View Full Version : European Union - General discussion
First i wanted to make a thread to welcome the new members in the EU, but then i thought that it would be too limiting so i'm making this a European Union general discussion thread. :)
I'm old enough to have lived under the cold war and when i was a teenager we used to live with the fear that we could be at war with the Eastern block anyday. I would have never tought that one day some of those countries would actually join the EU.
I also happen to live in a region, Normandy, that paid a heavy price to WWII. The biggest city, Rouen, where i live was destroyed at 20% and the second and third biggest cities were destroyed at 90% (by the allied ironically), it cost heavy civilian casualties and we have French, German, British, American, and Canadian military cemetaries everywhere with thousands of tombs to remind us what a butchery it was.
I'm starting with that because that is the first and main reason the European Community which later became the European Union was created. To prevent a new European civil war, because that's what WWI and WWII are! European civil wars that spread to the entire planet. Europeans had been used to live with regional wars between European states for centuries, but after WWII they realized that the level of destruction had just gone too far and that if there was ever a new continental war, there would be nothing left. France and Germany alone had been at war three times in 50 years, it had to stop.
So the European Community was created and even if it has many flaws, it has succeeded in its main goal: continental peace. Not a single armed conflict between the member states in over half a century, it's actually the longest period of peace that this part of Europe has known since the Roman Empire!
Today the European Union is expanding to the East and that's making me extremely glad. I know that those new members mostly see the EU has an area of economical wealth. Of course that's an essential part of what it is, but i wanted to remind here that the original goal of the EU is to maintain continental peace. Let's never forget that because Europe has known too many wars for us to say that it will never happen again. It could happen again if the EU was to collapse one day.
But i'll stop there. Today is to celebrate the historical day that finally saw the reunification of Europe. :coctail:
Welcome to all the people of the new EU member states. :kawai:
thegurgi
01-05-2004, 06:13
I will be in Poland the week 1/2 after all these celebrations, and the EU Preparations are actually interrupting our plans, but a lot of those going are very excited to be going back [some of them, to their homes] to a country that is United with that of the rest of Europe... and so i am.
YAY!!!
Thanks I guess. :D
Well it's been a long journey from 1991. We were extremely lucky to jump ship before Yugoslavia finaly sank and all the bloodshead happened in other Ex-Yugoslav countries in the mid 90s. European Union was always the ultimative goal. We're here now. With mixed emotions. In one way it's cool to end this transitional period symbolicaly with the joining of EU as the most democratic political union of all times. Then again we do have concerns what will happen to our agriculture which has been in a slump for ages. And now with the EU and the open market... I just have doubt our farmers will be able to compete properly with western competition.
Another concern is the poor development of new members in general. Our gross national product is the higest of any joining member but still way lower then any of the existing EU members. And we will have to face this stronger market in an open-trade situation. Who knows what might happen. Just to give you a glimpse at our economic inferiority: Bank Austria is the smallest bank in EU. And even they are larger in capital then all slovene banks put together.
Of course there's no doubt that we have no other choice but to join. Isolation wouldn't be the smartest policy at this time of global integration. Especialy for a nation of 2 million people. We're no switzerland. :P
We're in now. Where is that promised milk and honey? :spy:
:newyear:
We're in now. Where is that promised milk and honey? :spy:
:newyear:
Lol. No milk & Honey. EU is not Santa. We'll still have to work damn hard to make it in the open market. This might just make it a bit easier compared to the rest of the eastern block. Or will it? :spy:
taty994945
10-05-2004, 12:46
Congratulations on your membership. I think it's gonna be real good.
coolasfcuk
03-06-2004, 16:30
I don't see Ukraine joining the EU, they are in the Russian sphere of influence. Personaly, i think that countries that were parts of the USSR (with the exception of the Baltic states of course) should not be admitted into the EU. For me, the former boder of the USSR is where the EU expansion to the east must stop
:spy: haku, please, explain why? :) Im curious to hear why you say that.
So, Bulgaria wasnt part of USSR, but we almost became one at one point (which of course was quickly prevented, since the west was freaking out :gigi: )... so, do we deserve to be in the EU one day? :girl:
Unplugged
03-06-2004, 16:36
Yeah, haku could you explain? :spy: I'm also curious.
For me, I wouldn't mind at all. We have many Ukranians here (and also people from Romania, and of course many Russians) I love them all! They are very hardworking and very simple and funny - I don't know, they don't have that kind of arrogant side that we do here in the West. :) So, why not? I'm sure that would help their country a lot.
So, Bulgaria wasnt part of USSR, but we almost became one at one point (which of course was quickly prevented, since the west was freaking out )... so, do we deserve to be in the EU one day?
For me, every European country who is able to be tolerant and respect other EU countries and contribute to an united strong Europe deserves to join the EU. The ones who only want to stick to their own rules and live in chaos should not join. But I don't think Bulgaria is one of them - although I don't know the country, but from what I've heard, I don't think so :) As long as there's enough wealth and help for every EU country.. why not? :D
Actually, I just remembered something Lena said in that memorable Norway interview... "Russia was always alone..." - it's true, and it also applies to the countries that surround Russia. If it wasn't for tATu and this site, I would have never thought Russia and the surrounding countries had so much great stuff to offer - stuff they can't promote, or even if they can, it won't get great reception exactly because of political reasons. I think this is sad, therefore I think that if some ex-USSR country joined the EU, it would break those barriers a little bit and bring some more curiosity for Western Europeans to know more about the eastern countries and what they're about, and even invest in them. :D It's really sad that we all live in the same continent but some countries have to be 'isolated' from others, just for political reasons.
For example, I'm gonna be working in show-biz. And now I know I can always look for help in the eastern european countries, cause they have such great knowledge and fresh, untouched concepts in terms of music, movies and other forms of art. I didn't know this before, at least not with such greatness and information, basicly due to the Western media which strictly for political reasons does not find this information 'revelant'... :rolleyes: I think that should stop.
So, Bulgaria wasnt part of USSR, but we almost became one at one point [...] so, do we deserve to be in the EU one day?
Of course, i hope Bulgaria will join the EU, if the Bulgarian people want to of course.
For me, any country of the following list can join the EU if they wish:
Bulgaria
Romania
Croatia
Serbia
Bosnia
Macedonia
Albania
Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
But no more.
I'm opposed to Turkey because they are not a European country.
I'm also opposed to any more countries from the former USSR.
Most of those countries are members of the Commonwealth of Independent Sates and obviously have strong economic ties with Russia. Russia doesn't want to join the EU, they want to develop the CIS and strengthen their sphere of influence. For a country like Ukraine, i think it makes much more sense to continue their economic development inside the CIS and have economic relations with the EU on a CIS-EU level. To join the EU, Ukraine would have to severe their links with Russia, which i don't think they are ready to do, and the level of economic development of Ukraine is just too low compared to the EU, it would be counterproductive both for the EU and Ukraine to have Ukraine as a member.
