Politics Should Turkey Join The EU?

So the Turks are trying to play the “you owe us” and the “we’ve both been misunderstood and maltreated’ card. What a surprise.

Then the supposed benefits. Access to the Black Sea. What benefits does that bring Europe? We’re not the US, we have no military ambitions that an easy path through Turkey or its neighbours would prove to be advantageous. Interesting that in the letter reference is made to the close ties between Ireland and the US.

Very telling.

Closer access to the Middle East is hardly a benefit, it’s a thing we certainly do NOT want as that door swings both ways and it means that the Middle East and all that entails would therefore have greater access to Europe. Thanks, but no thanks.

As for Turkeys “special relationships”, since that is “lingua codex” for our close ties with Muslim countries, again, thanks, but no thanks. Neighbours, sure. Members of the same household? Nein danke.

Then there’s access to markets. The world is now a global market. We don’t need political links to access markets and in any case market access works both ways. We don’t want cheap goods swamping our home markets and so increasing our unemployment and reducing our standard of living.

Every imported item is a job lost in Europe.

Then there’s a wonderful statement. And I quote :-

“Since the 14th century, and even before, the bulk of our history has been wrought in this continent.”

I’ll correct that. It SHOULD read :-

“Since the 14th century, and even before, the bulk of our history has been wrought in this continent mostly involving war and bloodshed”.

There. Fixed.

I could continue to rubbish the letter and its contents but there’s no point.

Turkey has nothing we either want or need, sad to say the reverse is not true. We are an evolving federation and hopefully soon to be a nation in our own right. The United States of Europe. Turkey has no place in that.
 
MMMMMMMmmmmmmmm well I haven't made up my mind just yet I'll still listen to all the arguments however I'll be honest and up front with you I would be more in favour of including Turkey in the future.

Not that you don't make some valid arguments gwyllgi but my experience of similar debates like the Lisbon 1 and 11 (The empire Strikes Back) made it obvious how any point you pick can be turned and used by the other side. Point in case you mention Turkeys early involvement in Europe being soaked in blood, but how much of European history has been violent, the Americans invented machine guns so we Europeans could kill each other more efficiently. The EU has allowed us move on from this, surely that's an argument for greater inclusion than any other.

In the end you start to look at the people making the arguments and what they stand for as much as the arguments them selves. You said you don't like Turks and that's fine no has to like anyone else but you can see how this might colour your position going forward.

You said you look forward to an early federation of Europe a super state can I go one step further a fortress Europe? Us and them, well back in 1963 the French black balled Britain's attempt at joining the EEC, Charles de Gaulle felt Britain lacked commitment to EU integration and he wasn't mad about their special relationship with the US (sound familiar). What if things had remained static ever since, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I do agree with you on the democracy issue, how long can we feel confident that a secular democracy will survive in Turkey? I have no answer because I cant know any more than anyone else can. But the secular forces or society within Turkey would be far better served, supported and guaranteed with in the EU and are far more likely to falter if Turkeys membership is turned down.

In 20 years time would you prefer a secular democratic Turkey with in the EU or a militant Islamic republic with the 10th largest military at your gate?

Anyway we dont have to make up our minds today:rolleyes:
 
Maybe someone could spell out just what Turkey would bring to us in the EU that we either want or need?



Maybe also "TurkYusuf1" should learn a bit more about what a GDP is, what it means, and how far from being an indicator of the health of an economy it is nothing more than an indicator of economic activity. An indicator that, as we in Britain know only too well, is meaningless when it is being fueled by ever mounting external debt.



Maybe also take account of NATO now being well past its use by date as the reasons that NATO came into being are now long defunct and the only purpose that NSATO presently serves is to allow the US to have a presence where they are increasingly not wanted or needed.



In fact had it not been for NATO Blair’s dragging Britain into the US hegemony in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have triggered the involvement of other countries through the NATO treaty

Turkey secure secular democracy? Purleese! The place is heading faster and faster towards becoming the precise opposite, a thing that resulted in the recent trouble in which a number of Army officers were arrested because they were working for the retention of Secular rule.


Excellent relations with other countries? Get real. Look at the way that Turkey figuratively jumped out of its pram when reminded about the Armenian genocide. Look at the dreadful human rights record, the laws against freedom of press and other news media. In short the whole place is so absolutely un – European that the possibility of it being included in OUR home lands should be dismissed out of hand.


Europe is our HOME.

WE should decide who we do or do not invite in and just because someone comes whining about wanting to be let in should, indeed MUST not result in the door being opened top them, especially when most of the other people in the ‘house’ don’t want them, don’t need them and yes, don’t like them.

This is what Turkey would bring into EU, read and learn and don't just prejudge, these are not my words, I copied and pasted it from the internet so you won't say shit like it's only my opinion but opinions of political analysts and experts:

"Proponents of Turkey's membership argue that it is a key regional power[30][31] with a large economy and the second largest military force of NATO[32][33] that will enhance the EU's position as a global geostrategic player; given Turkey's geographic location and economic, political, cultural and historic ties in regions with large natural resources that are at the immediate vicinity of the EU's geopolitical sphere of influence; such as the East Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts, the Middle East, the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia.[34][35] According to the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, "the accession of Turkey would give the EU a decisive role for stability in the eastern part of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, which is clearly in the strategic interest of Europe."[36] One of Turkey's key supporters for its bid to join the EU is the United Kingdom.[37]Turkey has the world's 15th largest GDP-PPP[41] and 17th largest Nominal GDP.[42] The country is a founding member of the OECD and the G-20 major economies."

