Politics Should Turkey Join The EU?

TurkYusuf1



You have a good point about that many turks are already living in the EU, and I agree that this is not a problem and will not change things significantly. I am convinced Turkey will become a member sooner or later. It will take some time though.

It's one hell of a problem and not just in Britain. It's a huge problem in Austria, Italy, Greece, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and especially Germany where there is dislike bordering on (and increasingly actually crossing into hatred) and it's growing.

Turkey a member of the EU?

Not if the EU people are given a referendum on it, and on this they should be.
 
I don't think so, for the many reasons that make up the ideas of the Union, and by the fact - which many seem oblivious or ignorant to - that most of the world is building communities - with the EU being the example - which includes the countries you mentioned. From the Maghreb to the Mashriq, there are projects moving forward.

Digressing slightly, my guess is that the GCC in time will include large parts or the whole Levant, or there will be another community taking place. That would mean a reformation of the GCC, but I think that wouldn't be very difficult. The Levant coming under greater influence of Wahabbi Islam is not very attractive though and I think that there could be resistance to that in the region. Even though it's not visible right now, there might be another option possible, even though Iraq has been accepted into the GCC once again, Iran is looking eastward towards SAARC, and the Maghreb is AMU, and even though I question the viability of the AU project, the sub communities seem to have a future.

Russia will not be a EU member, and Japan and S. Korea will likely approach the ASEAN community to an extent.


A dont get me wrong Im not saying this is how I think it should be and I certainly haven't looked at other groupings like GCC, I was just suggesting we take a look into the future and see what was possible. China is an obvious competitor who seem to have clearly defined goals, Im not sure the EU has.

Alot of people are opposed to Turkeys membership for a variety of reasons today but in a 100 years time we are bound to have expanded further, which countries are likely join? I cant see Israel being to interested in GCC.

" The Turkey foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said he expects Turkey to be a member of the EU by 2023".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0322/1224266810784.html
 
Turkey a member of the EU?

Not if the EU people are given a referendum on it, and on this they should be.


I agree Turkey would not get in if referendums were held in all member states but the same might be argued if referendums had been held for several other states.
But do you think you'll ever see a referendum you didn't get one for Lisbon.
 
Brown didn’t dare do other than renege on his promise.

He and the rest of the Westminster Village, (or at least those of them with an ounce of common sense) knew then and know now that a referendum against anything related to the EU would see rejection by the British public.

In the case of “Lisbon” that would have then been used by politicians anxious to protect their well cushioned backsides to press for Britain to quit the EU altogether.

And they would have won the day.

The problem is that people in Britain have been fed such a load of guff about how ‘great’ our country still is and how awful those “Eooorpeans” are and how Brussels is all cost with no gain and holding us back.

And so without the real facts being placed before them when added to British xenophobia plus denial that the country is now in reality a third world nation buoyed up only by borrowing other peoples money creating the illusion that ‘we’re doing rather well’ the anti-EU school would have won.

Trouble is that so many of the “EU bad, GB good” promoters really believe they’re right. They simply don’t understand our place in and dependence on the EU or that the vast majority of the costs we face would have to be paid anyway to trade in the Global marketplace.

But Turkey is different and it is important it should be seen as such.

Bringing Turkey into the EU would se a huge change in the centre of cultural gravity away from what we know as democracy and the scope that democratic government has, and instead toward introducing an ethos of having some aspect of society that are untouchable by democratic decision, and seeing many existing freedoms that would be demanded to be rolled back.

After all, a society that has a democratically elected government has little if anything to offer over a theocracy if the majority of the voters are of one deeply religious conviction in the first place.

Turkey, like Islam, has no place in Europe. Both are incompatible with our developed and evolved civilisation.
 