The EU just grew from 15 to 25 members, and could reach 35 with my list above, the geographical/cultural/economic area covered by those 35 countries is in my opinion the right size for a mature EU to develop toward a very tight and stable political union. Once this area of 30 to 35 countries is achieved, the EU will have to clearly say that the EU has reached its maximum size and that no more new members will be accepted. The EU will then be able to focus only on strengthening its political union and maybe evolve toward a confederation, and then a federation.
I think that if some ex-USSR country joined the EU
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were part of the USSR and are now EU member states. I've always been strongly in favor of the 3 Baltic states joining the EU and i don't have any problem with them.
Unplugged
04-06-2004, 16:21
I'm opposed to Turkey because they are not a European country.
Me too.
To join the EU, Ukraine would have to severe their links with Russia, which i don't think they are ready to do
Maybe they want to be ready? I mean, if the prime-minister created a whole new department just for development of Eurovision Song Contest 2005 and building a new arena in order to bring attention to the modern side of Ukraine so they can prove they are a truly european country.
check this article
http://www.doteurovision.com/phpnews/news.php?action=fullnews&id=322
If you read it, you'll see how everybody there is determined to give the Ukraine an EU-approach and back off from the old soviet connections.
I don't see why countries that were formerly in the USSR shouldn't be allowed to join the EU. Ukraine, for instance, is more economically developed than Albania. Surely it should be up to the Ukrainians to decide whether they want to be in the EU or in Russia's sphere of influence?
And why can't Moldova join? Like the Baltic States, it was incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1812. In 1919, it left and became part of Romania (the majority of the people are Romanian). Stalin took it again in 1940, like the Baltic States. I know that Moldova is now the poorest, most economically devastated country in Europe and most adults under 40 now work illegally abroad, but it's so closely related to Romania that it seems perverse to rule that in principle it can never be admitted.
Ukraine is with Russia and Belarus one of the founding members of the CIS and has been an active member since its beginning, i think it shows clearly that Ukraine sees its future with Russia and not the EU. When the CIS was founded after the collapse of the USSR, the Baltic states refused to join, they made clear statements at the time that their goal was to join the EU in the future and therefore it made no sense for them to join the CIS, they even asked Russia to withdraw completely their military forces from their territories. And the Baltic states did not only made statements, they acted. Following the example of former communist countries in central Europe, they engaged profound political and economic reforms which allowed them to meet EU standards in 10 years!
Ukraine did no such thing. As far as i know Ukraine's economy is still very Soviet like, entire sectors of the economy are still state managed. Very little reforms have been engaged and they don't seem very eager to accelerate the process.
And yes, i've read the article posted by staringelf and some of those quotes are incredible, and not in a good way. First, insulting the EU commission by saying "the EU commission has been put in its place" is not going to help them. Those journalists have to stop making a relation between winning the Eurovison and joining the EU! There is no relation whatsoever, winning a tacky song contest does not make you economically and politically ready to join the EU.
Second, what's scary there is that they seem to *demand* to join the EU *now*, and they don't seem to realize at all the huge amount of work they have to do before being even close to EU standards. They should focus a little more on reforming their economy instead of going crazy for "Wild Dances" thinking that it's going to solve all their problems.
Whether they like it or not, Ukraine is in no shape or form ready to join the EU, and it won't be the case anytime soon.
Let's throw in just a few numbers here, the raw GDPs (Gross Domestic Product) per inhabitant of the 15 EU member states before the enlargement:
Austria $25,432 - Belgium $23,981 - Denmark $31,852 - Finland $25,385 - France $24,037 - Germany $24,209 - Greece $12,202 - Ireland $32,105 - Italy $20,554 - Luxembourg $45,778 - Netherlands $26,250 - Portugal $12,200 - Spain $16,457 - Sweden $26,966 - UK $25,950
Average for EU 15: $24,890
Raw GDPs of new EU member states:
Cyprus: $13,289 - Czech R: $6,806 - Estonia: $4,336 - Hungary: $6,400 - Latvia: $3,500 - Lithuania: $3,432 - Malta: $10,051 - Poland: $4,896 - Slovakia: $4,389 - Slovenia: $10,600
Average for new EU member states: $6,769
Average for EU 25: $17,642
Now, talking only of the former communist countries, we can see that Slovenia already has a GDP comparable to some older EU members, the Czech R. and Hungary are around $6,500 and are progressing very well, the five others are between $3,500 and 5,000 which is quite low but again their economic stats are encouraging. All those new members have a high growth rate and i am confident that most of those countries will reach a $15,000 per inhabitant GDP in the next 10 years, even faster for countries that are doing well like Slovenia, the Czech R and Hungary.
Those countries did what had to be done to be ready to join the EU, and after another decade of help from the older 15 members, they will have filled the gap and will be fully participating to the wealth and growth of the whole EU.
Ukraine is another story, its current raw GDP per inhabitant is of $843, that's 4 times smaller than the lowest GDPs among the new members! 20 times smaller than the average of the EU! It's simply impossible to admit such a country in the EU. The EU is rich, but the balance between the richer members and the less rich members has to be "reasonable", there has to be enough rich members to help the less rich. The EU just admitted 10 new members that will have to double or triple their GDPs to fill the gap with the older members, it's going to take some time to "digest" that enlargement.
But like i said, i'm confident that it's going to go well because those new members have the will and they have made the necessary reforms to meet that goal.
I haven't seen any such thing from Ukraine, that, plus their choice of participating in the CIS, is why i don't believe Ukraine should join the EU. And BTW, Ukraine has not even applied to join the EU! They haven't even made an official statement to the EU that they intend to do so. (Only Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Turkey have officially applied to this day.)
I'm opposed to Turkey because they are not a European country.
Hey, Israel takes part in whole lot of European thingies and it's even less of a European country than Turkey yet nobody complains.
A very interesting post, haku. I was surprised that your figure for the GDP per capita of Ukraine was so much lower than that of the Central European and Baltic States. The reason is that you quoted them with purchasing power parity (PPP) GDP per capita, while you quoted Ukraine's raw GDP per capita. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
The CIA World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
gives PPP GDP per capita: France $26000, Latvia $8900, Ukraine $4500
http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/menu_infopays.html
gives raw GDP per capita: France $24037, Latvia $3500, Ukraine $843
You can see that the difference between Ukraine and Latvia is in fact much less than the difference between Latvia and a rich EU member state like France.
Incidentally, Russia is as wealthy as Latvia either way.
I do agree that Ukraine is in a mess. It hasn't reformed and shouldn't be admitted now. But I wasn't saying that it should be. I was disagreeing with your view that it should never be.