GDP is what a country produces it's gross domestic product, yes it does not necessarily mean a country's wealth but it' still a huge factor in determining a country's economic capabilities, let's compare China and US for example, US is by far richer than China in wealth but China can outproduce US or any other nation in the world due to their population and several other factors such as industrial and infrastructural success and strength. Turkey is the same way, 75% of it's population lives in great conditions and only 25% lives in so called poverty which is not nearly as bad as what some other countries have in Middle East, Africa or even in Eastern Europe. Turkey however has excellent infrastructure and equally good industrial capacity and their economy is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Regarding religion this is what I got off from the internet:
"Turkey has a secular constitution, with no official state religion.[60] Nominally, though, 99% of the Turkish population is Muslim[61][62] of whom over 70% belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. A sizeable minority, about over 25% of the Muslim population, is affiliated with the Shi'a Alevi branch.[63] The Christians (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Gregorian, Syriac, Protestant) and Jews (Sephardic, Ashkenazi) were formerly sizable religious minorities in the country. Turkey would be the first Muslim-majority country to join the European Union, although Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo are also Muslim-majority, and have been recognized as potential candidate countries.[64] Official population census polls in Turkey do not include information regarding a person's religious belief or ethnic background due to the regulations set by the Turkish constitution, which defines all citizens of the Republic of Turkey as Turkish in terms of nationality, regardless of faith or race.[65]
There is a strong tradition of secularism in Turkey. The state has no official religion nor promotes any, and actively monitors the area between the religions.[66] The constitution recognizes the freedom of religion for individuals, whereas religious communities are placed under the protection of the state; but the constitution explicitly states that they cannot become involved in the political process (by forming a religious party, for instance) or establish faith-based schools. No party can claim that it represents a form of religious belief; nevertheless, religious sensibilities are generally represented through conservative parties.[66] Turkey prohibits by law the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments for both sexes in government buildings, schools, and universities;[67] the law was upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate" in the Leyla Şahin v. Turkey case on 10 November 2005.[68]"
Well that may be true but take into account that NATO is also the only military alliance in the world that can stand up to hostile nations like North Korea or Iran or any other region in the world where the military power and assistance for example in natural disasters and crises or just military intervention to overthrow a fanatical leader who is a threat to world peace. Yes it's goals have changed since the collapse of the USSR and it's Eastern European and other allies but now the "War on Terror" is being fought not only by US but by UK and many other countries that are being targeted by the terrorism.Really? When did you become such an expert on Turkish politics. The country was built on a secular democratic model due to the heavy religious rule of the long lived Ottoman Empire. It kept it backward and let it fall behind Europe when it had surpassed militarily, economically, etc. in the first 400 hundred years of its rule during the dark ages of medieval Europe. I don`t agree with either the motives of any Islamic sympathizing government (I`m not saying the current government is) or the military dictatorship like control over the government. It is not a perfect democracy, look at how corrupt US or even UK politics are, there is not perfect democratic country in the world.

Here we go with more facts from the internet:
`Danish-Turkish relations:

  • The relations date back 250 years and actually started in the field of trade in 18th century. On 14 October 1756, an Agreement of Friendship and Trade was signed by the Sultan Osman III and the King Frederick V. In 1758, Denmark has appointed an extraordinary representative to the Ottoman Empire.
  • Today, Denmark has an embassy in Ankara and an honorary consulate in Istanbul.[6]
  • Turkey has an embassy in Copenhagen.[7]
Finnish-Turkish relations:

  • Turkey recognized the independence of Finland on February 21, 1918.
  • Finland has an embassy in Ankara and an honorary consulate general in Istanbul and other honorary consulates in Belek, Bodrum and Izmir.[8]
  • Turkey has an embassy in Helsinki.[9]
German-Turkish relations:

Based on good Turkish-German relations from the 19th century onwards, Germany promoted a Turkish immigration to Germany. However, large scale didn't occur until the 20th century. Germany suffered an acute labor shortage after World War II and, in 1961, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) officially invited Turkish workers to Germany to fill in this void, particularly to work in the factories that helped fuel Germany's economic miracle. The German authorities named these people Gastarbeiter (German for guest workers). Most Turks in Germany trace their ancestry to Central and Eastern Anatolia. Today, Turks are Germany's largest ethnic minority and form most of Germany's Muslim minority

Italian-Turkish relations:

Italy has an embassy in Ankara, a general consulate in Istanbul, a consulate İzmir and 3 honorary consulates in * Turkey has an embassy in Rome and a general consulate in Milan.[14]


Portuguese-Turkish relations:

Turkey's 161 years of political relations with Portugal date back to the Ottoman period when Viscount de Seixal was appointed as an envoy to Istanbul. Diplomatic relations ceased during World War I and were re-established in the Republican period in 1926. A resident embassy was established in 1957. Portugal has an embassy in Ankara.[16] Turkey has an embassy in Lisbon. Both countries are full members of NATO.

Swedish-Turkish relations:



Turkey-United Kingdom relations:

Both countries currently maintain relations via the British Embassy in Ankara[23] and the Turkish Embassy in London.[24]
Turkey and the United Kingdom maintain strong bilateral relations.[25] The President of Turkey Cevdet Sunay paid a state visit to the United Kingdom in November 1967.[26] The President of Turkey Kenan Evren paid a state visit to the United Kingdom in July 1988.[26] HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom paid state visits to Turkey in October 1971, and in May 2008.[27] Britain and Turkey are both members of the G20, and Britain supports the accession of Turkey to the European Union.

This is an article I found online on Turkey:

`This blog mostly has discussed the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) as the main rising powers of the world. One often overlooked rising power is Turkey. Turkey has been an important bridge between the East and West for centuries (as the modern Turkish state and previous national and imperial incarnations). In the 21st century, Turkey has proved valuable as an interlocutor, serving as a value-add to both the West and to its more anti-West neighbors.
Most recently, Turkey, as a third party, brokered indirect talks between Syrian and Israeli officials, seeking for a peace deal. The talks have stalled, and the new Israeli government led by conservative Binyamin Netanyahu is unlikely to want to rekindle them, at least in the open. What is interesting is that Israelis and the international community seem to have nearly forgotten Turkey’s strong words for Israel over its Gaza war and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s walk-out from the World Economic Forum’s Davos summit following an altercation with Israeli President Shimon Peres. Even when Turkey has not been host to talks, it has served as a consultant to negotiations, as is the case for Egypt during Hamas-Israel peace efforts and Palestinian reconciliation attempts. Indeed, some have even referred to Turkey’s “obsession” with mediation.
The Obama administration has been quick to capitalize on a positive relationship with Ankara. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Turkey this past weekend was friendly and encouraging, and even resulted in the discussion of Turkish-brokered talks between the US and Iran. Although the talks remain simply a possibility, it is apparent that both Tehran and Washington have reached out to Turkey to be the interlocutor. Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan put it most succinctly when speaking about negotiations run by Ankara:
“The term mediation is used at times. This will only be realized if a concrete request is made by both sides. We could contribute to the furthering of relations between the two nations to a positive level.” Read more here.
If Turkey does succeed in bringing the US and Iran to the table, it will have accomplished a great deal. Nevertheless, it will still have a lot left to accomplish.`


Also visit these websites:


http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/beyond_the_brics.html
And that is the point.
http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20070805063759112
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35388

`Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's August 6 visit to Ankara marked a new era for "enhanced multi-dimensional partnership," between Ankara and Moscow. Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed some twenty agreements covering energy, trade and other fields. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi also attended part of the talks between Erdogan and Putin, considering the involvement of Italian companies in some of these projects. The most remarkable dimension of the various joint projects concerns energy cooperation, most notably Turkey's expression of support for Russia's South Stream project (Anadolu Ajansi, www.cnnturk.com, www.ntvmsnbc.com, August 6)In oil transportation, Russia committed to participate in the planned Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline (SCP), connecting the Turkish Black Sea city of Samsun to the Mediterranean terminal Ceyhan. Turkey has solicited Russian participation in the SCP, which will bypass the congested Turkish Straits. Moscow has proven reluctant, and has instead promoted another bypass option through Burgas-Alexandroupolis between Bulgaria and Greece. Meanwhile, Turkey took further steps to make the SCP attractive for the Russian side, by linking this project with the Turkish-Israeli-Indian energy partnership (EDM, November 25, 2008).Erdogan expressed his pleasure with the Russian decision to commit its crude. Ankara can consider this development as its greatest success in this grand bargain, given that Turkey has worked to convert Ceyhan, where the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline also terminates, into a global energy hub. However, Putin did not rule out interest in Burgas-Alexandroupolis, and instead emphasized that the two pipelines might be complementary in meeting the growing demand for export routes. This statement raises questions about how committed Russia will be to the SCP, given that Russian companies own the majority of shares in the other Burgas-Alexandroupolis option.In terms of gas cooperation, Turkey will allow Russia to conduct explorations and feasibility studies in the Turkish exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea, as part of Russian plans to construct South Stream. Since this move comes against the background of Turkey's decision to sign the rival Nabucco pipeline agreement last month, it raises many questions, as to how it will affect Nabucco, which Turkey considers a "strategic priority," as well as European energy security issues. Despite the questions surrounding its feasibility and high costs, as well as its negative implications for Nabucco, Erdogan maintained that both projects contribute to diversification efforts.

It appears that the "grand bargain" was between the SCP and Blue Stream. Ahead of the meeting, Yuri Ushakov, the Deputy Head of the Russian Government Staff said that "Turkey made concessions in South Stream and we made concessions in SCP," but added that he had doubts over the SCP's feasibility (Anadolu Ajansi, August 5). A statement from Berlusconi's office also claimed that he had helped broker a rapprochement between both countries on these two issues (Hurriyet Daily News, August 6). However, domestically, there are concerns that in this "exchange" of concessions, Turkey did not gain much. The SCP's importance was inflated, because it was developed by business interests close to the government (www.turksam.org.tr, August 7). Another gas deal concerned Ankara's request to renew the contract under which it purchases Russian gas through the Western pipeline via the Balkans. Erdogan announced that the contract (which expires in 2011) will be renewed for 20 years. Turkey had complained about the high prices and the leave-or-pay conditions in its gas deals with Russia. Putin said it was renewed on favorable terms to Turkey, but the contract's details are unclear.

Erdogan also said that they discussed the extension of Blue Stream II to transport Russian gas to Israel, Lebanon and even Cyprus. Blue Stream, running underneath the Black Sea, is the second route carrying Russian gas to Turkey. Moscow previously raised the possibility that it could use Blue Stream II in order to transport gas to Europe, but this option was rejected, since it contradicted Nabucco and Russia sought to use Turkey only as a transportation route. Now, Ankara wants to revive it as part of a North-South corridor. Based on the leaders' statements, it appears that the existing capacity of Blue Stream might be improved and gas could be transferred to the Mediterranean through this pipeline.

However, although Erdogan praised this development as another major success, there is no guarantee that Russia will grant "re-export rights," which indicates that if Blue Stream II is implemented, Moscow will continue to view Turkish territory as a mere conduit for its gas, which raises the question: how will Turkey benefit from the agreement? Russian priorities also involve Turkey's first nuclear power plant tender, which was awarded to a Russian-Turkish consortium. As the original price was too high, the tender has long awaited cabinet approval (EDM, January 26). Meanwhile, the Russian side lowered the price, and offered a compromise. Prior to Putin's visit, it was expected that with further "bargaining," a final deal might be reached, but apparently it failed. Nevertheless, Ankara and Moscow signed protocols regarding energy cooperation, including the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, early notification of accidents, exchange of information on facilities, and to continue talks on the nuclear tender.

The most controversial development is perhaps Ankara's support for South Stream. Erdogan reiterated his belief that Nabucco and South Stream are complementary, yet turned a blind eye to several Russian officials' (including Putin) statements to the contrary. It is assumed in Ankara that growing European energy demand will accommodate both projects; but this ignores the competition between both projects over the same downstream markets. Moreover, the Turkish side fails to appreciate the challenges Russia is facing in investing in its domestic gas industry, and acts on the assumption that "Russia has enormous reserves," while failing to realize that Russia is also planning to tap into the same upstream producers, namely Central Asian and Caspian gas, just as the Nabucco project envisages (www.ntvmsnbc.com, August 6).

Putin also added that a consensus was reached on Russia building gas storage facilities in the Salt Lake. Taken together with the announced joint investments between Turkish and Russian firms, including Gazprom, it is unclear whether the Turkish government recognizes the consequences of these decisions. Russia has effectively used the practice of co-opting the gas infrastructure of transport and consumer countries, as part of its efforts to monopolize downstream markets. It is unclear how this penetration into the Turkish grid might affect Ankara's future energy policies.`
 
Let’s start with NATO.

NATO is outdated. The justification for the creation of NATO is gone, today NATO is a thing that is actually less than useless for Europe as it was the NATO treaty that allowed the US to drag European governments into conflicts that they had no reason to become embroiled in.

Moreover NATO provides the means for the US to place early warning systems into Europe, early warning systems that benefit the US but make the countries stuck with the damm things a target when they otherwise probably wouldn’t be.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Now the Turkish economy. The Turkish economy swings both ways. It is a market, but it is also a supplier to markets. A supplier of what in many cases can also be supplied from within the EU but at a lower price. Sounds good? It is until the realisation that everything we could produce but instead import is in essence the exporting of our jobs.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Turkey and stability? Yeah. Right. Tell that to the Kurds, And the Armenians. And the Greeks, and other nations where Turkish “support” is paying for the wherewithal for conflict. Thanks, but no thanks.

The UK a key supporter to Turkish accession? No.

Tony Blair and many of his New Labour fellow travelers so keen to keep the Islamic vote in order to keep their parliamentary seats may pay lip service to the thought but the majority of British people are appalled by the prospect. There is also the desire Blair had to help Shrub and his outlandish aims, aims in which a close unsinkable aircraft carrier to the theatre of his war was paramountl.