@Gwyllgi

Yes. Turkey is special, and I think many views it as such. I think also that many are concerned about the state of Turkey and what impact it will have on Europe. I think Turkey has a great possible future in the EU, but I also think that the problems of Turkey must be addressed before membership. Some memberships in the EMU and by some EU states in the east shows that we haven't been careful and scrutinizing enough before making them members. I think we want to be sure this time with such a possible deep impact country as Turkey, not to create an unsolvable problem and put the Union in a difficult place. I also believe that there is an enlargement fatigue and I agree to some extent when people say that we should hold it, and focus on the Union we have, addressing our existent problems and consolidating the Union. The enlargements were done before EU legislation was ready for it. I think great consideration must be done before the rest of Europe joins. At the same time, I think we want to tie those future members closer, which I think we do within the ENP. I don't think that the Turkish people is a problem. I say, let them reconcile with the Armenians, the Kurds and the Greeks, helping create a solution in Cyprus. These are just some of the concerns I think needs to be addressed which will take time. I think that the credibility and stability of Turkish democracy need time as well. I think Turkish nationalism is a concern as well. Let's see where Turkey is in 10 years.

You might wonder why I think Turkey has a future place in the Union. I consider it to be on the fringe of Europe, I consider that they have a European legacy and that they are in fact Europeans. Turkey is of importance to us, and this will increase. No matter what form of relationship Turkey will have with the rest of Europe, it will be one of importance to us, economically, politically and security wise.

I think we need to ask ourselves this concerning enlargements:

What is a European country? What is European culture? How European must one be to join the EU? What is the most European country in Europe, and what is the gold standard?

Not that easy questions.

I agree that there is a dilemma with the current population of the Union having NO say in new members accession, and the candidate states all the say. We will not have referendums concerning that though - even if referendums are just advisory - as this is a matter for the European council, whose leaders in turn needs to listen to their constituents. If the accession of new states would be up to popular vote, no states would likely ever be able to enter no matter if it would be good for the EU. I can't imagine Britain ever voting for a new member, and that goes for many countries.
 
Yes. Turkey is special, and I think many views it as such. I think also that many are concerned about the state of Turkey and what impact it will have on Europe. I think Turkey has a great possible future in the EU, but I also think that the problems of Turkey must be addressed before membership.


Turkey is a state too far. It has NOTHING to offer the EU that we either want or need and a great deal that we certainly neither want or need.

What is a European country? What is European culture? How European must one be to join the EU? What is the most European country in Europe, and what is the gold standard?

Not that easy questions.


On the contrary. Very easy questions to answer. The only thing is that so many people don’t like the answers.

I agree that there is a dilemma with the current population of the Union having NO say in new members accession, and the candidate states all the say. We will not have referendums concerning that though - even if referendums are just advisory - as this is a matter for the European council, whose leaders in turn needs to listen to their constituents.


There are some issues that are so fundamental and so far reaching that the potential influence of political horse trading let alone the inevitable disconnect between represented and representatives that a full blown referendum is the ONLY satisfactory way forward.

If the accession of new states would be up to popular vote, no states would likely ever be able to enter no matter if it would be good for the EU. I can't imagine Britain ever voting for a new member, and that goes for many countries.


Then maybe the message to take from that is that the EU has not only reached its limits, but with the last two groups of accession actually far exceeded it.

Let’s never forget that the European Union is supposed to be just that. A union of states with a deal of commonality between them who want to progress as a single entity, NOT an empire in the making, and NOT a place where basket case countries can get hand outs and predate off the rest of us.
 