Simon, thanks for giving the accurate numbers and those helpful links.
I have edited my post to reflect the correct numbers (using raw GDP.)
I'll admit that saying never is going too far, so i'll take that back.
When i said that the expansion of the EU to the east will have to stop to the border of the former USSR, i really meant it as "for the foreseeable future".
The EU has to expand to the east progressively and in logical steps.
The first step is Central Europe states + Baltic states.
The second step will be eastern Balkan states.
The third step will be western Balkan states.
Between each of those steps the EU will have to take breaks of several years, integrating 15 countries that are considerably behind in terms of economic development is not an easy task. The goal is to bring every country to the level of the older 15 members, not to bring every one down. As rich as the older 15 are, there is a limit to how many countries they can help at once. Things have to be done progressively.
So in my opinion, anything further east than the former USSR border will have to wait for the foreseeable future, especially since those countries are members of the CIS and are receiving help from Russia.
I'm optimistic though, i'll say that it's going to take from 10 to 20 years for the former communist countries of Central Europe and the Balkans to fill the gap with the older 15 EU member states. That's not that long.
And Ukraine may not still want to join the EU in 20 years, they may feel more comfortable within the CIS with Russia.
In any case, the debate on the future definitive borders of the EU is interesting. It is time for the EU to make a final list of which countries will be allowed to join and which won't. The EU citizens need to get a clear picture of the final shape of the EU, to reach a stable political Union the EU need fixed borders.
Personally, i stay on the list of 10 more countries i've given in a previous post. That would be an EU with 35 countries covering an area that i consider suitable to develop a wealthy economic union and a stable political union.
A brief article on this topic:
http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=15&aid=16346
As an environmentalist I think enlargement has serious downsides. The Common Agricultural Policy is going to lead to the destruction of Central and Eastern Europe's forests and meadows unless it is totally reformed. The CAP might be reformed satisfactorily if the veto is removed in the new Constitution. If big reforms aren't made, enlargement will be a huge environmental disaster over the next 20 years.
However, the prospect of EU membership has been a tremendous carrot to get candidate countries to improve things in many areas. I don't think that the leverage was fully used - the Czech Republic and Slovakia were admitted even though they persecute Gypsies. Hungary by contrast made big efforts to improve the treatment of Gypsies. I don't think the Czech Republic and Slovakia should have been admitted until they made similar efforts. I'm also troubled by the way Slovenia was admitted without satisfactorily resolving the issue of residents of non-Slovene ethnic origin who had been secretly stripped of citizenship and denied civil rights.
I'm concerned that Romania may be admitted in 2007 despite various human rights problems, such as the failure to protect children and the 'disappearance' of journalists. The treatment of Gypsies is also a problem, but it's not as bad as in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Obviously, Ukraine is a very long way from being an acceptable EU member state. Absorbing a country with the same sort of population as France or the UK or all the 10 admitted this time put together, would be a huge challenge. But Ukraine wants to join the EU and the carrot of membership could have very positive effects on a country that would have no incentive to do these things if it was told it couldn't join. It would force Ukraine into Russia's orbit, which is surely the last thing we want.
I think the same argument applies to Turkey. Look at the positive changes that the prospect of EU membership has brought. They even outlawed discrimination against lesbians and gays in order to comply with EU standards! Can you imagine Turkey having done that on its own initiative?
The difficulty with Turkey is that it would be the biggest member state and would unbalance the Union because the country is so conservative in its cultural values. Albania and Bosnia are largely Muslim, but there's no problem because most people there take Islam about as seriously as most Europeans take Christianity - which is not very much at all. The real problem with Turkey is that it's too Muslim (these French geographical arguments are just a smokescreen). I do see that as a really serious problem. For the foreseeable future, I think that treatment of the Kurds, the practice of widespread torture and the political role of the military are all excellent reasons for not admitting Turkey. If Turkey ever reformed itself sufficiently, we'd be in a real bind. You can't say that you're not admitting them because the population take their religion too seriously and the women aren't liberated enough, but that's the truth.
By the way, I think we should admit Moldova at the same time we admit Albania and Bosnia. It's not that much more of an economic basket case than them and you haven't given any good reason to put it behind your ex-USSR iron curtain. Without the prospect of membership, it will sink ever further. Most of its citizens between the ages of 18 and 40 already work illegally in the EU. You can't accuse them of not wanting to join the West enough!
transcend
06-06-2004, 16:11
You can't say that you're not admitting them because the population take their religion too seriously and the women aren't liberated enough, but that's the truth.
I agree...it's totally politically incorrect to say it, but that's just about the way it is at the moment.
I agree that some ethnic discriminations in some of the new and future members have to stop. Those countries must understand that those old feuds have no place in an EU with no internal borders and where citizens, goods, and money can travel freely.
these French geographical arguments are just a smokescreen
Oh when i said that i was opposed to Turkey because it's not a European country, i was not talking geographically, i meant that this country does not belong to the European civilization, and i don't intend to be politically correct here.
In my opinion, the EU can only admit countries that are part of the European civilization, meaning countries that are part of the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic, and Greek ethno-linguistic groups. (I am aware that Finns, Estonians, and Hungarians are not Indo-European peoples, but they've been immersed in European culture for so long that, except for their languages, they are now indistinguishable from Europeans.) And this has nothing to do with the EU being a Christian club, in my eyes Christianity is not what defines the European civilization, this civilization existed long before Christianity. European values and cultural traits have their roots in ancient Greece and also in the common background shared by all European peoples, all far more ancient than Christianity.
The EU is about unifying the European civilization, not unifying the European civilization and its neighbors. To the south, we have the Arabic civilization and no countries from that area will be admitted, to the south east we have the Turkic civilization that spreads from Turkey to the Uighur region in China and no countries from that area should be admitted either. We have nothing in common, either ethnically, culturally, historically, or linguistically, nothing at all.
And i have nothing against those civilizations, i hope that they will create pan-Arabic and pan-Turkic areas for their countries to develop in common, but that's for them to build, not us.
I am amazed to see some people criticizing the EU for only admitting European countries. That's only normal. The goal of the EU is to provide a stable, peaceful, and wealthy environment to all European peoples that share common culture, values, and history. The EU won't work if we admit a country that clearly does not belong to the European civilization, that would only jeopardize everything we've built and bring chaos.
And the theory that admitting countries from neighboring civilizations would create "bridges" and prevent a clash of civilizations is simply ridiculous. We would get the clash *inside* the EU, no good can come out of that, it would destroy the Union.
And let's be honest here, Turkey is only interested in the economic side of the EU and could care less of the political implications. Do the Turkish people really want to take part in the European parliament? No. Do they share our values about human rights and equality? Certainly not. A simple trade agreement between the EU and Turkey is enough, but the integration of Turkey as a member state is out of the question.
