|
Post by penetratorx on Oct 1, 2005 13:00:44 GMT -5
Personally I think that Turkey should never be admitted to the EU.
I think 1 of the biggest mistakes my country (Great Britain) ever made was not ejecting Turkey from Europe when it had the chance to do so after defeating the Ottoman Empire in WWI. Constantinople was occupied by British troops and it along with the rest of Turkish Thrace should have been taken from the Turks just like the rest of their empire was. The obvious thing to do would have been to give all of Turkish Thrace to Greece. Instead of invading Anatolia after WWI the Greeks should have concentrated their efforts on Turkeys European toehold and repopulated Constantinople with Greeks from Smyrna.
I've read a few people saying that Turkey should be considered European because it was involved in Europe for such a long time - that is true but it was involved as an invader that brought a lot of misery to the lands it invaded and conquered.
Turkeys possible entry into the EU is in the headlines again after Austria said that Turkey should not be given full membership, maybe the Austrians recall the Turkish invasions of their homeland and the sieges of Vienna in 1529 and 1683.
Seems the person pushing hardest for Turkeys membership of the EU is Tony Blair, this just goes to show how out of touch Blair is with his electorate, the EU is not too popular with the British public at the best of times and the thought of a EU including Turkey is only going to turn more Britons against the EU. Blair is a very dangerous idealist who seems to think that allowing Turkey into the EU will make Europe appear more Muslim friendly to the rest of the world.
I have nothing against Turks but I just dont think they belong in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 1, 2005 14:35:58 GMT -5
If you consider that Europe has a Muslim problem it wouldn't make much sense to include Turkey in the EU. The government may be secular but it seems that the immigrants who find there way into Europe tend to be poor and therefore more traditional with a dislike for assimilation. If Turkey is included in the EU it'll only be an addition to the immigration/assimilation problem.
Also, it doesn't make much sense to include non- European nations in the EU. You might as well rename it the "European and its Peripheral Nations Union" Doesn't sound very catchy.
|
|
|
Post by Marobud on Oct 1, 2005 17:57:53 GMT -5
Regarding moslems: Bosnians and Albanians are moslems, but I think that no European is against future membership of Bosnia and Albania in EU. So after some more democratisation, wny not Turkey. There are surely many people in Europe, who don't want these two countries to be EU-members. Well, after 1 year of so-called "full membership", we now know that also Central Europe is not welcome in EU by some nations. We cannot work in west for 7 years(!!!), also the financial support for east is postponed etc. There is a hidden "racism" mainly among French, perhaps also Dutch(?). So when we are not welcome, I am not surprised that Turkey is not welcome too. I think that EU should be renamed to "France and Germany will allow you to participate if Germany and France will want maybe perhaps some day, he he. For now, stay in your dirty shacks you easterners". The same politics we see to the Turkey. At least we know that it is not racism, it is selfish egoism only. By the way, we Central Europeans were fighting with Turks for several centuries, one of Czech kings was killed in a battle with Turks etc... Still it seems that we have a bigger sympathy for Turks then western nations, who met Turks only in the WWI.
|
|
|
Post by oubit on Oct 1, 2005 22:37:05 GMT -5
By the way, we Central Europeans were fighting with Turks for several centuries, one of Czech kings was killed in a battle with Turks etc... Still it seems that we have a bigger sympathy for Turks then western nations, who met Turks only in the WWI. So Austria, who is currently trying to block a future EU-membership of Turkey, can't be a "Central European" country then.... It rather seems that sympathies for Turkey are bigger in countries, where the people hardly know a single Turk from everyday life.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 1, 2005 22:58:17 GMT -5
I agree 100% with the above post of Penetratorx
|
|
|
Post by Marobud on Oct 2, 2005 6:15:30 GMT -5
It rather seems that sympathies for Turkey are bigger in countries, where the people hardly know a single Turk from everyday life. When I see a surprising level of hypocrisy among western Europeans regarding Central Europe and Eastern Europe, I can hardly believe in any rationality regarding their attitude to Turkey. But fundamental is what I have said regarding Eastern Europe: I think that Turkey can be admitted into EU after(!!!) Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia become economicaly strong democracies. Just by accident it means that at first all the countries destructed by Turkey should consolidate. It will happen at first after 20 years. So after 20 years, we can think about Turkey in EU.
|
|
|
Post by oubit on Oct 2, 2005 16:35:02 GMT -5
When I see a surprising level of hypocrisy among western Europeans regarding Central Europe and Eastern Europe, I can hardly believe in any rationality regarding their attitude to Turkey. oh please, there are many rational reasons that speak against an EU-membership of Turkey. And some of the pro-arguments on the other hand look very artificial, like claiming the relationship between the Western world and the Muslim hemisphere would get better then - I don't believe that for a second.