You might find those questions easy, and think that there is a gold standard for what is European and that one country can claim to be the most European one.
20 years ago, it was common that people in Sweden didn't consider themselves "European". In all practical aspects, the Scandinavian peninsula is an island. For us Europe was the mainland. Of course that was just an attitude and point of view that didn't correspond to reality, just as similar British sentiments don't. There are one or two Brits that considers that they are not European. Is Armenia European? I would say so. It isn't within the geographical Europe, but for whatever intents and purposes, the geographical border of Europe in the east is made up. Politically it is considered European and a member of the Council of Europe.
Do you have to be Christian? White? How much white? Do you have to have been influenced by the French revolution? Can a country become more European or move away from being European? Are the personal feelings of people towards if a country is to be considered European or not relevant? If you feel that the Ukraine is not European, would that make it Asian?
I read about a survey where people were asked about what European values were to them. Most people seem to have answered democracy, justice and human rights.
Well. What part of Europe is this Union for? What is the vision and the European idea? We can't build a Union because it is easy.
There will always be stronger and weaker regions. I am sure there are regions in the UK that is not a net provider to the British Union. The sentiments of Flanders seem to be that they are paying for the Walloon. The rich south in Sweden subsidizes the north. The difference in why that is a problem sometimes and not others is if we identify with each other and feel solidarity or not.
Europe after the WWII was not a pretty sight, and were it not for american investment things would have looked quite different, though it came with the price of West Europe becoming a part of American security policy still present. That parts of Europe need more investment than others is not a static condition. Poland from the country it was 20 years ago and now is very different, and it will keep changing. Some of these countries will most likely become net providers themselves to the Union.
Then maybe the message to take from that is that the EU has not only reached its limits, but with the last two groups of accession actually far exceeded it.
Let’s never forget that the European Union is supposed to be just that. A union of states with a deal of commonality between them who want to progress as a single entity, NOT an empire in the making, and NOT a place where basket case countries can get hand outs and predate off the rest of us.

Yet you want to exclude Scandinavia from the EU for some reason. The Union would not have existed were it based on popular vote. It was created by the same countries that killed each other in droves just a couple of years earlier. No, it hasn't exceeded it's limits. But it has been rushed.

We need to continue building this Union. The world around us changes whether we want it or not, and we need to change with it. Dissolving the Union is not an option, we have to move forward to finalization, which is not here and now.
 
One thing I completely agree with is that the question of Turkish membership should be put to a E.U. wide, binding referendum.
 
Starship

The Irish referendum was not about having a treaty or not, it was about the content of the treaty. A treaty had to be made, there was no question about it. That's why the contents changed between the referendums. A content put together and agreed upon by the member states including the Irish. Claiming that the Irish had to vote until they made the right choice is correct but rather daft EuroSceptic rhetoric. It is made by people who still don't understand that it was about the content and not if we were to have a treaty or not.

A majority of those who voted didn't really understand what they were voting for or why. One can of course put most of the blame for that on the Union and the Irish government, but there was also a strong NO-campaign against it which seems to have been financed by big private money and american funds.

This and the lack of interest from the Irish about what they were voting for, got to put a veto and decide the treaty for the rest of Europe, my country included. For some reason there are people who consider that fair and democratic. The Irish had all rights to do so, but there is a inherent problem with national referendums making decisions for the rest of the Union, creating a hostage situation or what lead the Czech president to turn to a bargaining situation close to blackmail.
 
It will only be binding when you give the correct answer:wink:

The "correct answer", as envisioned by our perspective compromised governments, now-a-days is often tantamount to an Alice adventure in Wonderland, i.e., devoid of reference to reality. :petrified:
 
Last edited:
It will only be binding when you give the correct answer:wink:


Tongue in cheek Michael, dont get your knickers in a not, I voted Yes twice(y)

I should have elaborated on my point, we only voted on Lisbon because our written constitution required it. None of the other European countries had to, Holland and France rejected their referendums so for Lisbon their politicians didn't want to risk another failure. The problem with referendums is people tend not to vote on the issue at hand but every other gripe they have, countries would be rejected not because they were a bad fit for Europe but because the National Gov of the countries voting had let their people down on some local issues. It would be a very brave or very foolish politician who championed plebiscites for all new EU entrants unless of course they didn't want any new members.
 
True that. Hmm. Well, I am just used to the tirades about Corporate EU and similes to various dictatorships, conspiracies and what not. It took it you referred to the so called undemocratic methods of the EU.
 
You might find those questions easy, and think that there is a gold standard for what is European and that one country can claim to be the most European one.


Maybe the Gold Standard is really a standard that results when the common factors of Germany, Austria, Northern France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and to a lesser degree Denmark are combined. In essence founded on the Western Renaissance nations that were the initial countries that formed the Common Market.

20 years ago, it was common that people in Sweden didn't consider themselves "European". In all practical aspects, the Scandinavian peninsula is an island. For us Europe was the mainland. Of course that was just an attitude and point of view that didn't correspond to reality, (snip) ……….