This ambiguous situation with Turkey which is mainly due to Turkey's strategic geographical location during the cold war has to stop, the EU must say clearly to Turkey that it won't become a member, ever.
As for Moldova, Ukraine and even Belarus, well, obviously they *are* European countries and have the right to apply, but they need to be patient. First because their economies are a mess and they need to reform, second because the fact that they are members of the CIS makes things difficult. Being of member of the CIS means that Russia still has a lot to say about what those countries do, Russia has military forces stationed in all of them, a large part of Russia's navy is stationed in Ukraine for example, Ukraine will have to work this issue with Russia because Russia won't let its navy be under EU's jurisdiction, not to mention that Russia is getting a lot of resources from Ukraine at a very low cost, that would change with an EU membership.
I agree that Moldova with only 4 million people is not too much of a burden for an EU with then 500 million people, but all the difficulties with Russia about Ukraine joining the EU also apply to Moldova even if for Russia it's more a principle than a real threat to its security.
Moldova really missed its chance 10 years ago right after the collapse of the USSR, at the time it could have merged with Romania and now it would be joining the EU in 3 years. It's a missed opportunity for them.
The wrecked economies of those countries and the necessity to work an agreement with Russia leads me to think that those countries won't be joining before the 2020s.
In my opinion, the EU can only admit countries that are part of the European civilization, meaning countries that are part of the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic, and Greek ethno-linguistic groups. (I am aware that Finns, Estonians, and Hungarians are not Indo-European peoples, but they've been immersed in European culture for so long that, except for their languages, they are now indistinguishable from Europeans.)
The Finns, Estonians and Hungarians speak non-Indo-European languages that emanate from somewhere in central Asia, but DNA evidence shows that ethnically they're just the same as their Indo-European speaking neighbours. There's no trace of central Asian genes in their DNA. They were simply conquered by people from outside at one time in their history and ended up speaking their languages, without absorbing their cutures in any way we can see today.
The EU is about unifying the European civilization, not unifying the European civilization and its neighbors. To the south, we have the Arabic civilization and no countries from that area will be admitted,
Actually, both linguistically and largely genetically the Maltese are Arabs. I think the important point is that historically and culturally they are more European than Arab.
to the south east we have the Turkic civilization that spreads from Turkey to the Uighur region in China and no countries from that area should be admitted either. We have nothing in common, either ethnically, culturally, historically, or linguistically, nothing at all.
What's ethnicity got to do with it? Why should it matter about their ethnicity? Why should people have to be 'white' to be admitted? Anyway, not only are the Maltese not Europeans ethnically, the Turks (although not the other Turkic-speaking peoples) are ethnically Europeans. DNA evidence actually proves that they are very closely related to the Greeks and other Balkan peoples. There is also a strong historical connection between the Turks and the people of the Balkans - they ruled the Balkans for hundreds of years.
The EU won't work if we admit a country that clearly does not belong to the European civilization, that would only jeopardize everything we've built and bring chaos.
And the theory that admitting countries from neighboring civilizations would create "bridges" and prevent a clash of civilizations is simply ridiculous. We would get the clash *inside* the EU, no good can come out of that, it would destroy the Union.
And let's be honest here, Turkey is only interested in the economic side of the EU and could care less of the political implications. Do the Turkish people really want to take part in the European parliament? No. Do they share our values about human rights and equality? Certainly not. A simple trade agreement between the EU and Turkey is enough, but the integration of Turkey as a member state is out of the question.
Unfortunately, that's true. It would be lovely if everyone could get along, but we have enough difficulty with nationalism in Europe when we all have so many common values. Trying to bring in people who don't really share our values wouldn't work. It's a conclusion I've drawn reluctantly, because it seems so exclusionary to keep Turkey out.
As for Moldova, Ukraine and even Belarus, well, obviously they *are* European countries and have the right to apply, but they need to be patient. First because their economies are a mess and they need to reform, second because the fact that they are members of the CIS makes things difficult. Being of member of the CIS means that Russia still has a lot to say about what those countries do, Russia has military forces stationed in all of them, a large part of Russia's navy is stationed in Ukraine for example, Ukraine will have to work this issue with Russia because Russia won't let its navy be under EU's jurisdiction, not to mention that Russia is getting a lot of resources from Ukraine at a very low cost, that would change with an EU membership.
Yes, but if the Ukrainians want to be free of Russia, we should help them (sorry, any Russians reading!). Russia has no right to exploit Ukraine as it is still doing. Russia's lease on its naval base in Sevastopol will expire in 2017 and it's going to build a new base on Russian territory.
I agree that Moldova with only 4 million people is not too much of a burden for an EU with then 500 million people, but all the difficulties with Russia about Ukraine joining the EU also apply to Moldova even if for Russia it's more a principle than a real threat to its security.
Russia deliberately sabotaged Moldova by sponsoring the breakaway 'Republic of Transdniestria'. The area east of the Dniester River had been transferred from Ukraine to Moldova by Stalin in exchange for taking away Moldova's sea access. Russia placed forces in Transdniestria supposedly as peacekeepers, but actually to threaten Moldova. Transdniestria shouldn't be in Moldova, but Russia shouldn't be in Transdniestria.
Moldova really missed its chance 10 years ago right after the collapse of the USSR, at the time it could have merged with Romania and now it would be joining the EU in 3 years. It's a missed opportunity for them.
In 1992, the Moldovans thought that Romania was in a worse state than they were, then the trouble with Russia over Transdniestria made Romania very reluctant to get involved with them. Romania has rather cut off Moldova, regarding it as trouble. In 1996, as part of their original failed attempt to get into Nato, Romania signed away any claims to the parts of both Romania and Moldova that Stalin had given to Ukraine. It was a real betrayal of Moldova.
long article i saw in bbc news about turkey ... will paste bits i found interesting as the whole article is quite long.
Turkey's unrequited EU love
Two years ago, Turkey won the Eurovision song contest with a tale of unrequited love.
In many ways, it echoed the country's own unsuccessful bid to woo the European Union since 1963, when it signed an association agreement that promised eventual membership of the bloc.
Things began moving in 1999 when Turkey was officially recognised as an EU candidate, and especially after the election of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in 2002, which quickened political reforms to an unprecedented pace.
Earlier this month, Turkish state television began broadcasting in Kurdish, the language of a sizeable minority in this country of 67 million.
On the same day, the government released four Kurdish activists, including human rights award winner Leyla Zana, who had spent 10 years in jail after trials deemed unfair by the EU.
Over the past 18 months, the government has passed nine reform packages, including a ban on the death penalty, a zero-tolerance policy towards torture in prisons, and curtailing the interference of the military in politics, education and culture.
