Should Turkey be allowed to join the EU or not?

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Since I seem to be they only person on Earth who actually thinks this will help the EU immensely, I'd like to hear some discussion.

First, what is the 'EU' supposed to be?

In general, there are two possible concepts:

1) The United States of Europe
This idea revolves around a core-Europe, mostly the historical Karolingian Empire, plus the Scandinavian countries if they decide to join.
France, Germany, the Benelux, Austria, Slovenia, Northen Italy, Czech Republic maybe, share a common history, a closely related ethnicity, common religion (and, more important, attitude towards religion), a common view of the world and the role Europe is supposed to play in it. Great Britain for example simply differs too much in its political goals; so while it would fit perfectly for ethnicity, culture, economy, it won't ever join such an EU.

2) The Commonwealth of Europe
Mostly an economical entity, revolving around free trade zones, common standards for jurisdiction and industry, common conceptions of democracy and philosophy. This allows practically everyone in the neighborhood to become members, if only they accept those standards.

Obviously, once countries like Greece or later Poland, Lithuania etc were allowed to join, the US of E idea was dropped.

So, why not Turkey?

1) Religion
Obviously, Turkey would be the first non-Christian country. OTOH, while the European incarnations of Catholicism and Protestantism are almost identically, Orthodox Christianity is still different - and there was no such discussion when Greece joined, as well there is no such discussion today in the case of Bulgaria.
For me, it's not religion that matters - it's Laizism. And because of that, Turkey seems to be a more suitable candidate than the USA would be...
Also, I can see Israel as a future candidate as well.

2) Ethnicity
The EU already consists of Germanic, Romanic, Slavic, Finno-Ungric, Basque, Celtic...whatever people. The historical roots of Magyars and Bulgars (I know, the population is of Slavic origin) are Turk tribes. Hardly an arguement against Turkey.

3) History
The Ottoman Empire was part of the European history, no way around it. If Turkey doesn't qualify here, why do countries that were part of that empire for centuries, and never existed as nations before the 19th century (Romania)?

4) Politics
Turkey is a democratic country today. No doubt, it needs quite some more time to prove Turkey stays democratic over a longer period. It was a military dictatorship before? So was Spain and Portugal and Greece.
And, the EU accepted Latvia. And in Latvia, about half the population are Russians, and they simply do not share full rights with the genuine Latvians (for example, there is no bilanguity). The EU is aware of that situation, and it is far from being Racism, but still - why was Latvia allowed to join before those legal problems were solved?

5) Economics
Turkey is a poor country, compared to Western Europe. Especially per capita.
Then, what about Bulgaria?
And, the city of Istanbul alone has a stronger economy than any of the Baltic states (and more inhabitants than all of them together...).
No doubt, the rural Anatolia is backwards. But the EU always found ways around granting full benefits in such a case (just ask Poland).
OTOH, Turkey is a huge future market.

6) Geography
Where does Europe end? That discussion is pretty mood; obviously, parts of Turkey are part of Europe, other parts are not. The same applies to France, ironically (Mauritius, Tahiti, all those overseas departments).

7) Size
The most powerful argument.
Malta may have been a doubtful case, but considering there are about 40 cities in Germany with more inhabitants than all of Malta, it really didn't matter.
But Turkey has more inhabitants than all other nations joining the EU (not the EEC) together...


Why should Turkey join?

A huge market. Resources. A young population. Common political goals. Democracy. Political importance. A signal to the world that Christians and Muslims do indeed share common values; conflicts are not caused by different religions, but by fanaticsm. And don't forget, Turkey was a reliable NATO partner since ages.

Still, the situation on Cyprus needs to be solved. Minority (Kurds mainly) rights need to be guaranteed. The role of the Turkish military has to be watched for. Economical progress needs to be made by Turkey itself, not waiting for EU grants.
It will need some time before Turkey fulfills all requirements, or at least, before it is clear if its will to stick to the rules lasts. But in general, I think Turkey has a lot to offer. Way more than literarelly dozens of countries that were allowed/will be allowed to join on autopilot.