The UK wants Turkey in the EU? No thanks.

Now two points about GDP. Firstly UNDERSTAND all of the implications of GDP, secondly understand the definition of poverty. For one thing understand the huge difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Turkey is an impoverished nation desperate to sponge of the EU.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Turkish religion? True Turkey claims to have a secular constitution but that is only insofar as the population can chose their representatives by voting, and there is no stated link to Shar’is (and I use that word in the correct context). HOWEVER on the ground the situation is very different. To imagine for a New York Second that Turkey is in any way a secular nation is simply wrong.

Is NATO the only military alliance able to stand up to North Korea or Iran? Hardly. If push came to shove there’s several nations that could turn both countries into Trinitite in the blink of an eye, and the so called war on terror is actually a defensive war against the war being waged on the free world by Islam, and that is a war in which conventional weapons play no significant part.

As for the rest of your cut & paste material, it is shallow and highly partisan.

Turkey is NOT welcome by the grass roots people of Europe, it has NOTHING that we either want or need, it will, or could make a good enough neighbour, but NEVER a filial state.

Now Russia, there’s a different proposition. Russia is closer to the rest of Europe than Turkey is, ever has been, or ever will be, and Russia WOULD be a good nation to have as a member state of the EU.
 
TurkYusuf1 are you sure the Turkish people would want to join the EU? on joining there would be an exodus of people to the wealthier regions of Europe, look at what happened in Latvia and Poland and even with the economic downturn they are not all rushing home. You would find it difficult to keep people in any sort of agricultural industry and would probably be forced to allow large numbers of foreigners from out side the EU into your country to do all the menial work.

And then there is the issue of culture, how will Turkish people react to the westernizing influence of joining the EU, its one thing to say Turkey is secular but it is still a very conservative Muslim country.

There are those among us here afraid of a Turkish invasion but really we are the half billion strong monster on your door step, Turkey will never be the same again after you join.
 
TurkYusuf1 are you sure the Turkish people would want to join the EU? on joining there would be an exodus of people to the wealthier regions of Europe, look at what happened in Latvia and Poland and even with the economic downturn they are not all rushing home. You would find it difficult to keep people in any sort of agricultural industry and would probably be forced to allow large numbers of foreigners from out side the EU into your country to do all the menial work.

And then there is the issue of culture, how will Turkish people react to the westernizing influence of joining the EU, its one thing to say Turkey is secular but it is still a very conservative Muslim country.

There are those among us here afraid of a Turkish invasion but really we are the half billion strong monster on your door step, Turkey will never be the same again after you join.

I'm sure he is thinking quite hard about the potential ramifications of Turkish E.U. membership after the recent flurry of arguments on this thread.
 
Maybe we should start first asking Turks if they feel european and/or want to join EU....Because it seems only europeans think Turkey is european..
 
Last edited:
Let’s start with NATO.




NATO is outdated. The justification for the creation of NATO is gone, today NATO is a thing that is actually less than useless for Europe as it was the NATO treaty that allowed the US to drag European governments into conflicts that they had no reason to become embroiled in.

Moreover NATO provides the means for the US to place early warning systems into Europe, early warning systems that benefit the US but make the countries stuck with the damm things a target when they otherwise probably wouldn’t be.


So thanks, but no thanks.

Now the Turkish economy. The Turkish economy swings both ways. It is a market, but it is also a supplier to markets. A supplier of what in many cases can also be supplied from within the EU but at a lower price. Sounds good? It is until the realisation that everything we could produce but instead import is in essence the exporting of our jobs.


So thanks, but no thanks.

Turkey and stability? Yeah. Right. Tell that to the Kurds, And the Armenians. And the Greeks, and other nations where Turkish “support” is paying for the wherewithal for conflict. Thanks, but no thanks.


The UK a key supporter to Turkish accession? No.


Tony Blair and many of his New Labour fellow travelers so keen to keep the Islamic vote in order to keep their parliamentary seats may pay lip service to the thought but the majority of British people are appalled by the prospect. There is also the desire Blair had to help Shrub and his outlandish aims, aims in which a close unsinkable aircraft carrier to the theatre of his war was paramountl.


The UK wants Turkey in the EU? No thanks.

Now two points about GDP. Firstly UNDERSTAND all of the implications of GDP, secondly understand the definition of poverty. For one thing understand the huge difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. Turkey is an impoverished nation desperate to sponge of the EU.


Thanks, but no thanks.

Turkish religion? True Turkey claims to have a secular constitution but that is only insofar as the population can chose their representatives by voting, and there is no stated link to Shar’is (and I use that word in the correct context). HOWEVER on the ground the situation is very different. To imagine for a New York Second that Turkey is in any way a secular nation is simply wrong.



Is NATO the only military alliance able to stand up to North Korea or Iran? Hardly. If push came to shove there’s several nations that could turn both countries into Trinitite in the blink of an eye, and the so called war on terror is actually a defensive war against the war being waged on the free world by Islam, and that is a war in which conventional weapons play no significant part.


As for the rest of your cut & paste material, it is shallow and highly partisan.


Turkey is NOT welcome by the grass roots people of Europe, it has NOTHING that we either want or need, it will, or could make a good enough neighbour, but NEVER a filial state.

Now Russia, there’s a different proposition. Russia is closer to the rest of Europe than Turkey is, ever has been, or ever will be, and Russia WOULD be a good nation to have as a member state of the EU.