"I am impressed - because starting with the constitution, they've changed a lot of laws," says Murat Celikan, a human rights activist who writes a regular column in the daily Radikal.
"To give one example, two years ago, a radio was banned for one year for airing a song in Kurdish and in Armenian. Now the state television has Kurdish programmes - so that's a great change."
The EU has also welcomed the reforms, but it wants them implemented across this vast country by local police, judges and bureaucrats. So far, implementation is uneven, especially in the provinces and the Kurdish areas in the south-east.
...
The prospect of EU membership, coupled with IMF-inspired reforms, have also brought greater stability to the crisis-prone Turkish economy.
...
For Guenter Verheugen, the European enlargement commissioner, Turkey's strategic position straddling Europe and the greater Middle East is an asset rather than a drawback.
At a recent conference in Brussels, he warned that the EU would make a tragic mistake if it stopped or reversed the process of democratisation in Turkey by denying it eventual membership.
...
In October, Mr Verheugen will issue a progress report on Turkey which will form the basis for the decision of EU leaders.
While the report is widely expected to be positive, public opinion in France, Germany, Austria and elsewhere is becoming increasingly reluctant to accept a further enlargement of the EU, especially to include a large Muslim nation like Turkey.
Since the Netherlands will be holding the EU's rotating presidency in the second half of the year, I asked Ben Bot, the Dutch foreign minister (and a former Dutch ambassador to Turkey) how worried he is about the lack of public support among Western voters?
"Perhaps there has been a lack of proper communication and now there is, I think, an unjustified fear of Islam, which is perhaps understandable in the context of terrorism and so on, but which is not justified - because I think that the situation in Turkey is completely different.
"They also forget that Turkey has been a member of Nato, of the Council of Europe, that it has helped the West during all these years, also during the Cold War, has been a staunch ally.
"And so, it's in itself astonishing that people all of a sudden are against Turkish participation, whereas we think that Turkey would be a very valuable member of the EU. It will take a long time, that I agree, it will certainly take many, many years of negotiations before they fully comply with all the criteria."
Indeed, in 10 years or so from now, the EU will be a very different union, and Turkey will be a very different country.
But come December, EU politicians face one of the toughest decisions they have ever had to take.
If they say no to Turkey, they risk alienating a key ally in the Muslim world. But if they say yes, they may upset many voters at home who are already unhappy about where the EU is going.
full article : -- > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3847373.stm
Thanks for the article rosh :)
Well, i've already said my opinion on Turkey joining the EU, i'm totally against it. That would be the end of the EU. Turkey is not a European country and it doesn't share our history, our cultures, and our values. Turkey's demographic weight would allow it to block most EU decisions and that would be unacceptable to have decisions taken in Brussels being blocked by Ankara, a capital that is not even in Europe! European populations won't accept that, that's just one step too far, the EU might as well be renamed the New Ottoman Empire if Turkey joined.
The day Turkey joins is the day i'll cease to support the EU and i'll then support the idea that France, Germany and a few other countries should withdraw to create something new.
Edited to add:
Bush crossed a line a few days ago when he said that Turkey met the EU criteria and that the EU had to accept Turkey as a member. So now Bush is in command of the EU too? I'm not surprised that the US once again think that they can order everyone around, even the EU, but this is totally unacceptable. Mind your own business Bush! What country can or can not join the EU is up to us Europeans, not Americans. :rolleyes:
spyretto
01-07-2004, 15:09
Essentially, one part of Turkey belongs to Europe so it's not totally a one-way argument. I think these kind of discussions are a bit of a vicious circle, 10 years is a long time and then EU is not ours - the people's - it's theirs - the politicians' ( and whoever has backed this union up from the beginning. )
People here in the UK don't even feel "European", and I'm sure some 70% would vote against Europe if any kind of referendum took place at any given time. :bum:
The European Commission has agreed this week to start the process for Turkey to join the EU (http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=15&aid=17480).
This is a critical mistake, one that is going to plunge the EU into a deep crisis. Most European citizens are against Turkey's membership, now that this decision has been made, i have no doubt that several member states are going to reject the EU constitution next year. Even in France, traditionally pro-EU, the "no" to the constitution has a good chance to win, and the prospect of Turkey joining is going to push more people to vote "no".
Admitting Turkey in the EU is just going one step too far, a step that European citizens won't accept. This may be the begining of the end for the EU, the whole thing is going to collapse if Turkey becomes a member.
The decision still has to be approved by the European Council in december, but i don't have much hope that any member state is going to have the guts to veto the decision.
After that, the constitution will probably be rejected by a lot of member states, which will cause a major crisis, and ultimately the dissolution of the EU.
spyretto
11-10-2004, 01:51
Dissolution of the EU? I don't think it will happen, if one or more members veto the decision, it will be postponed indefinitely. ( that's the way it goes, isn't it? )
Turkey has a lot of issues to deal with, how about the fact that it's essentially a military state thinly disguised by democratic procedures? Their human rights record is still not adequate, its economy will take years to reach the level of member states, and how about the Kurdish and Cyprus issues? Those have to be resolved as well.
If they manage to deal effectivelly with those things in say, 10-15 years from now, I think it's for the EU's best interest that they join.
What is the time span with regards to Turkey's admittance? Ten years from now, five years, perhaps a year? :eek:
As for December, I don't think that Greece is going to approve unless they get tangible assurances that the Cypriot issue will be resolved. And I also think that France and Germany have serious reasons to veto the decision as well.
I'm talking about dissolution because after Turkey becomes a member, the EU will be in a deadlock, and after a time of crisis the whole thing will just collapse.
Some countries, like France and Germany, want to further the political side of the EU. Germany and France supports the idea of the EU becoming a federal union or a confederation at some point in the future, they know that it will be a long and difficult road, but they can hope that we will get there eventually.
With Turkey becoming a member, everything changes, the hope of a political union totally disappears. Turkey is only interested in the economic side of the EU, it wants money but wants nothing to do with the political side, it will block any further deepening of the political union, and with almost 100 million inhabitants, Turkey will be the most powerful member state of the EU and will have the demographic weight to totally block the decision process of the EU, the EU will just freeze, incapable of doing anything, incapable of taking any decision.
It's only a matter of time before countries like France and Germany get utterly frustrated by the stall in the political side of the EU, with no hope of any improvement in the future, the logical decision for them will be to withdraw from the EU, at least the political side, and start something new with countries that are willing to go further.
Anyway, like i said before, Turkey is NOT a European country, that should have been enough to keep them out. Turkey is no more European than Kenya or Thailand, it's a totally different culture. Turkey doesn't share our history, our culture, our values.
Turkey plans to pass a law to send women who cheat on their husbands in jail for crying out loud! I don't want people like that in the European parliament, i don't want European laws blocked by Turkey because they are against the Coran (which will happen).
