Marla_Singer said:
It's funny cause you answered as if I was talking about domination when actually I was talking about leadership. I didn't expect you to distort the meaning in such a way.
Who proposed the EMU ? Who proposed the Constitution ? Who has rushed the joining of Central European countries in the EU for 2004 ? And finally, who pressured for Turkey's membership ?
All those decisions had been taken by two countries : France and Germany. Of course the others had to accept, but once those two founding members agree, a large part of the job is done. Of course, they don't dominate, fortunately they can't enforce the choice of others ; however, you're all blind if you don't see they have a larger influence than others, and that's totally legitimate due to their weight in the Union. If you want the EU to accept your initiative and both France and Germany disagree with you, it will be very hard to see that initiative being accepted. After all, France and Germany represent 30% of the EU population.
Regretfully, you're right. But I won't give up the fight so easily
At first, the great influence of Germany and France isn't just the result of their huge pupulation base. There are other reasons as well - the fact that entire EU started like the organisation, that was created to prevent any future war between Germany and France, thus making these two countries the founding members, surely give them some moral credo. Also the EEC was dominated by Germany and France simply because of their relative economic strenght, that was overwhelming compared with the rest.
But times change. Now, EU has 25 members and relative strenght of both Germany and France has decreased (and the fact these two countries have serious economic problems plus their behaviour in the Pact of Stability cause doesn't exactly help them).
What I want to say: it is foolish to think that 100,000,000 people is enough to "lead" EU. The old members won't let it happen and their relative economic strenght will be surely much better argument than population.
Also, after federalisation of the Union, these problems will gradually diminish.
Turkey is a nationalist country, and that won't change. It will have a considerable influence in the EU, and that's a fact. Of course it's today poorer than Western European countries, but if the purpose of Turkish integration isn't to reduce the gap, then I don't understand what's its purpose. The scheme is pretty simple, Turkey doesn't want of a political integration, just like Sweden, Poland and Britain doesn't want of it.
Well, from my point of view, France is MUCH MORE nationalist country than us or Poland or other post-communist countries. And of course, if you judge Poland only by their stance during Iraq crisis or by the support for Bush, you will be very surprised. Much of Poland's behaviour is just the policy of its government (e.g. the same is said about Slovakia too - "hey, they were behind Bush in Iraq war". Actually, no. Their government was).
These countries usually don't reject the
idea of political integration, but the method and the pace.
You won't convince them that political integration is great, it's them which will convince you to get over the idea. Turkey will be in 2020 a country of 90 million people... the 10 new members who joined in 2004 represents 75 million people ! You're blind if you believe that Turkey won't have more influence than Cyprus or Malta. (Cyprus being, by the way, half occupied by Turkey).
I don't say it won't have any influence, I just say it won't have AS MUCH influence as you say.
And generally, Turkey will be joining different Union. In 10 or 15 years, much can happen. It is possible the EU will be already integrated into semi-federal entity. Turks will thus have a chance to express their opinion about the EU - if they are so against political union, they will refuse the membership. Otherwise, everything will be all right, don't you think?
So what is your idea ? You want to promess China to join the EU in order to democratize it ? The EU is not the UN, and the EU should not be a mere free trade zone. Too many people in here see the EU as far less than what it is already today.
My idea is that EU must use its soft power and attractiveness to stabilise (and develop) its backyard - Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, Caucasus. Expanding the EU doesn't automatically mean abandoning the idea of federalisation.
I have absolutely no problem to give European funds for the development of Turkey, I have no problem to create a free trade zone with Turkey either. My only problem is to call this the European Union.
Funds, funds, funds, damn. Funds aren't so important. The biggest advantage of EU is its huge market and I guess this is what is Turkey interested in.
One more point: EU is gradually developing and integrating. Every country that seriously disagree with the course of its progress can leave it - the same for Turkey. Therefore they won't block EU: they won't have enough power for that EVEN if they WANTED to do so. It is much more likely they would be forced to leave EU if they tried to do such a thing.
?
.