 

[luiz]

I agree 100%

Turkey would be great for the EU, and the EU would be great for Turkey.

Certainly there are some legitmate arguments against Turkey, but honestly I hear more based on ethnic or religious grounds, and those are non-arguments.

As you said the EU will become a Commonwealth of nations, not some federal entity, and therefore there is no reason to restrict "different" nations.

 

[Winner]

Where can I place my signature?

 

[Taliesin]

"United in diversity" - EU motto

That puts paid to pretty much every cultural or ethnic argument against Turkey joining.

I agree that Turkey has a place in Europe.

 

[Hotpoint]

Turkey joining the EU would help a great deal in helping mitigate the demographic problems we'll be facing in a few decades so I'm all for it.

As for the visions of Europe I can see a model somewhere between 1 and 2 as the most likely result from the present situation. More of a European Federation than a more centralised USE or looser Commonwealth.



O/T but personally I like the term European Federation because it doesn't sound wimpy like "Union" or "Community" or derivative like "United States of" and it abbreviates well to EuroFederation (eg. "The EuroFederation Parliament discussed the latest crisis in the Middle-East") or even EuroFed.

My ideal preference would be European Empire but I just don't see much public enthusiasm for The Legions of the Treaty of Rome carrying Imperial Eagles nowadays

 

[Hakim]

I support turkish membership, once it fulfills the requirements EU puts on it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Right now Germany is officially the 'sick man of Europe', if Turkey joined, there would be an 'even sicker man of Europe'.

 

[betazed]

excellent post, DocT.

So why do you think there is so much resistance against the idea? if we can answer that then perhaps we can remedy it and bring turkey into the eu.

 

[Mise]

As you have correctly said, Doc, most of the good arguements against Turkey (economic ones, that is) could be said about many of the Eastern European nations currently in the EU. We appear to be making the same mistakes all over again, citing the first mistakes as a precident. There's enough problems in Europe already; at least lets solve those before taking on new ones.

 

[King Alexander]

So, why not Turkey?

1) Religion
Obviously, Turkey would be the first non-Christian country. OTOH, while the European incarnations of Catholicism and Protestantism are almost identically, Orthodox Christianity is still different - and there was no such discussion when Greece joined, as well there is no such discussion today in the case of Bulgaria.

I don't see in what Orthodox differ from Catholicism or Protestantism: who cares if one recognises the Holy Spirit or not, as part/equal of God(religionists could explain it better).

It's the attitude that matters to me: in Italy Pope condemned people and they were cursed from their fellow people, having trouble finding jobs, etc. In Spain one of the same - neither of those two countries allowed abortions in the past.

Today, all countries are much better, in regards of religion than in earlier eras: regardless of what most people believe, they'll discuss things and hear LOGICAL criticism.

2) Ethnicity
The EU already consists of Germanic, Romanic, Slavic, Finno-Ungric, Basque, Celtic...whatever people. The historical roots of Magyars and Bulgars (I know, the population is of Slavic origin) are Turk tribes. Hardly an arguement against Turkey.

It's not races that disgusts me, but fundamentalism and religious don't-think-or-ask.

3) History
The Ottoman Empire was part of the European history, no way around it. If Turkey doesn't qualify here, why do countries that were part of that empire for centuries, and never existed as nations before the 19th century (Romania)?

It was a part, but how did that helped it to reform or move ahead? The ethics are much different and it doesn't have to do with religion but with the law itself: many things that came through religion are not democratic at all or accept women as equals.

4) Politics
Turkey is a democratic country today. No doubt, it needs quite some more time to prove Turkey stays democratic over a longer period.

Nice joke. Just go visit the 'white cells' and tell me how it feels...

We were talking about how Japan didn't admit attroricities against China, in another thread - has Turkey recognised the genocides of Kurds, Armenians or Greeks left there?
What, only Sadam was the bad guy in Iraq, but a western influenced nation isn't bad when doing the same and even more?

Let's see... can you go at an Internet Caffee and discuss freely about your domestic politics and global politics at your will?