It's already difficult to build a union with only European countries that share a common history and culture, adding to that a Middle East country is simply suicidal. And contrary to what has happened in the past where European citizens remained quiet about the evolution of the EU, the idea of having a Middle East country with 100 million muslim inhabitants joining the EU is going to cause a violent reaction in the European population, you can be sure of that.
spyretto
11-10-2004, 21:38
Chiraq announced today that France is to decide freely on Turkey's membership when the issue arises.
By saying "freely" he hinted at a possible veto by France?
As for Greece's position is that they're positive about Turkey's European future as long as Turkey shows willingness to make progress in several key issues, including naturally the Cypriot issue.
I don't share entirely your view, Turkey has a European part which has direct geographical and political connections with Europe. There's no real bond between the different European cultures anyway, it's all about our willingness to participate into something new. As Turkey becomes increasingly more "European", strengthens its ties with the rest of Europe and as the Islamic influence around the country becomes more and more moderate I think Turkey will get to a point where it could be assimilated into the bulk of the European Union. There's a great disparity between the European and Asian parts of the country, in social, economical, and religious terms no less so and I don't think the time is now, not in two years, not in five years but eventually. Turkey has a long way to go but it's definitely NOT a middle east country. :p
I don't think the issue of one country getting into the Union will be strong enough to cause the dissolution of a 50 year old-plan. But there's undoubtedly an increasing uncertainty of how the Union will develop now that so many countries have become full members and many more are to follow.
As for Turkey only caring about the economic aspect of the EU, I think that's fair enough, but if they want the economic benefits they'll have to also deal with the political ones
As for disagreements, there are certain member states who didn't agree and continue to disagree with regards to key political and economic issues - the UK, Denmark, Sweden comes to mind - so it's not the first time and it won't be the last. The EU was never threatened because of that.
But I do agree that the possible admittance of Turkey might pose a need for a re-evaluation of the whole European idea...or, then again, it might not...
Turkey has a lot of issues to deal with, how about the fact that it's essentially a military state thinly disguised by democratic procedures? Their human rights record is still not adequate, its economy will take years to reach the level of member states, and how about the Kurdish and Cyprus issues? Those have to be resolved as well.
Why don't you just say Turkey shoudln't be in because they are muslims. Aye, it's ugly and harsh but that's the whole point. Not politically powerfull military, not human rights, not economy but how they pray.
:newyear:
Anyway, like i said before, Turkey is NOT a European country, that should have been enough to keep them out. Turkey is no more European than Kenya or Thailand, it's a totally different culture. Turkey doesn't share our history, our culture, our values.
What about Israel? It's even less European yet it is in several things with euro- prefix. Oh, but they are not muslims so they can come in. :rolleyes:
:newyear:
spyretto
11-10-2004, 21:50
Why don't you just say Turkey shoudln't be in because they are muslims. Aye, it's ugly and harsh but that's the whole point. Not politically powerfull military, not human rights, not economy but how they pray.
:newyear:
I don't think it has much to do with that. But we do want a member state that won't undermine the role of the EU don't we? Albania and Bosnia are also predominately muslim counties but I don't think that issue would arise should they come to a point of becoming full member-states. It's not a matter of religion, every individual is free to believe in whatever they want, it's called freedom of religion. But they also have to allow that to their fellow individuals. It's rather a matter of democracy, freedom and respect for human rights.
About Isreal, my opinion is that they shouldn't be allowed to be part of the EU...
I don't think it has much to do with that.
Which country has had most troubles with entry negotiations? Is that country by any chance muslim?
But we do want a member state that won't undermine the role of the EU don't we?
Kick Brits out then. :rolleyes:
Albania and Bosnia are also predominately muslim counties but I don't think that issue would arise should they come to a point of becoming full member-states.
Are they at same point in nagotiations as Turkey is? Oh, and when they do I'm sure it woun't be about being msulim. It will be something else. Like not being integrated (Bosnia), supporting miniritios with separatist tendencies in neighbouring countries (Albania). Or something else that would be used to block them. And if that is solved soemthing else willb e found, don't worry.
It's not a matter of religion, every individual is free to believe in whatever they want, it's called freedom of religion.
Yes, EU is not pressuring Turkey to become christian. Turkey just isn't welcomed in EU because they are muslims.
But they also have to allow that to their fellow individuals. It's rather a matter of democracy, freedom and respect for human rights.
Want to talk about human rights in Hungary? France?
:newyear:
spyretto
11-10-2004, 22:15
Which country has had most troubles with entry negotiations? Is that country by any chance muslim?
Is it Turkey? Do you have an idea why France and Germany would be the stonger oppenents of Turkey's entry? Do you really think it's a matter of being muslims - or maybe - I say maybe - something else? Do you have an idea what will happen in those countries if Turkey were to be admitted in the present circumstances?
Kick Brits out then. :rolleyes:
no comment :gigi:
Are they at same point in nagotiations as Turkey is? Oh, and when they do I'm sure it woun't be about being msulim. It will be something else. Like not being integrated (Bosnia), supporting miniritios with separatist tendencies in neighbouring countries (Albania). Or something else that would be used to block them. And if that is solved soemthing else willb e found, don't worry.
No, they're not. As things stand right now, Turkey will be part of the EU long before Albania does. Albania - one of the most backward countries of Europe - will also be admitted once they fullfil the economic/political requirements.
Yes, EU is not pressuring Turkey to become christian. Turkey just isn't welcomed in EU because they are muslims.
Turrkey is a relatively moderate muslim country. As long as they remain as such there's no reason why they couldn't be part of Europe. If you think there's no problem at all with radical muslim states lets admit Iran and Syria into the European Union and see what happens. They're in Europe aren't they?
Want to talk about human rights in Hungary? France?
What about it? There are instances of human right abuses in every civilised country in the world. What about the US? Do you mean that is an excuse for not getting Turkey into the EU?
and by the way, are you aware that the process of admitting Turkey in the EU is under way?
lest we forget :rolleyes:
What about Israel? It's even less European yet it is in several things with euro- prefix. Oh, but they are not muslims so they can come in.You're talking to the wrong person here, i'm all for kicking Israel out of every European organizations.
]Turkey just isn't welcomed in EU because they are muslims.The "E" in EU means "European", European countries are countries of Celtic, Germanic, Latinate, Greek and Slavic cultures. Turkey is neither Celtic, Germanic, Latinate, Greek or Slavic, therefore it is not European and should not be admitted.
spyretto
11-10-2004, 22:22
Southern Europe (Green)
Southern Europe is a term used in much the same ways as Northern Europe. It includes the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal, Andorra), the Italian peninsula (Italy, Vatican City, San Marino) and the Balkan Peninsula (Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia & Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria). Usually the Mediterranean States (Cyprus, Malta) and Asia Minor (i.e. Turkey) are also included. In a cultural sense, southern France may be included.