And it’s a thing that has no small amount of validity in it.

Norway and Sweden do have little in common with the original six member states, a group that do represent those things that are best about Europe and from which to build upon. The only possible exception would be Italy, no doubt included at the time to ensure that Fascism didn’t find common ground to build upon as a result of a lost war and resultant poverty.

(snip) ……….just as similar British sentiments don't. There are one or two Brits that considers that they are not European. Is Armenia European? I would say so. It isn't within the geographical Europe, but for whatever intents and purposes, the geographical border of Europe in the east is made up. Politically it is considered European and a member of the Council of Europe.


Does that make it right?

Do you have to be Christian?


Ideally.



Formally, though the recent immigration of non ethnically Caucasian people into European countries but who do want to integrate fully into what they are immigrating into, and do NOT want instead to establish their own “cultures” has moved that on.

Do you have to have been influenced by the French revolution?


Your culture certainly should have been!

Can a country become more European or move away from being European?


A country, no. The whole is greater and different than the sum of its component parts. Individual people are different, they have the ability.

Are the personal feelings of people towards if a country is to be considered European or not relevant?


As regards we Europeans, absolutely.

If you feel that the Ukraine is not European, would that make it Asian?


Why bring the Ukraine into it? And why propose that the situation is binary? Why should a nation not remain an independent nation in its own right?

I read about a survey where people were asked about what European values were to them. Most people seem to have answered democracy, justice and human rights.


Because most people reply with what they understand such things to mean to them. Try asking a Muslim what “to tolerate” means.

Well. What part of Europe is this Union for?

What is the vision and the European idea? We can't build a Union because it is easy.


We can …… provided it doesn’t include being a free for all for any nation that wants to join can join, one that really doesn’t try to be multi-cultural, and one that puts true Europeans first in all things. We need to have and to keep strong borders to our Europe.

There will always be stronger and weaker regions. I am sure there are regions in the UK that is not a net provider to the British Union.


So what? That’s not the issue.

The sentiments of Flanders seem to be that they are paying for the Walloon. The rich south in Sweden subsidizes the north. The difference in why that is a problem sometimes and not others is if we identify with each other and feel solidarity or not.


This is not about economics alone, this is about common values, common ambitions, a desire to become an equal amongst equals.

Europe after the WWII was not a pretty sight, and were it not for american investment things would have looked quite different, though it came with the price of West Europe becoming a part of American security policy still present. That parts of Europe need more investment than others is not a static condition. Poland from the country it was 20 years ago and now is very different, and it will keep changing. Some of these countries will most likely become net providers themselves to the Union.


American “investment” should better be described as American exploitation of a depressed market for their own ends. Poland is an interesting case, especially as Poland is actually a creation of the Treaty of Versailles, a thing which proved to be at the root of WW2.


Yet you want to exclude Scandinavia from the EU for some reason. The Union would not have existed were it based on popular vote. It was created by the same countries that killed each other in droves just a couple of years earlier. No, it hasn't exceeded it's limits. But it has been rushed.

We need to continue building this Union. The world around us changes whether we want it or not, and we need to change with it. Dissolving the Union is not an option, we have to move forward to finalization, which is not here and now.


No, we need to cleanse the hives of those who for one reason or another do not fit into what the European Union should be, a union of naturally European nations, and we need to concentrate on raising the standards and capability of that and NOT continue to keep adding more anhd more less and less European nation sates into OUR Uniuon.

In any case Norway and Sweden are not naturally “European”, they are Nordic,

Their culture is very different from that of let us say the Europe that emerged from The Renaissance, and that by and large provides a damm good starting point for defining what constitutes the real Europe today.

This isn’t being “racist”. This is about being patriotic, about having supranational pride and ambitions involving being an equal amongst equals with the emphasis on equals.

That in a nutshell established why Turkey should NEVER be allowed to join OUR EU.
 