|
|
|
Post by henerte on Oct 2, 2005 16:48:26 GMT -5
When I see a surprising level of hypocrisy among western Europeans regarding Central Europe and Eastern Europe, I can hardly believe in any rationality regarding their attitude to Turkey. oh please, there are many rational reasons that speak against an EU-membership of Turkey. And some of the pro-arguments on the other hand look very artificial, like claiming the relationship between the Western world and the Muslim hemisphere would get better then - I don't believe that for a second. The most stupid pro-argument I have heard so far is the one claiming that if Turkey isn't admitted into the EU it will result in destabilization of this country. It reminds me Bob Hope who said: "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it" If Turkey proves that the possibilty of not being admitted into the EU won't result in a drastic shift in its policy then it means it may deserve the membership.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 2, 2005 18:11:48 GMT -5
If Turkey proves that the possibilty of not being admitted into the EU won't result in a drastic shift in its policy then it means it may deserve the membership. This is a dangerous path, as it would mean that Turkey may, under some condition, obtain membership. But the question is not if Turkey is good or bad (and under some parameters is probably not worse than some EU areas, as Southern Italy), the question is Turkey is not Europe. Japan surely would have all the parameters more then right to be the best state of the union. Would this mean it should obtain EU membership if (just for the sake of example) it asked it? Europe has fared pretty well being Europe since now, and is still the most civilised area of the planet. Nobody knows what makes European civilisation so great, less than all the american neocons who think they can replace current american citizens with whomever else as long as their 3 sentences long great phylosophy is shared by most and enforced to the rest. Would it be wise to touch the magic formula (right answer tip: no)?
|
|
|
Post by henerte on Oct 2, 2005 18:50:35 GMT -5
I personally think that the first countries that should join the EU are countries from former Yugoslavia. So far, the only field that the EU has been succeeding on, is bringing political stabilization to the newly-admitted regions. The economical cooperation etc. doesn't work that well. Right now, it looks like in the Balkans we have some "black hole" of no clear vision of future and lack of predictability. I understand that Turkey is not culturally European and I actually share this opinion, however the deomgraphic trends are merciless. I remember reading an article written by Niall Ferguson (a famous british futurist) who says that by the year 2050 Jemen will have more people than Russia. Since Jemen is actually a third world country it's rather obvious that the majority of these people will migrate to Europe in search of work. So, either way, the future doesn't look bright. The good news is that by the time when this "catastrophe" comes we both will be dead.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 2, 2005 19:03:42 GMT -5
Muslims' high population growth rates will eventually drop ; in many places they already have. They're just not economically feasible. I don't believe that Muslims would overbreed themselves into a Africa-like Third World state. Although Yemen might be a special case...
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 2, 2005 19:19:15 GMT -5
I personally think that the first countries that should join the EU are countries from former Yugoslavia. So far, the only field that the EU has been succeeding on, is bringing political stabilization to the newly-admitted regions. The economical cooperation etc. doesn't work that well. Right now, it looks like in the Balkans we have some "black hole" of no clear vision of future and lack of predictability. I understand that Turkey is not culturally European and I actually share this opinion, however the deomgraphic trends are merciless. I remember reading an article written by Niall Ferguson (a famous british futurist) who says that by the year 2050 Jemen will have more people than Russia. Since Jemen is actually a third world country it's rather obvious that the majority of these people will migrate to Europe in search of work. So, either way, the future doesn't look bright. I don't think we should be so worryed by demographic trends. We can be less, and older. Nobody has yet demonstrated any actualy risk for our society coming from low natality. And we can keep immigrants away, if they are to many in their countries a fine malthusian cicle will kick in. Or they will discover the beauties of contracception and feminism. Who cares. It's just we don't want to keep them out. For now. Neat. We won't be able to say "we told you" though.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 2, 2005 19:30:46 GMT -5
I don't think we should be so worryed by demographic trends. We can be less, and older. Nobody has yet demonstrated any actualy risk for our society coming from low natality. My ev. psych-influenced theory : societies where a smaller percentage of the general population are young children ( who need protection, care, etc ), will feel less 'family-ish', and accordingly will inspire less 'instinctive loyalty' from their citizens, with potentially Bad consequences. "Why should I fight for <insertcountry>'s government? Just a bunch of old farts who run everything." "Do it FOR THE CHILDREN!" ;D See what I mean? But, it's likely that in times of relative peace ( ie, usually ) this is mostly an argument about subjective values.
|
|
|
Post by henerte on Oct 2, 2005 19:33:07 GMT -5
Low natality means growing number of pensioners. Growing number of pensioners means that there's more and more money needed to finance their pensions and not enough people to work. Pensioners are not going to resign from the money they get from the state and will vote for politicians that will promise them no cuts. I've seen german newspapers (Spiegel) advertising immigration by saying that immigrants are coming to Germany to work and through their work finance the system of social benefits.
|
|
|
Post by henerte on Oct 2, 2005 19:39:56 GMT -5
World Population Prospects: esa.un.org/unpp/By 2050 Northern Europe: 106 millions Southern Europe: 138 Eastern Europe: 223 Western Europe: 185 For comparision: Iran: 102 Iraq: 64 Syria: 36 Pakistan: 305 Egypt: 126 For example: Even in the low variant, Syria by 2050 will have 30 million people. That means population density of 164. Either they will emigrate or die from hunger.
|
|