So, according to wikipedia, Turkey is more European than southern France :D
Macedonia is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Is it Turkey?
Yes.
Do you have an idea why France and Germany would be the stonger oppenents of Turkey's entry?
Because they (Turks) are muslims.
Do you really think it's a matter of being muslims
Yes.
- or maybe - I say maybe - something else?
No.
Do you have an idea what will happen in those countries if Turkey were to be admitted in the present circumstances?
What?
no comment :gigi:
Fine. But don't complain about Turkey's lack of willingness to play by EU "rules" when you have Brits doing same.
No, they're not. As things stand right now, Turkey will be part of the EU long before Albania does.
If either of them ever gets in.
Albania - one of the most backward countries of Europe - will also be admitted once they fullfil the economic/political requirements.
Dubt it.
Turrkey is a relatively moderative muslim country.
But still muslim.
As long as they remain as such there's no reason why they couldn't be part of Europe.
So why are they not in yet?
If you think there's no problem at all with radical muslim states lets admit Iran and Syria into the European Union and see what happens. They're in Europe aren't they?
No, they aren't.
And BTW, Syria isn't radical muslim state. Dictatorship yes, radical islmaic no. Remember Hama?
What about it? There are instances of human right abuses in every civilised country in the world.
But that doesn't prevent them from entering EU.
What about the US? Do you mean that is an excuse for not getting Turkey into the EU?
What about US and how does US affect Turkish entry in EU?
and by the way, are you aware that the process of admitting Turkey in the EU is under way?
lest we forget :rolleyes:
Are you aware that this process is going on for some 20 years? Lest we forget.
:newyear:
The "E" in EU means "European", European countries are countries of Celtic, Germanic, Latinate, Greek and Slavic cultures. Turkey is neither Celtic, Germanic, Latinate, Greek or Slavic, therefore it is not European and should not be admitted.
I think Finland, Hungary and Estonia don't fit in this group either. But they are in.
Also you forgot to mention that Europe is christian. Turkey is not. So that's why they woun't get in.
:newyear:
spyretto
11-10-2004, 23:08
Because they (Turks) are muslims.
No, it's something else. How about the muslims who live in EU countries? According to your rationale those would be send back home :rolleyes:
What?
Have a guess :D
Fine. But don't complain about Turkey's lack of willingness to play by EU "rules" when you have Brits doing same.
We're talking about the requirements for joining the EU in the first place here, not about the "unwillingness" of certain states to become fully integrated members. Being/not being muslim does not constitute a requirement - as far as I know.
If either of them ever gets in.
Will see about that. i think both will be.
Dubt it.
They will, trust me. Be a little patient.
But still muslim.
So what?
So why are they not in yet?
Greece was waiting for more than 15 years before they were allowed to join. We also had to wait for a further 3 years for economic unification - after everybody else who wanted to be part of it, became part of it.
No, they aren't.
But that doesn't prevent them from entering EU
Yeah, but we're not talking about one or two instances; Turkey used to systematically abuse human rights until recently.
What about US and how does US affect Turkish entry in EU?
It doesn't, it was just an example. But I think the US does engage in human rights abuses.
Are you aware that this process is going on for some 20 years? Lest we forget.
Really, 20 years seems fair enough to me :p
To sum up with, I don't believe being Muslim has anything to do with it.
No, it's something else. How about the muslims who live in EU countries? According to your rationale those would be send back home :rolleyes:
No, where did you get that from? I said muslim countries aren't welcomed in, not muslim people.
Have a guess :D
Not a clue.
We're talking about the requirements for joining the EU in the first place here, not about the "unwillingness" of certain states to become fully integrated members.
So Turkey must accept all EU rules while UK can ignore them?
Being/not being muslim does not constitute a requirement - as far as I know.
De iure no, de facto yes.
Will see about that. i think both will be.
Neither is likelly.
They will, trust me. Be a little patient.
How long?
So what?
So not welcomed in.
Greece was waiting for more than 15 years before they were allowed to join. We also had to wait for a further 3 years for economic unification - after everybody else who wanted to be part of it, became part of it.
Every contry that isn't muslim.
No, they aren't.
No they aren't what?
Radical islamic dictatorship, maybe? I remember Hezbollah.
Which is:
A. Lebanese
B. Shi'ia
C. Mostly supported by Iran
Yeah, but we're not talking about one or two instances; Turkey used to systematically abuse human rights until recently.
One or two instances my arse. :rolleyes:
It doesn't, it was just an example. But I think the US does engage in human rights abuses.
So does Mozambique. Your point?
Really, 20 years seems fair enough to me :p
So they will be in soon?
To sum up with, I don't believe being Muslim has anything to do with it.
You believe what you want. ;)
:newyear:
spyretto
11-10-2004, 23:37
No, where did you get that from? I said muslim countries aren't welcomed in, not muslim people.
Show me where you got that. Or is it your personal view? But if you think that way, Turkey should not have pursued to join the EU in the first place. Does it make sense?
So Turkey must accept all EU rules while UK can ignore them?
UK is a member of the EU
De iure no, de facto yes.
Personal opinion or fact?
So not welcomed in.
Very welcome, indeed, if... and it won't be in 20 years. For now there's not much to be said, because you express your opinion which might be proven right or wrong. I think it will be wrong, and we'll known about it very shortly.
I have faith in my fellow Europeans that they're neither bigots nor racists.
Southern Europe … Asia Minor (i.e. Turkey) are also included.Asia minor is in Europe? Lol Wikipedia is not afraid of geographical nonsense obviously.
Turkey is in Asia, not Europe.
When Turkey becomes a member, it will be the most powerful member of the EU, the most populated one, the one with the most deputies in the EU parliament in Strasburg. Because of their demographic weight, it will be able to block any decision it doesn't like. The European Union will be dominated by a country whose capital is in Asia and run by a muslim fundamentalist party! This is unacceptable.
I still hope that France and Germany, as 2 of the 6 founding members, will have the guts to veto the decision and tell once and for all to Turkey that its membership application is rejected, permanently.
thegurgi
12-10-2004, 00:32
I always thought the EU was an economic issue, not an issue to throw about negative racial, religious and geographical sentiments.
Turkey is already in league with a few other "European" unions and i don't understand why Finland, Estonia or Hungary shouldn't be involved... oi, probably because of their Turkish Roots... is this all just 100s of years of hatred from the Ottoman Empire... or was it that the city of Constantinople was the ruling seat of 1/2 of the Roman empire for a while? So why exactly is preposterious for Turkey to join the European Union when it so obviously has European connections.