How many reporters/jeournalists are being held in the Turkey because free press is forbidden - only what pleases the Army and the goverment is allowed.

Do you know any EU prime minister who afraids of what the Army will think/do, depending on he's actions/speeches, and doesn't know if he'll be prime minister much longer if he opposes the Army?

The list is endless: how would it be viewed in the EU if a raped girl was murdered by it's family because the family was 'disgraced' that the girl lost it's virginity? That wasn't a crime until recently, and it was perfectably allowed to do without any fear of the law there( hardly democratic): the EU pressed Turkey over this so hard, that it was in reality, a forced change by 'outside' without many of the local population approving it or finding it bad.

I don't know any other EU country that violates the borders of other EU countries every day, and even ignores some times to inform NATO about it's flight/vessel plan.

It was a military dictatorship before? So was Spain and Portugal and Greece.

I'll not talk about others but for Greece: the 1967-1974 dictatorship was a US action/support and much-much blood was shed to get rid of it.

Why should Turkey join?

A huge market. Resources. A young population. Common political goals. Democracy. Political importance. A signal to the world that Christians and Muslims do indeed share common values; conflicts are not caused by different religions, but by fanaticsm. And don't forget, Turkey was a reliable NATO partner since ages.

Agreed with most, but Democracy and if the Turkey will help the EU or stabb it in the back by following other commands.

Still, the situation on Cyprus needs to be solved.

It goes for a solution, but, IMHO, Turkey and Greece need to step aside and take ALL their troops from the island: who opposes such a proposition???

It will need some time before Turkey fulfills all requirements, or at least, before it is clear if its will to stick to the rules lasts. But in general, I think Turkey has a lot to offer. Way more than literarelly dozens of countries that were allowed/will be allowed to join on autopilot.

I Agree with it, if Turkey wished to follow these goals, but it's actions until recently says otherwise. They're trying, but they have to try much harder - I wish them luck.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Doc Tsiolkovski, I am also a weirdo. And it's really easy for me to explain my position about it :

1- The fact that Islam is the main religion in Turkey is in fact an advantage for me and certainly not something detrimental.

2- Turkey will become the largest, most populous, richest and most powerful nation of Europe. If that's not your purpose then there's no reason to want to see it joining. The only problem I see about it is that Turkey is as much part of Europe that it is part of the Middle East. It's undisputable that Turkey will be a leader (if not the leader) of Europe and that it will enforce its view on the Middle East.

3- Britain, France and Germany will never accept to be under the influence of Turkey, and the political unification process will automatically be stopped. This will be as much true if it would be Russia, Ukraine or Turkey joining. Hence I'm against the joining of those 3 countries in the EU.

4- As it's impossible to create a political union with those 3 countries, their membership will automatically create the EU as a purely economical union. As I'm certainly not against an economical union with Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, but I don't want to destroy the political union process, I propose to create two levels of integration :
- An economical union with UK, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Sweden, Norway, Poland, and Maghreeb countries.
- Inside that economical union, a political union made of countries which are not only seeking the membership simply to grab money from it.

I'm sorry to say this to you but it's absolutely impossible to dream of a political union which would incorporate nationalist nations such as Russia, Poland, Turkey or the UK. The more there are nationalist countries in the EU, the less there are chance it will become a political union.

 

[E-Raser]

Don't see any negativ points on Turkey joining EU.
Half of their population lives anyway in Berlin already. So where's the difference?

 

[storealex]

In general, the Turks in Denmark have high unemployment and crime rates. As a member of EU they can travel where they want inside Europe, right?
I saw an article saying that while only 15% of the Turks in Istanbul would wanna move to other European countries, if they could, the number was above 50% in the eastern rural area.

So lot's of Turks would come here, meaning more strain un our economy and more crime, right?

Also, while it's population isn't larger than say, the German, it will be. Now power in EU follow population seize, though not represential, right? So in 20 years, when Turkey will be the most populous country within EU, it will also be one of the most powerful. Ally with Germany, and they'd be able to get anything through, right?