NATO is not outdated despite what you think, in terms of military power only UK, France and Germany and to a small extent Italy are powerful enough in Europe to stand up against other major powers and hostile nations around the globe. So without US, NATO would not have deterred the Soviets from invading and now would not be able to stand up to countries like North Korea or Iran by themselves. China, Russia and even India today are more powerful than Europe so they definitely need NATO to deter and balance the power with these nations.No that's not because of NATO, the reason Europe being a target for attacks is because geographically they are closer to Middle East and the rest of Asia than US so that's the stupidest excuse to use to discredit NATO.Turkey is a growing economy and has great industrial and infrastructural capacity and it may not be as strong as European economies but they are growing and will be in top 10 in 40 or so years, there is one major difference between European and Turkish economies and that is Europe depends too much on oil and gas to fuel their economies and militaries from Middle East and Russia while Turkey possesses other resources that are just as good and cheaper and less harmful to the environment. Yes it is a market and a supplier of markets but so what many European countries are as well, Turkey's main trading partners are Germany, UK, France, and other European nations other than US. It goes both ways in terms of trade. Both benefit.Well despite what you may think or think you know, some people are idiotic enough to not be able to let go of past animosities in those countries but most people don't give a shit and want to move forward. In fact the current Turkish government is working to fix relations with Greece and has even opened it's border with Armenia and has agreed to look into the events of 1915 and try to find a solution to the problem. About the Kurds again you are generalizing, there is a difference between local Kurdish people and the PKK (the terrorist/socialist/communist/separatist organization) which claims represents the Kurdish people in Turkey and has been fighting the Turkish army for 26 years. I have some Kurdish blood in me (my mother is Turkmen, my father half Turkmen - from father's side and half Kurdish - from mother's side) and I personally know many Kurds in Turkey that don't feel hatred to the Turks and live in peace and coexistance with them. So you are misinformed on this subject as well, I suggest you do more research before you make presumptions.I copy and pasted this from the internet it's not what I'm saying and I know several British people that claim this fact too, so it's not my opinion but a well-known fact so you can deny it all you want but it won't change the fact.Where did you get this so called information from any reliable sources? Also even if it is true, which I highly doubt, the Queen herself has visited Turkey several times in the last 10 or so years and has expressed her admiration for Turkey and it's impressive accomplishments and history. I can copy and paste this too or give you the link that confirms this if you don't believe me or want to see proof of it. Doesn't really matter anyway I know this fact and so do many people. Yes they support them in EU, opinion of people may be varied and different because they will be divided on the issue.Yes I know what GDP means and definition of poverty, but Turkey is in no way an impoverished nation compared to EU. Turkey is higher than several European countries in GDP than Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Poland, etc. so how do you figure that out when countries like Sweden and Switzerland are two countries with excellent qualities of life and their GDP is far weaker than Turkey's? Again factless and sourceless presumptions.The population is divided on the issue of religion. More than 70% of the country is not religious and only about 20-30% are religiously committed to Islam as shown in a recent survey (I can provide you with the link if you want to see it for yourself). I'm not saying this to upset any other Turkish or other Muslims who value their religion like me but it's a known fact.Yes it is the only combined force of military alliance that can do that because North Korea and Iran despite being weaker than European countries when compared one on one, still can do significant damage to Europe if a war occurs. In fact North Korea and Iran despite having old and inefficient weapons when compared to Europe have relatively large armies and are acquiring nukes which can reach Europe which will make it even more difficult for Europe to hold it's own without combined NATO support from countries like US and even Turkey to some small extent.Really I made sure to copy and paste a lot of my stuff from the internet so you won't use the excuse of calling me biased. Why would the internet (where the western world controls) would claim these things about Turkey which show positive and rapid growth in areas like economy and influence if they weren't true or proven facts?
Sorry but that statement is also nothing but a presumption with no facts to back it up. Like I copy and pasted earlier, important countries like Sweden, UK even Turkey's long time rival and neighbour Greece support Turkey's accession into EU. Actually no you are wrong again. Russia is much closer to Turkey now than it has ever been to Europe. Did you forget the Cold War where the former Soviet Union and Europe where ready to fight against each other and were bitter rivals, that hasn't really changed enough to make Russia trust Europe as they see them as continuous and strong allies of US. Turkey and Russia meanwhile have been enemies and rivals for centuries, but the last 10 years have seen dramatic improvements in relations between the two countries as they have been working on many energy projects and support and acknowledge each others roles in the area as they have even conducted joint military exercises and operations such as the recent Navy operation done together (I can also provide you with the link if you want to see it for yourself). Russia still doesn't trust Europe but since are closer with Turkey as they have interests in the area they are both in such as Central Asian Turkic nations and the Caucasus. Russia would be a good member to have in EU? I'm not sure your European colleagues would agree with you on that.
 
TurkYusuf1 are you sure the Turkish people would want to join the EU? on joining there would be an exodus of people to the wealthier regions of Europe, look at what happened in Latvia and Poland and even with the economic downturn they are not all rushing home. You would find it difficult to keep people in any sort of agricultural industry and would probably be forced to allow large numbers of foreigners from out side the EU into your country to do all the menial work.

And then there is the issue of culture, how will Turkish people react to the westernizing influence of joining the EU, its one thing to say Turkey is secular but it is still a very conservative Muslim country.


There are those among us here afraid of a Turkish invasion but really we are the half billion strong monster on your door step, Turkey will never be the same again after you join.


The Turkish people are divided on the issue, some of them especially in the Central and Western part of the country support the accession into EU but some people especially in the Eastern part of the country where Kurds, some Arabs and other religiously traditional and committed people don't want this to happen. I myself am divided and conflicted over the issue, I'm just arguing here on this forum why and when and how it will happen eventually despite the difficulties based on my studies in university and my own personal research and following the news, articles and other reports. Well there are already 5+ million Turks in Europe (2-4 million in Germany alone and UK and France having 500,000 each and the rest is dispersed around the continent) working, studying and living there so I don't see how Turkey's accession would make the situation any different. Yes many more Turks would immigrate into richer parts of Europe but Turkey has a huge population (about 76 million people) and would not lose many people and would not need to bring other people from neighbouring countries to fill in the void. Like I claimed earlier in my previous comments, Turkey in many ways including culturally is already western and european due to it's long legacy and influence in Europe for the last 1,000 years. No it's not a very conservative Muslim country and like I said earlier, only about 20-30% of the country is religiously traditional and committed to Islam while the rest are not that involved in their religion. I'm not saying this to anger any other Muslims or religious Turks but this is the case with Turkey and has been for over 70 years since the Turkish Republic was formed.
Actually no that's not true, based on my studies in university and personal research from many sources, Europe is not much stronger than Turkey in terms of military power and only UK, France and Germany and to a small extent Italy could threaten Turkey, Eastern Europe is still relatively weak and Turkey could dominate that region as easily as it did during it's Ottoman times but Western Europe, specifically the countries I listed above could hold their own against Turkey but they are not much stronger than Turkey. According to my research I found out that on average UK, France and Germany rank as 5th, 6th and 7th respectively while Turkey is ranked as 8th or 9th in world military rankings so you see they are not far behind while Italy is between 12th-17th while other European nations like Sweden, Greece, Spain, etc. are not even in top 20. Also Turkey is a major power that is growing rapidly in terms of military power and regional influence as they invest a huge amount on their military (current spending for 2010 is between $42-49 billion dollars even higher than Russia and Italy), Turkey also produces about 60% of it's own weapons and is less dependent on other nations for military equipment and hardware than it did before on US and Europe. It has impressive military projects such as the acquiring of a national self made tank in 2012 "Altay Tank Project" based on the latest German Leopards and with some help from South Korea and is a level 3 partner in F-35 aircraft planes while it possesses the 3rd largest arsenal of F-16's in the world after US and Israel (which is considered the second most effective and powerful aircraft in the world after the F-22's, which only US possesses and Eurofighter Typhoon, which several European nations like UK and Germany posses). Turkey is already a fully developed country and a major regional power economically and militarily (17th economy in GDP higher than any Muslim country and higher than many European countries as I indicated earlier and between 8th-10th most powerful military in the world).
 
