European Union Member States (prior to the ten additions on May 1, 2004) have adopted the Euro as their currency (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Austria, and Greece), with the exceptions being the United Kingdom (which still uses the Pound), Sweden (Swedish Krona) and Denmark (Danish Kroner).
The Euro in Montenegro
Outside of the European Union, the Euro is legal tender in Montenegro - but, as a part of the loose federation of the commonwealth of Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslavia), it is legal tender in Montenegro only. Serbia itself uses the New Dinar as its currency.
The 10 New EU Member States
None of the new European Member States will automatically be able to adopt the Euro as their currency on May 1, 2004. Quite the contrary, they must first join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II (ERM II) and within the first two years of EU membership, their currency can fluctuate only 15 percent either side of the benchmark valuation set as a float against the Euro. In addition, these new EU Member States must also meet the Maastricht criteria on budgets, debt, inflation, and long-term interest rates. Only then - at the earliest in two years - will any new Member State be in a position to qualify for adoption of the Euro as its currency.
The currencies of the ten ascendant European Union Member States are as follows:
Estonia - Kroon, Latvia - Lats, Lithuanian - Litas, Poland - Zloty, Czech Republic - Koruna, Slovakia - Koruna, Hungary - Forint, Slovenia - Tolar, Malta - Lira, and Cyprus - Pound. It will be interesting to see the development of these currencies over the next two years.
The Non-EU European States
The currencies of the remaining European countries which are not European Union Member States are: Norway (Norwegian Kroner), Switzerland (Swiss Francs), Russia (Russian Rubles), Belarus (Belarus Rubles), Ukraine (Hryvna - also spelled Hrivna), Romania (Leu), Moldova (Leu), Bulgaria (Lev), Turkey (Lira), Albania (Lek), Macedonia (Denar), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Marka), Croatia (Kuna), Serbia (New Dinar) and Montenegro (Euro).
For more information on the Euro, see
the European Union website
the European Central Bank Euro website (ECB)
Xenon Laboratories
and the copious links at Lehman Social Sciences Library
with additional superb links to articles dealing with legal aspects of the Euro and the European Union.
The Euro - Currency in Europe and in the European Union Member States as of May 1, 2004 - Map
The Euro - Currency in Europe and in the European Union Member States as of May 1, 2004 - Map
Status of the Euro and other Currencies in Europe
On May 1, 2004, ten (10) additional countries will become New Member States of the European Union (EU).
The map below shows the status of the Euro in Europe as of that date.
The Previous 15 EU Member States
12 of 15 of the previous European Union Member States (prior to the ten additions on May 1, 2004) have adopted the Euro as their currency (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Austria, and Greece), with the exceptions being the United Kingdom (which still uses the Pound), Sweden (Swedish Krona) and Denmark (Danish Kroner).
The Euro in Montenegro
Outside of the European Union, the Euro is legal tender in Montenegro - but, as a part of the loose federation of the commonwealth of Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslavia), it is legal tender in Montenegro only. Serbia itself uses the New Dinar as its currency.
The 10 New EU Member States
None of the new European Member States will automatically be able to adopt the Euro as their currency on May 1, 2004. Quite the contrary, they must first join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II (ERM II) and within the first two years of EU membership, their currency can fluctuate only 15 percent either side of the benchmark valuation set as a float against the Euro. In addition, these new EU Member States must also meet the Maastricht criteria on budgets, debt, inflation, and long-term interest rates. Only then - at the earliest in two years - will any new Member State be in a position to qualify for adoption of the Euro as its currency.
The currencies of the ten ascendant European Union Member States are as follows:
Estonia - Kroon, Latvia - Lats, Lithuanian - Litas, Poland - Zloty, Czech Republic - Koruna, Slovakia - Koruna, Hungary - Forint, Slovenia - Tolar, Malta - Lira, and Cyprus - Pound. It will be interesting to see the development of these currencies over the next two years.
The Non-EU European States
The currencies of the remaining European countries which are not European Union Member States are: Norway (Norwegian Kroner), Switzerland (Swiss Francs), Russia (Russian Rubles), Belarus (Belarus Rubles), Ukraine (Hryvna - also spelled Hrivna), Romania (Leu), Moldova (Leu), Bulgaria (Lev), Turkey (Lira), Albania (Lek), Macedonia (Denar), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Marka), Croatia (Kuna), Serbia (New Dinar) and Montenegro (Euro).
