Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Pannonius, Aug 19, 2007.
Besides, the differences between the EU and Turkey are obvious:
No problem, make it the next USA state then, if it matters you so much..
Perhaps that Turkey would tie Germany as the most influential EU member? To be honest that is a thing I wish neither. Turkey can fix things in few years but only superficially, but the culture changes slower. I think they should really care about human rights and such things, not just act like they would.
(That is: reforms and probation).
The Whole EU isn't NATO member.
BINGO. The poorest and most "alien" EU member with the same influence in EU institutions as Germany. That is not going to occur anytime soon. Or Turkey changes or EU´s institutions change.
Well if they have chicken, why not Turkey? What, Europe ain't big enough for two white meats anymore?
They don't celebrate Thanksgiving, so why have it?
Quit talking like a radical Islamic jihadist, man, this is the Twenty First Century!
Because NATO and the EU are fundamentally different institutions, with different goals and methods? I'd be happy going to war to protect turkey, but the social economy and structural costs of admitting them to the EU is a different kettle of fish.
Plus, we probably should decide what we want the EU to be first .
No. If a part of turkey wants to join, then it can be annexed into Greece.
No, it is not a European country. I prefer some other form of close cooperation with Turkey, short of actual membership.
not unless they seriously work and admit their crimes against humanity and reform and cease the ataturk personality cult.. its a long way
If this is what he said, he should resign immediately.
EU as an organization is everything except islamophobic. The multi-cultural zealots that sometimes make appearance in Brussels would love to have Turkey in, as a cure for their personal frustrations.
Europe is a civilization different from the Islamic one. Turkey was being forcibly Westernized in past, but it is not European or Western. EU, as its name says, is an organization of European countries. The goal is to bring Europeans, people sharing the same historic experience, similar culture, similar mentality etc. together, not to take in every country that express interest in joining.
Now tell me what gives your proffesor the right to despise us for doing that?
It is about the population.
The last two enlargement waves have brought about 100 million people to the bloc, but these people didn't live in one country. The biggest new member is Poland with about 38 million people.
The point is that Turkey, which would be the poorest member of the Union, would soon have more votes in Council and Parliament than Germany, the economic backbone of Europe. That's utterly unacceptable.
There will be no other "big wave". EU has almost reached the limits of its territorial expansion.
It can absorb the rest of the Balkans and perhaps even Ukraine or (sci-fi scenario) Israel in distant future, but that's it.
What EU needs now is consolidation. Inshallah ( ), an EU "reform treaty" (that's the new codename for EU Constitutinal reaty ) will be signed this fall and ratified before 2009. Then, it will take another 6 years before all its provisions come in force.
Only after that, we can start thinking about the future. Realize that EU now works under rules designed for 6 members. These rules were slightly changed to allow more members, but they were never meant to be the ultimate solution.
Ah, the American opinion
Let me explain it to you on a different example: what if you were asked to accept Mexico as your 51st state, with all the rights it would be entitled to? Free movement of people, aid from federal government, representation in Congress etc.?
I am sure about 90% of American WASPs would say "over my dead body". They'd start giving reasons why that's not possible: Mexico isn't American in culture, it is too different, they don't speak our language, they're very poor, they'd flood our cities with new migrants, they'd have too much votes in the Congress, they'd eat up half of the federal budget etc. etc. etc.
Now let's get back to Turkey - its membership in NATO was mutually beneficial - Turkey needed protection from the Soviet Union, which pressed it very hard in the late 40's and early 50's, and NATO needed an ally in the South-East Mediterranean. It was not a love affair or a Turkish self-sacrifice as you're trying to paint it. It didn't entitle it to EU membership.
Yes, the EEC promised Turkey it will give it a chance. That was under completely different circumstances. Furthermore, EEC in that form no longer exists, it has evolved into something different - the EU. Nobody asked the new members (I mean new like the ones who joined after 1957) if they agree, and nobody sure asked European people if they want Turkey in.
Americans would burn their President and Congressmen alive if they annexed Mexico without their approval, so why are you asking us to accept Turkey? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
There's a lot of difference.
- Romania has a higher GDP per capita
- Romania has always been culturally TOTALLY European, actually fighting against non-European influences (like Persia in the Ancient Ages, as Dacia, and the Ottoman Empire in the Middle Ages)
- Romania has strong connections with many other European countries
- Romania doesn't have its military occupying another country (Cyprus) and does not have external conflicts at all, while Turkey has LOTS
- Turkey has 71,158,647 people, which would make it the second largest country in the EU! All these people being of a different culture and religion to the rest of Europe
- Romania is fully in Europe
- There are no recent controversies about any genocidal or simply problematic on an international scale issues in Romania, while in Turkey there are many of them.
- There are many people in rural Turkey which are completely alien to western culture
Many people seem to think that only Istanbul and Ionia are the only European minded regions in Turkey. I just want to clear up that the long southern coastline is like very westernized too, since the big turist industry have emerged there.
I'm defiently open to Turkish membership, especially so the EU can get more influence in the Middle East.
Yeah I'd like them in. It would mean they complied with the reforms which were asked of them. Unfortunatly, it's not looking good in that regard, so it probably won't happen for a long while.
Because we're talking about regions, not about long, but narrow stretches of coastline.
And they also have that nasty political paradox: the army is heavily interfering in politics (which is always bed per se), but it's interference is the only thing that stops Turkey from becoming the second Iran. Because, if left alone, the Turks will allways elect some hardline islamists.
Turkey also holds part of EU under military occupation (northern Cyprus), but still wants to become a member of that organisation. It's unheard of!
Separate names with a comma.