@ TurkYusuf1

Although this thread relates to Turkey and the EU the way it has developed perfectly illustrates just one reason why Turkey is and will remain out of step with the EU while Islam is such a dominant force in that country.

Answering your lengthy previous post addressed to me :-

Regarding your “religion”, a religion only if the word is used in its broadest sense, it’s interesting that you start with an assumption about my depth of knowledge. It’s an assumption that is utterly incorrect.

It’s also interesting that before Islam makes any comment about Judaism or Christianity it first redefines both. Mohammed did this for two reasons.

Firstly because although widely traveled in the region he really didn’t understand the pre-existing religions, made many schoolboy howlers, and had to cater for them when they were pointed out to him.

Secondly, and especially in the case of Christianity, what he was “teaching” runs counter to the teaching and deeds of Christ. Both those recorded in the (selected) Gospels and other Gospels. For example the Gnostic works, as well as other testaments that were not included in the Roman version of The Bible that Mohammed had to come up with an excuse for his creation being so out of step.

You’re basing your comments assuming that the King James version of The Bible is the sum total of the life, times, and teaching of Jesus as regards the knowledge and understanding of Christians. Such is not so. (let’s ignore the old chestnut that Jesus was a contemporary version of Superman, a mythical perfection for the times) which as I have alluded to in the previous paragraph it is not. .

It’s also interesting that you glibly refer to ‘The Koran’ as if there was only the one Koran.

There are several versions, and these differ quite considerably in far more than chapter order, but then, as someone who knows so much about the Christian religion and Judaism you’ll know that ----- won’t you?

As for the Koran being “to recollect the texts written in the Bible and the Torah in Christianity and Judaism that were lost or changed throughout the centuries” that really is a schoolboy howler to beat them all. Talk about “if at first you don’t succeed, redefine success”.

Mohammed invented a thing to suite his agenda. His agenda was to provide common ground, a stick, and a carrot, in order to exploit the feuding tribes in such a way as to create a super-tribe.

He did this by means of a “pick and mix” of what existed in a number of religions of the time, mostly the monotheistic as the Jews and Christians had strong and well founded “churches” as well as being, but didn’t baulk at using odds and sods from Paganism and in fact anything that suited his needs at the time.

In fact much as Hitler used parts of the political movements of his time in order to create Nazism, a thing that by its broad appeal to followers of just about anything from the socialist workers to the hard right nationalists. Once achieved, like Hitler having got the attention and established a common bond, both then started to bring in the inhuman aspects of their invented movements.

In that respect Hitler and Mohammed have a great deal in common, as does Islam and Nazism. Both oppressive, both insisting on domination of the world, and both utterly foul and inhuman to all who can not be brought under the jack-boot or jack-sandal.

The Koran? It is supposed to be the disclosed word of Allah, passed to Mohammed via Gibreel and to be learned and constantly recited sotto voce in order to ensure that the devout Mohammedan remains on the ”path to the water” --- but then, you’ll know that won’t you?

You do raise an interesting question on when I became expert on the worlds religions.

I’m not an expert on the worlds religions, just some of them.
And in answer to your question about how long, around 43 years ago.

For your information although my principle academic career has been in physics I am, or rather was, an ordained minister. I rejected Theism and became a hard atheist many years ago because the more one learns about Religions, their histories, and contrasts that with the reality of the world and the universe so any form of theism becomes obviously just plain silly and nothing more than superstition.
A superstition that acts as a comfort blanket for those who need such a thing.

Now the word Islam. Yes, it does mean submission, but submission to the dictates of Mohammed. The claim that what he produced, if indeed he did the work on his own which is a matter of more than a little doubt, is so out of kilter with the God of Christians and Jews when comparison is undertaken as to thoroughly disprove that the two deities are one and the same.

Now I can tranche through the rest of what you’ve offered in argument in fine detail but to be frank it’s becoming tedious. Instead I’ll simply address some key points.

Alcohol. Alcohol is absolutely NOT prohibited in either Christianity or Judaism. Some Christian sects reject alcohol on the basis of Mathew 26:29 though in Luke 22:19 when Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me” clearly shows that as wine is key in the Eucharist those sects are in error.

So also the prohibition on pork. Even an extreme orthodox Jew may eat pork to save his life.

Maybe if you knew, really knew what Judaism and Christianity was all about, you would be aware of the principle of “Pikuach Nefesh” in Judaism, the requirement to save life that overrides virtually all demands up to but, unlike the case of Islam, not including denying his religion.

Much as the principle of lying in Islam in order to save a the life of a Mohammedan who finds himself at risk (amongst other things) is to be found in taqiyya and Kitman.

As for the rest, you simply repeat yourself regarding Turkey and the EU. Your assertion that most of us here in the EU don’t want Turkey because the majority of Turks are Muslim is partly correct but by no means the whole story.

Turkey is a nation too far. Be a neighbour, don’t try to join the family.
 
There are those among us here afraid of a Turkish invasion but really we are the half billion strong monster on your door step, Turkey will never be the same again after you join.


Sorry TurkYusuf1 I didn't explain myself very well there , I wasn't implying Turkey should be worried about a military invasion from Europe but more an invasion of ideas, morals (maybe even loose ones) culture and laws.

Watch out you could be facing a phalanx of Bara Brost, the topless Swedish women's brigade:)

One other point you said you were not concerned about a large migration of Turks into the wealthier member states after membership. But this has been the experience of several Eastern European countries like Poland. And of the 70-80 millions Turks it wont be across the board it will be demographic specific (mostly men) in the early twenties to thirties a key demographic for any country.
 
I’ve just spent a couple of minutes looking at what he has written and it makes for interesting reading. For starters he recognises there would be a mass migration from Turkey int Europe if Turkey was to be allowed to join us yet totally overlooks the fact that we don’t want or need such a mass migration.