For more information on the Euro, see
the European Union website
the European Central Bank Euro website (ECB)
Xenon Laboratories
and the copious links at Lehman Social Sciences Library
with additional superb links to articles dealing with legal aspects of the Euro and the European Union.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004--Andis Kaulins [4/07/2004 03:24:00 PM] - Home
Utah Spyware Control Act - US Senate Bill, the SPY BLOCK Act
Utah Outlaws Spyware
Unwanted Spyware: Five Stars for Utah - The Utah Spyware Control Act
Via Genie Tyburski's Virtual Chase Newsletter tvc-alert we are directed to the April 02, 2004 article by Tom Spring at PC World reporting on Utah as the first state to outlaw spyware through its "spyware regulation", the the Spyware Control Act, Utah, H.B. 323 (2004).
Utah has thus begun what will surely be a necessary and welcome surge in legislation prohibiting or restricting spyware and/or similarly intrusive unwanted software programs.
Unwanted Software and the SPY BLOCK Act (S. 2145) of the US Senate
LawPundit has already posted previously about an egregious example of a program which installs itself onto computers without actual, knowledgeable consent by the user for such an installation, and, which, upon discovery of the unwanted program, does not allow itself to be uninstalled except with great difficulty.
The SPY BLOCK Act (S. 2145), still pending before the Senate, provides as follows to rid the user of unwanted software installations:
"It is unlawful for any person who is not the user of a protected computer to install computer software on that computer, or to authorize, permit, or cause the installation of computer software on that computer, unless--
(1) the user of the computer has received notice that satisfies the requirements of section 3;
(2) the user of the computer has granted consent that satisfies the requirements of section 3; and
(3) the computer software's uninstall procedures satisfy the requirements of section 3."
Section 3 essentially requires detailed notice and knowledgeable consent for installation of any software program and it also demands a simple and easy "complete" uninstallation of any such installed program..
Although this Bill will yet be amended before (or if) it is enacted as law - the Law Pundit presumes it will be enacted - we are of the opinion that legislation along the lines of S. 2145 is absolutely essential to stop the proliferation of programs which surreptitiously install software on personal computers or do so openly but in a more-or-less fraudulent manner.
Utah Spyware Control Act - US Senate Bill, the SPY BLOCK Act
Utah Outlaws Spyware
Unwanted Spyware: Five Stars for Utah - The Utah Spyware Control Act
Via Genie Tyburski's Virtual Chase Newsletter tvc-alert we are directed to the April 02, 2004 article by Tom Spring at PC World reporting on Utah as the first state to outlaw spyware through its "spyware regulation", the the Spyware Control Act, Utah, H.B. 323 (2004).
Utah has thus begun what will surely be a necessary and welcome surge in legislation prohibiting or restricting spyware and/or similarly intrusive unwanted software programs.
Unwanted Software and the SPY BLOCK Act (S. 2145) of the US Senate
LawPundit has already posted previously about an egregious example of a program which installs itself onto computers without actual, knowledgeable consent by the user for such an installation, and, which, upon discovery of the unwanted program, does not allow itself to be uninstalled except with great difficulty.
The SPY BLOCK Act (S. 2145), still pending before the Senate, provides as follows to rid the user of unwanted software installations:
"It is unlawful for any person who is not the user of a protected computer to install computer software on that computer, or to authorize, permit, or cause the installation of computer software on that computer, unless--
(1) the user of the computer has received notice that satisfies the requirements of section 3;
(2) the user of the computer has granted consent that satisfies the requirements of section 3; and
(3) the computer software's uninstall procedures satisfy the requirements of section 3."
Section 3 essentially requires detailed notice and knowledgeable consent for installation of any software program and it also demands a simple and easy "complete" uninstallation of any such installed program..
Although this Bill will yet be amended before (or if) it is enacted as law - the Law Pundit presumes it will be enacted - we are of the opinion that legislation along the lines of S. 2145 is absolutely essential to stop the proliferation of programs which surreptitiously install software on personal computers or do so openly but in a more-or-less fraudulent manner.
Sunday, April 04, 2004--Andis Kaulins [4/04/2004 01:22:00 PM] - Home
NATO Expansion to 26 Member States - Map
NATO Expansion to 26 Member States - Map
NATO ADDS SEVEN NEW MEMBERS as of April 2, 2004
On April 2, 2004, seven (7) additional countries joined the previous nineteen member States of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) as new member states, thus raising the number of NATO members from 19 to 26.
As seen on the map above prepared for this purpose, these seven new NATO members starting in the north and moving southward are:
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgaria
NATO and the European Union (EU) Compared
It is of interest to note that the States of the European Union (including those being added on May 1, 2004) and the Members of NATO do not overlap entirely, although there is a declaration of partnership between the EU and NATO.