There’s a side to the so far not rejected slimy courting of Europe by Turkey that I certainly had missed, but then as a mythical Welsh “Dog of Twilight” it’s sometimes hard to see all that much from down-town Llanfairpwllggwyngllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

let alone from Gorsafawddachaidraigodanheddogleddollonpenrhynareurdraethceredigion!

(In The Old Tongue, “gwyll” is twilight, and “ci” is dog. Roll it together with a bit of something stronger than “Dŵr” and you get “Gwyllgi”)

And that is the huge gains in popularity it is resulting in for the Islamic party in power, and so active in bringing in increasingly “conservative” legislation.

Far from providing an impetus for the Turkish people to adopt a less devout interpretation of Islam it is resulting in just the opposite. Recent legislation tightening up on the sales of alcohol are the tip of an iceberg that, in spite of Global Warming, is “Doing a Topsy” much as the girl of the same name did in the famous book by Harriet Beecher Stowe.

“Iesu Grist”, as we say, if they’re doing that now how much worse would it be once they were ever let in, and how many people already in our EU would be encouraged by their presence?
 
Islam is perhaps the most dangerous, anti-European, anti-Western force that exists today. It is a cultish religion of extremes, of NO tolerance, NO understanding for non believers. If you are anything but a Muslim you comprise part of the "Other"; the "heathens", the "enemy", the "devil". Those who are labeled as belonging to the Other may be subjected to the worst kinds of violence. Such violence is legitimized and sanctioned by the teachings - the maniacal interpretations - of the Koran...

We have enough serious issues with Islam in Europe, WITHOUT Turkish membership.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what they say in Turkish news and if they really tell you the truth over there but, if Turkish government was actually working to fix relations with Greece, your military aircrafts wouldn't fly illegally every second day over Greece, provoking our air force.

a few minutes ago: http://www.enallaxnews.gr/index.php?mode=newsview&c=1&nid=3360 (translation: 14 turkish aircrafts above central Aegean, provoking the Greek air force)

21st of march http://www.zougla.gr/page.ashx?pid=2&aid=116478&cid=6
2 turkish F-16 aircrafts tried to take down a Greek helicopter working for the FRONTEX company, above Greek grounds

12 of march http://www.inews.gr/2/nees-tourkikes-prokliseis-sto-aigaio.htm
Turkish radars were causing problem to Greek helicopters. Also they were causing problems to Polish aircrafts telling them that they were above Turkish ground while in both cases the incidents were within the Greek borders

4 of march http://www.forums.gr/showthread.php...B%DE%F3%E5%E9%F2-%F3%F4%EF-%C1%E9%E3%E1%DF%EF
14 Turkish aircrafts, 6 of which were armed flew 5 times above Central Aegean and 2 times above North Aegean. They were pushed back by Greek air force

The list goes on and on. Probably you have no idea about such incidents but every 2nd day your "friendly" country does the same thing over and over.

Not just a Greek v Turkish problem.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/raf-jets-shadow-russian-bombers-over-uk-2110690.html
 
yeh, the islam in europe is punishment on the european gooks m9 descendents
on what they have done {with no emothions at all because they are gooks }
between 1939-1945
i was in southern france last year many muslems but i dont give a damm i prefer them over the french natives m9 -r1b they are much more warm there are 6 milion muslems in france hope in few decades they will change the genetic makeup of france
and more french will be j1e-p58 and my cousins e1b1b12 -m81 hope it will happen
france going in good direction at least in my prespective
genetic code
 
yeh, the islam in europe is punishment on the european gooks m9 descendents
on what they have done {with no emothions at all because they are gooks }
between 1939-1945
i was in southern france last year many muslems but i dont give a damm i prefer them over the french natives m9 -r1b they are much more warm there are 6 milion muslems in france hope in few decades they will change the genetic makeup of france
and more french will be j1e-p58 and my cousins e1b1b12 -m81 hope it will happen
france going in good direction at least in my prespective
genetic code
Very racist post , in my opinion.
 
A forum like this attracts two kinds of people. One who is interested in science, and those who look for racial purity or ascribe human traits to what they call race. Eugenics is a marvel.
 

This thread has been viewed 230957 times.

Back
Top