Then there is the (false) claim that Turkey is in many ways including culturally is (in his words) “already western and european due to it's long legacy and influence in Europe for the last 1,000 years.”

Err, actually no, actually it isn’t.

Another telling claim he makes is that the majority of the 98% Mohammedan population are (in his words) “not that involved in their religion” and yet totally fails to grasp that the vast majority of European do not WANT any more Islamic influence of any form in our nations. What’s more the admission that (in his words) around 30% of the population ARE conservative Mohammedans (with all THAT entails) is yet another reason for Turkey to remain a neighbour.

What is also interesting is that looking at the totality of his post nearly half of it is about weapons, armaments, and by definition fighting and conflict.

Do we really need a nation with people so intent on seeing the perpetration of conflict in our Union, a thing that has the end of internecine conflict as a crucial component of its very being?
 
Where do you see the Eu going in the future Gwyllgi, not the next 5-10 years but 50-100? this isn't a loaded question Im just curious to know what you think ?

You look at China, they already have high speed trains between their main cities and are forward planning HS trains to Russia and Europe.

A one China Policy which has been very clearly laid out.

And a foreign policy which involves doing business with any country that will supply them with natural resources to fuel their economy (regardless of how that country treats its citizens or neighbours.

Perhaps our own politicians should publish a path and clearly lay out what steps will be taken to get us there.
 
(100 Years from now)

How about a Union that stretches as far as Russia with Japan applying for membership and down through Turkey with Armenia the Leb Israel and Jordan as members with Egypt applying (among others).

What type of Union?

1. An Economic Union.
2. A 2/3 4 or 5 speed political Union.
3. Not necessarily a military Union but certainly with the capability to reach out and impact on different world crises, natural, political or environmental.

Requirements for entry?

1. Secular democracy.
2. Implementation of EU laws and directives.
3. Guarantee of Freedoms.
a) Speech
b) Assembly
c) Union membership
d) Press
e) political parties
f) Judiciary
g) religion

Any more?

Of course we may have to lose the European from the title but that will help solve the genetic, geographic and culture debate, we would then be only restrained by the smallness of our minds and ambitions:rolleyes:
 
Give it a thousand of years and the whole world should be mixed well genetically, culturally, politically you name it, and our planet will be one big union.
I'm just afraid that something will screw up our technological civilization and will collapse into middle ages again. One of these threats is Islam I'm afraid.

Actually lately I had an idea that future countries should be based on political and economic system more than culture, language or faith. I would love to live in country with people of same political and economical views and aspirations. The rest would belong to freedom domain. We should have a freedom of selecting countries of similar views to live in.

The most of energy and time of governments is wasted around political intrigues, negotiations with other parties, and economic/fiscal issues. Everybody blames government for their shortcomings.
In new world if your country sucks, you can only blame yourself for making a bad choice, lol.
 
Where do you see the Eu going in the future Gwyllgi, not the next 5-10 years but 50-100? this isn't a loaded question Im just curious to know what you think ?

You look at China, they already have high speed trains between their main cities and are forward planning HS trains to Russia and Europe.

A one China Policy which has been very clearly laid out.

And a foreign policy which involves doing business with any country that will supply them with natural resources to fuel their economy (regardless of how that country treats its citizens or neighbours.

Perhaps our own politicians should publish a path and clearly lay out what steps will be taken to get us there.

Fifty years? A hundred years? I would HOPE that Russia would be an EU member and I would HOPE that Islam was at least constrained, but I suspect that there may be big-time trouble coming down the line, and that Europe may well be partitioned with the map of the EU considerably changed. I wouldn’t want to live in Greece, that’s for sure. Or the Balearics, Corsica, or Sardinia.

The UK is a special case. Being isolated by the North Sea and with its dreadful multicultural experiment now yielding its fruit, a fruit that is screwing the demography of the UK so very much, I really wouldn’t be surprised to see the UK being Islamic even if not in entirety, certainly in part.

The relationship with the US will have fallen apart especially following the collapse of the US economy following the collapse of the $US that will come as an alternative reserve currency emerges. That collapse might well see the USA go the same route as did the USSR but as with all great empires their ultimate failure is associated with a war.

Norway and Sweden, in my opinion are not a good fit into the rest of Europe. It could well be that both of them along with Iceland, Greenland, and Canada will form a new political and economic grouping with the USA and Mexico to form a new North American Union. But to be honest I don’t know that much detail about the relative strengths of each and I can’t even guess what changes will come about in the US as a result of demographic changes and tye social changes that will accompany them.

China is certainly where I think most progress will take place. The links that are being created by China with Africa and now South America will see a global empire in essence if not in fact.

I believe that right now there’s too many domestic political games being played by politicians as a result of there still not being a United States of Europe. It’s getting to be a matter of great importance to establish the USE if for no other reason than to control the economies of the member states.

Look at the mess Greece has created. Look at the mess the UK economy is in. There needs to be an EU wide chancellor to govern what is, in the EURO and the European Central Bank, an almost EU wide treasury.

The one certainty is that no matter what the lifestyle enjoyed by those of us in the “old” EU states is going to tumble big time and I suspect our Golden Age is drawing rapidly to a close.

But underlying the whole sorry mess is the question of when some pandemic will emerge to cull the global population, because sure as eggs it’s going to happen.
 
(100 Years from now)

How about a Union that stretches as far as Russia with Japan applying for membership and down through Turkey with Armenia the Leb Israel and Jordan as members with Egypt applying (among others).

What type of Union?

1. An Economic Union.
2. A 2/3 4 or 5 speed political Union.
3. Not necessarily a military Union but certainly with the capability to reach out and impact on different world crises, natural, political or environmental.

Requirements for entry?

1. Secular democracy.
2. Implementation of EU laws and directives.
3. Guarantee of Freedoms.
a) Speech
b) Assembly
c) Union membership
d) Press
e) political parties
f) Judiciary
g) religion

Any more?

Of course we may have to lose the European from the title but that will help solve the genetic, geographic and culture debate, we would then be only restrained by the smallness of our minds and ambitions:rolleyes:

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.
 