Iceland is not a member of the European Union but is a member of NATO.
Ireland is a member of the European Union but is not a member of NATO.
Norway is a member of NATO but not a member of the European Union.
Sweden is a member of the European Union but not of NATO.
Finland is a member of the European Union but not of NATO.
Austria is a member of the European Union but not of NATO.
Turkey is a member of NATO but not of the European Union.
Romania is a member of NATO but not of the European Union.
Bulgaria is a member of NATO but not of the European Union.
Malta and the Greek part of Cyprus will join the European Union on May 1, 2004, but are not members of NATO.
The discrepancies are an interesting study in the divergence of political, legal, economic, military and defense interests.
NATO Expansion to 26 Member States - Map
NATO Expansion to 26 Member States - Map
NATO ADDS SEVEN NEW MEMBERS as of April 2, 2004
On April 2, 2004, seven (7) additional countries joined the previous nineteen member States of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) as new member states, thus raising the number of NATO members from 19 to 26.
As seen on the map above prepared for this purpose, these seven new NATO members starting in the north and moving southward are:
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgaria
NATO and the European Union (EU) Compared
It is of interest to note that the States of the European Union (including those being added on May 1, 2004) and the Members of NATO do not overlap entirely, although there is a declaration of partnership between the EU and NATO.
Iceland is not a member of the European Union but is a member of NATO.
Ireland is a member of the European Union but is not a member of NATO.
Norway is a member of NATO but not a member of the European Union.
Sweden is a member of the European Union but not of NATO.
Finland is a member of the European Union but not of NATO.
Austria is a member of the European Union but not of NATO.
Turkey is a member of NATO but not of the European Union.
Romania is a member of NATO but not of the European Union.
Bulgaria is a member of NATO but not of the European Union.
Malta and the Greek part of Cyprus will join the European Union on May 1, 2004, but are not members of NATO.
The discrepancies are an interesting study in the divergence of political, legal, economic, military and defense interests.
Thursday, April 01, 2004--Andis Kaulins [4/01/2004 12:10:00 AM] - Home
European Union Expansion to 25 Member States - Map
European Union Expansion to 25 Member States - Map (Reposted from December, January, February and March due to popular demand)
NEW EU MEMBERS as of May 1, 2004
On May 1, 2004, ten (10) additional countries will join the European Union as new member states, raising the number of EU Member States from 15 to 25.
This extremely important development for the world will change the taxation and legal systems of the new EU Member States, according to a report of May 1, 2003 of PriceWaterhouseCoopers which writes:
"The enlargement of the EU will fundamentally change the tax and legal systems of the ten accession countries requiring harmonisation to ensure they are in line with EU legislation and case law. Areas affected include: VAT, customs and excise duties, direct taxation, commercial law, consumer and competition law, social security and employment law, intellectual property, e-commerce, financial services, and data protection.
Peter Cussons, international corporate tax partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, said:
"The need for a large measure of tax and legal harmonisation is inevitable, the list of areas affected is huge, and the compliance clock is ticking.
"Companies with existing operations in the ten accession countries should be re-evaluating their operations now to enable them to implement necessary changes in time for the accession date of 1 May 2004. It should also be noted that these changes will have implications not just for companies which already operate within the accession countries, but also companies which plan to invest in or have or plan to have other business relations with those accession countries.
"I cannot emphasise enough that, with only 12 months remaining, businesses need to act now to ensure they are fully compliant with the new largely harmonised EU tax and legal environment."
As of April 1, 2004, there is now only 1 month left for these changes to be made.
The enlargement of the European Union will have further long-term political, economic and legal repercussions as ebusiness.com has stated:
"In the Treaty on European Union which came into force in 1993, Article 49 says that any European State which respects the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law may apply to become a member of the Union.
Further clarification was given by the European Council meeting in Copenhagen in 1993 which laid down the basic conditions for membership - the so-called "Copenhagen criteria" :
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy;
rule of law, respect for and protection of human rights and minorities;
existence of a functioning market economy;
capacity to cope with market forces and competitive pressures within the Union;
ability to take on the obligations of membership, including Economic and Monetary Union."
As seen on the map above prepared for this purpose, these ten new members starting in the north and moving southward are:
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
the Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Slovenia
Malta
Cyprus
United States and European Union compared
The European Union has similarities but also differences to the United States.
Predecessor Organizations and Member States
The predecessor organizations of the European Union started with six (6) members.