Im no expect, so please enlighten me if Im wrong.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Some evry good posts so far in this thread,has certainally got me thinking more on the issue. I am undecided....I have problems with Turleys human rights but I am in favour of eventually including them.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Marla, last time I checked, Sweden was an EU member since 1995 . I do agree with how you see the GB/French/German hegemony thinking, though.

By no means I think Turkey should be allowed to join before it resembles a full Europe-style Democracy.
And, I agree that Turkey is as much a Democracy as e.g. India - for world standards, it can be called that way. By US/Euro/Canadian/Japanese standards, there's a long way to go.
And, I forgot the needed apologies for the genocids of the 20th century (I admittedly have my doubts about the Greek-Turkish quarrels, but the Armenian genocide is nothing they'll come away with it, France will take care here).

My point is:
Learning from the mistakes with Cyprus, Latvia, the anti-EU resentiments in Poland (and maybe GB ), the Greek 'Creative Book-keeping', the EU should really insist on waterproof fulfillments of a catalogue of requirements. And only after that, Turkey should be considered. But obviously, since Bulgaria and Romania are supposed to join in 2007 on autopilote, the EU does apply dual standards here.

Re: Orthodox Christianity
I don't think Greece is more clerical than Spain or Italy. But all other EU countries before were either Protestant or Catholic, and the Protestantism is a split-off from Catholicism, while Orthodox Christianity is a different item. Protestanism has no head of church, and the Pope resides in Europe - where is the official metropolite of Orthodox Christianity? I know there is none technically, but doesn't the one of Moscow claim to be THE metropolite, as real successor of the Constantinople one?
So, I do not think Orthodox=non-European, but as a matter of fact, all 'classical' metroplites residue outside of Europe. Now, if Turkey joins, at least one will be EU citizen .

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

So lot's of Turks would come here, meaning more strain un our economy and more crime, right?

Much like Poland today faces restrictions, Turkey will have to live with pretty harsh moving restrictions for sure.

I'm no expert about Danish crime statistics, but do Turkish people really differ from genuine Danish ones of the same social status? And, do those statistics consider crimes a Dane cannot commit at all (like violating rules that only apply to foreigners, registration e.g.)?

 

[Britannia]

If Turkey is allowed to join the EU without the peoples of Europe having a chance to vote on the issue it will have proved once and for all that this Union is nothing more than a project of the political elite and big business.
The reason why Turkey shouldn't be able to join is simply because the European people don't want Turkey to join, as has been shown in nearly every opinion poll and survey on the matter.

 

[Panda]

A huge market.

That is available also even if they're not in the EU. The import tax seems currently to be acceptable.

Resources.

Turkey doesn't need to be in the EU in order for those to be used.

A young population.

Every young turk that comes to the EU to work eventually drags along a dozen relatives to live from social security. So much for the arguement that Turkey's young population will take care of the aging EU.

Left alone, just because they want to work doesn't mean they can do the work. Language, education etc.

Common political goals. Democracy.

Turkey democratic? Do you actually believe that if you deny systematic human rights violations, minority persecution and torture often enough it will eventually dissapear?

A signal to the world that Christians and Muslims do indeed share common values; conflicts are not caused by different religions, but by fanaticsm.

Islam is a war-mongering, women-opressing, archaic ideoligy of hatred. Hence, Muslims and Christians don't share common values.

And don't forget, Turkey was a reliable NATO partner since ages.

And that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Soviet Union had nuclear missiles pointed at Ankara?

France left NATO, yet nobody would suggest they shouldn't be in the EU.

None of your arguements convinces me why an Asian country should become a member of the European Union. Especially one that would be used by terrorists to infiltrate all of Europe. No thanks Turkey, we're doing fine without you!

 

[Elrohir]

Europe is already getting invaded by lots of Muslims who care more for implementing Sharia law than living peacefully under the already established governments. Why should the EU try and hurry the process along?

 

[King Alexander]

If we're going for sharia laws or non secular states(even at a *minimum*), then we're walking into a nightmare and dark ages, IMHO. I wish I'm wrong on this, but I certainly don't want to see our political systems turn to theocracies - we've had enough of this in the dark ages.