Fifty years? A hundred years? I would HOPE that Russia would be an EU member and I would HOPE that Islam was at least constrained, but I suspect that there may be big-time trouble coming down the line, and that Europe may well be partitioned with the map of the EU considerably changed. I wouldn’t want to live in Greece, that’s for sure. Or the Balearics, Corsica, or Sardinia.
No. I love Russia. I used to live in Moscow and St. P. Russia is European, but it's still more "Russia" than "Europe", an old empire and it's of no interest to have 150+ millions strong votes in the EP supported by other large slavic populations. Being blunt, we could just as well move the EP to Moscow and call it the European Duma. I don't find that the interests and the ideas of the Union is on par with the Russian. Russia is by itself a large community; a federation of republics. For what reason would it be of mutual interest with Russia as a member? We will still have bilateral agreements and cooperation. The Union is not an empire; it's not about territory and power. I think Turkey has a more obvious place in the EU than Russia, and I have issues with that as well. I don't feel that Turkey is ready for membership.

The UK is a special case. Being isolated by the North Sea and with its dreadful multicultural experiment now yielding its fruit, a fruit that is screwing the demography of the UK so very much, I really wouldn’t be surprised to see the UK being Islamic even if not in entirety, certainly in part.
Oh, come on. Sweden has a greater percentage of immigration than both the UK and Italy. The UK is a bit screwed up in parts of their democracy and justice system, but that's not by influence of immigration. That's all British. And please don't judge Islam by the extreme aspects. There are loads of Muslims eating pork and not praying 5 times a day. They are just people. I agree that fundamentalist Islam must be opposed in the EU, but there is a way between banning burqas and Niqabs and lying flat against the demands of Wahhabi interests.

The relationship with the US will have fallen apart especially following the collapse of the US economy following the collapse of the $US that will come as an alternative reserve currency emerges. That collapse might well see the USA go the same route as did the USSR but as with all great empires their ultimate failure is associated with a war.
If by comparing to the USSR you mean american interests and military stepping back, it will take another form. You may want to look into what is happening with NATO. They are reforming, and it's taking a clearer role as a US interest organisation further threaten to undermine the role of the UN making it irrelevant, and by going global it may very well threaten to not only institutionalize the current hegemony but expand it. What the reaction will be in the world we can only speculate on, but likely the CSO and Shanghai Organization will have an opinion.

Norway and Sweden, in my opinion are not a good fit into the rest of Europe. It could well be that both of them along with Iceland, Greenland, and Canada will form a new political and economic grouping with the USA and Mexico to form a new North American Union. But to be honest I don’t know that much detail about the relative strengths of each and I can’t even guess what changes will come about in the US as a result of demographic changes and tye social changes that will accompany them.
Really? I would need to have more information for the reason why Scandinavia don't fit into the Union. They are full blown working democracies with most of them good economies, net contributors to the Union with low criminality, absent corruption and a fairly positive attitude towards the EU. I would think that a country like Bulgaria would fit into your description of a country that does not fit into the Union. Start where we have a real problem.

China is certainly where I think most progress will take place. The links that are being created by China with Africa and now South America will see a global empire in essence if not in fact.
Not really. The BRIC countries are clearly taking their place on the multi-polar global arena, but USAN will not be run by the Chinese. The sino agenda in Africa is no different than that of the US. We will see a greater plurality in the world but a global sino-empire is quite unlikely. The whole world develop simultaneously. The Chinese may look scary, but the economic growth phenomenon is possible because they are rising from being an undeveloped poor country.

I believe that right now there’s too many domestic political games being played by politicians as a result of there still not being a United States of Europe. It’s getting to be a matter of great importance to establish the USE if for no other reason than to control the economies of the member states.
I can only guess that by USE, you mean a federation. I don't think there is either a convincing advantage of that, or in the interest of Europe to forge a federation. We have a form of confederation, and this is what we need to consolidate, develop and strengthen. The EU have no interest in copying old and flawed solutions, like that of the USA, USSR, Russia or anything else. The EU is unique by the fact that we are a confederation of different cultures and democracies. We must have a better fiscal policy and deepened military cooperation, but that doesn't include creating a federation. That is not a simplex solution, but a simple and inadequate. It is not consistent with the ideas of the European project, and frankly, I don't see how the populations of Europe would allow it. That might just shred the seams of the EU. Shared sovereignty is not the same as given away. Even many EU enthusiasts hesitate by the federation idea. It doesn't have much support. EU can be just as strong in a confederation as in a federation.

Look at the mess Greece has created. Look at the mess the UK economy is in. There needs to be an EU wide chancellor to govern what is, in the EURO and the European Central Bank, an almost EU wide treasury.
The EU is not a country or an empire. It seems you are constantly missing the points and the deeper meaning of the European project. You seem to look past the society building democratic peace agenda, and look at it from a Great Serbia or age-of-the-empires point of view.
Yes, we need better methods when it comes to fiscal policy. Concentrating executive power to a European federative president is not in our interests. Copying the US and Russian models is not progress, just imitating systems that don't really work that well. We are Europeans. We can do better.

The one certainty is that no matter what the lifestyle enjoyed by those of us in the “old” EU states is going to tumble big time and I suspect our Golden Age is drawing rapidly to a close.
If you mean feeding of the poor world, I agree. It is changing, and it's for the better for all. Europe will not fall into an abyss though. As it is we are in better shape than most of the world. It's definitely going to be changes in the world, it always has been. I just don't see how Europe will plunge into darkness. For what reason? The problems of the world is not only Europe's. The important thing is not who is on top. It's that we and the other parts of the world are strong enough, have enough and are developing and stable. I don't see how that will change in Europe. That immigrants will take over and the Chinese will come, resembles a bit too much far right propaganda and cold war slogans.

But underlying the whole sorry mess is the question of when some pandemic will emerge to cull the global population, because sure as eggs it’s going to happen.
I agree. There will be a potential "black death" sooner or later, and it will hit the world assymetrically. This time with the H1N1 could have been that. We didn't know. But we are better equipped than ever to meet that threat, and in time it will likely be a small issue. The main problem is that we actually don't really understand how viruses act and work fully. It's still a guessing game. That will change. Question is if we can control disease even then.
 
Last edited:
... In fact the current Turkish government is working to fix relations with Greece ....

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.
 
Last edited:
TurkYusuf1

No, I disagree. NATO is quite outdated. There is no great interest for Europe being a part of an american security pact, having US bases in the EU. The importance is not who is the strongest in the world, it's being strong enough to deter war. We need security cooperation in the EU, but why in the world would that include the US dictating the conditions of our security policy. Really, why? Is it a European defense organisation or is it defending american interests and presence in Europe and a way to invoke European participation in american wars? They don't want to close their bases. If they do, they can never come back. No, the EU can't rule the world, and we cant attack other parts of the world in a big way, but I don't think any state in the world would come out in a great shape attacking the Union. That's all that matters. Our security is our responsibility.

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.
 

This thread has been viewed 234893 times.

Back
Top