These were Belgium, West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Currently there are 15 so-called "member states" in the European Union including the original six member states (Germany after the reunification added the 5 East German Laender on October 3, 1990)
plus the following nine additional member states added as follows:
Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom joined in 1973. (numbers 7,8 and 9)
Greece joined in 1981 (number 10)
Spain and Portugal joined in 1986. (numbers 11 and 12)
Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined in 1995. (numbers 13, 14 and 15)
Norway signed an accession treaty in 1994, but Norwegian voters rejected membership in a referendum, so that Norway is NOT a member of the European Union.
The accession to the European Union affects the monetary systems of the new member nations and their currencies.
What about the EURO in the new member states?
As you can read at that link, in spite of membership in the EU, the adoption of the Euro in the new member states is conditional upon meeting certain monetary requirements.
The Maastricht Treaty and Other Treaties forming the EU
The Maastricht Treaty also known as
The Treaty on European Union
entered into force by ratification of the Member States on November 1, 1993.
See the milestones of the EU in a timeline of events for the European Union
See the factsheets for the European Union
European Union Expansion to 25 Member States - Map
European Union Expansion to 25 Member States - Map (Reposted from December, January, February and March due to popular demand)
NEW EU MEMBERS as of May 1, 2004
On May 1, 2004, ten (10) additional countries will join the European Union as new member states, raising the number of EU Member States from 15 to 25.
This extremely important development for the world will change the taxation and legal systems of the new EU Member States, according to a report of May 1, 2003 of PriceWaterhouseCoopers which writes:
"The enlargement of the EU will fundamentally change the tax and legal systems of the ten accession countries requiring harmonisation to ensure they are in line with EU legislation and case law. Areas affected include: VAT, customs and excise duties, direct taxation, commercial law, consumer and competition law, social security and employment law, intellectual property, e-commerce, financial services, and data protection.
Peter Cussons, international corporate tax partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, said:
"The need for a large measure of tax and legal harmonisation is inevitable, the list of areas affected is huge, and the compliance clock is ticking.
"Companies with existing operations in the ten accession countries should be re-evaluating their operations now to enable them to implement necessary changes in time for the accession date of 1 May 2004. It should also be noted that these changes will have implications not just for companies which already operate within the accession countries, but also companies which plan to invest in or have or plan to have other business relations with those accession countries.
"I cannot emphasise enough that, with only 12 months remaining, businesses need to act now to ensure they are fully compliant with the new largely harmonised EU tax and legal environment."
As of April 1, 2004, there is now only 1 month left for these changes to be made.
The enlargement of the European Union will have further long-term political, economic and legal repercussions as ebusiness.com has stated:
"In the Treaty on European Union which came into force in 1993, Article 49 says that any European State which respects the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law may apply to become a member of the Union.
Further clarification was given by the European Council meeting in Copenhagen in 1993 which laid down the basic conditions for membership - the so-called "Copenhagen criteria" :
stable institutions guaranteeing democracy;
rule of law, respect for and protection of human rights and minorities;
existence of a functioning market economy;
capacity to cope with market forces and competitive pressures within the Union;
ability to take on the obligations of membership, including Economic and Monetary Union."
As seen on the map above prepared for this purpose, these ten new members starting in the north and moving southward are:
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
the Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Slovenia
Malta
Cyprus
United States and European Union compared
The European Union has similarities but also differences to the United States.
Predecessor Organizations and Member States
The predecessor organizations of the European Union started with six (6) members.
These were Belgium, West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Currently there are 15 so-called "member states" in the European Union including the original six member states (Germany after the reunification added the 5 East German Laender on October 3, 1990)
plus the following nine additional member states added as follows:
Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom joined in 1973. (numbers 7,8 and 9)
Greece joined in 1981 (number 10)
Spain and Portugal joined in 1986. (numbers 11 and 12)
Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined in 1995. (numbers 13, 14 and 15)
Norway signed an accession treaty in 1994, but Norwegian voters rejected membership in a referendum, so that Norway is NOT a member of the European Union.
The accession to the European Union affects the monetary systems of the new member nations and their currencies.
What about the EURO in the new member states?
As you can read at that link, in spite of membership in the EU, the adoption of the Euro in the new member states is conditional upon meeting certain monetary requirements.
The Maastricht Treaty and Other Treaties forming the EU
The Maastricht Treaty also known as
The Treaty on European Union
entered into force by ratification of the Member States on November 1, 1993.
See the milestones of the EU in a timeline of events for the European Union
See the factsheets for the European Union