Seems like a silly debate that i'm getting into, but i honestly don't see any logical objections to the Turks being in the EU other than racism based on stereotypes. ... but what do i know, i'm just a stupid american who shouldn't have a say on anything he's not really involved in (hahaha)
European countries are countries of Celtic, Germanic, Latinate, Greek and Slavic cultures.
If that's what it means to be European, then ummm, I guess, Canada, The States, Australia and most of South America are pretty European eh? But i'm sure you'd whine just as much if we were admitted to the Union as well... which we wouldn't be... we've got our own little union (but it's debatable about it's success)
spyretto
12-10-2004, 00:39
The main objection has to do with the fact that its largest part belongs to Asia both geographically and culturally; so does its capital. Another reason is that Turkey is a very poor country. A third reason is that it's not a very democratic country. Some stress its distinct religious and cultural difference with the rest of the EU. Are those enough reasons?
Say, I think Puerto Rico is more American than Turkey is European. Why is it not part of the US? I see no reason why it shouldn't be :D
thegurgi
12-10-2004, 00:48
Say, I think Puerto Rico is more American than Turkey is European. Why is it not part of the US? I see no reason why it shouldn't be
It's because the Puerto Ricans like being a territory, for some reason.
I know the objectiosn, bu they seem so silly. And Turkey isn't THAT poor, it's not as bad off as Moldova, or Haiti or some African countries (Haiti and Moldova are two of the poorest countries on the Planet)
I think the reason is the free passport, I'm sure there are people uncomfortable with that thought... but i still think it's sillyness
spyretto
12-10-2004, 00:53
If that's what it means to be European, then ummm, I guess, Canada, The States, Australia and most of South America are pretty European eh? But i'm sure you'd whine just as much if we were admitted to the Union as well... which we wouldn't be... we've got our own little union (but it's debatable about it's success)
:lol:
I think the Union was made so that Europe can become an economic superpower again and reduce the aforementioned countries to mere spectators. So Canada, the US, Australia and the rest joining would be a no-no :p Though, personally, I'd like to see Canada join ;)
Are we getting a bit rediculous here?
Careful not to confuse Hungary with Moldova. Poor Moldova is officially the most destitute country of Europe, while Hungary's economy is doing quite well, in fact it's one of the new member states. Hungary's economy is a lot better than Bulgaria's or Serbia's. As for Moldova they are to join the EU sometime in the next century. :eek:
thegurgi
12-10-2004, 00:54
Careful not to confuse Hungary with Moldova. Poor Moldova is officially the most destitute country of Europe, while Hungary's economy is doing quite well, in fact it's one of the new member states. Hungary's economy is a lot better than Bulgaria's or Serbia's. As for Moldova they are to join the EU sometime in the next century.
i made a mistake, i meant to say HAITI... i dunno why i said Hungary... i fixed it
I think the Union was made so that Europe can become an economic superpower again and reduce the aforementioned countries to mere spectators
That's the ticket i believe...
spyretto
12-10-2004, 01:00
Haiti or Jibudi, Burkina Faso, Netherland Antilles...
I think we should go back to the US elections thread - for our Europeans amusement - and wait for the decision about Turkey's membership. As it stands right now, Turkey will be monitored for the next 15 years by the EU and if they meet all the requirements they will join. The EU is also in a position to stop any negotiations should they see that the democratization of the country is not moving as it should be. ;)
I think the reason is the free passport, I'm sure there are people uncomfortable with that thought... but i still think it's sillyness
An educated guess...as well as the fact that you can freely live and work in another member state indefinitely, and basically enjoy the same rights as everybody else...
I always thought the EU was an economic issueThe EU is a political and economic union, it's the only organization of this kind in the world, it's almost a confederation.
When a country joins the EU, a part of its sovereignty is transfered to the EU, legally an EU member is no longer fully sovereign.
France has had to modify its constitution a dozen times in 50 years to transfer parts of our sovereignty to the EU.
Like a federal state, the EU has an executive branch (the EU commission), a parliamentary branch (the EU parliament), a judiciary branch (The EU Court of Justice), and a central bank.
The EU has a lot of powers over its member states, the EU can force a national government to apply a law for example, the EU can also declare null a law voted by a national parliament which is in contradiction with EU laws.
In a lot of ways, the EU has more power over its member states than the Federal US government over the US states.
Within the EU, borders no longer exist, any EU citizen is free to settle and work wherever they want, any EU citizen can buy whatever they want in any member states, money and goods also travel freely as if the EU was one single state.
The EU is also about redistribution of money among member states, the richest member states pay a lot of taxes to the EU, this money is then redistributed to the less rich members.
If you don't understand why EU citizens are discussing the admittance of Turkey as a member, try to imagine what kind of debate there would be in the US if Mexico was bound to become the 51st state of the United States of America, it is of the same magnitude.
i'm sure you'd whine just as much if we were admitted to the Union as well.Excuse me... I whine?
Are you denying me the right to debate about what people will become co-citizens of mine, about which country is going to participate in the writing of laws i'll have to abide by?
spyretto
12-10-2004, 01:24
If you don't understand why EU citizens are discussing the admittance of Turkey as a member, try to imagine what kind of debate there would be in the US if Mexico was bound to become the 51st state of the United States of America, it is of the same magnitude.
exactly!
But I have a better idea: since thegurgi has mentioned Haiti, I'd propose Turkey to be the 51th state. They're a long-term US ally and they've more in common than Haiti has with the EU - CNN a la Turk, for example...
thegurgi
12-10-2004, 01:44
, try to imagine what kind of debate there would be in the US if Mexico was bound to become the 51st state of the United States of America, it is of the same magnitude.
i think it'd be cool if Mexico became a State... i also think it'd be cool if a state succeeded too, so how knows how i feel, i'd be fine with both Haiti and Turkey... i also like the idea of Newfoundland becoming a state....
Are you denying me the right to debate about what people will become co-citizens of mine, about which country is going to participate in the writing of laws i'll have to abide by?
--- and what the hell is wrong with Turks then? why would it be SO HORRIBLE to have a different view put in?
I think people seem to forget that you know, we're all human, and no matter how many stupid labels you find ways to divide us... we're gonna have to realise that we're all just people, and maybe that will end some the stupid crap that's going on... it's a simple as that. Tolerance...
sorry to get into a little "can't we all get along tangent" but it's really pissing me off (it's election time and every pro-life and fastidious conservative is telling me i'm going to hell... i'm a bit on edge)
what the hell is wrong with Turks then? why would it be SO HORRIBLE to have a different view put in?
Right now, Turkey is run by a fundamentalist muslim party which, among other things, is planning to vote a law to send adultery women in jail, only women, not men guilty of the same felony.
Call me crazy but i don't want that kind of people in the EU parliament at Strasbourg voting laws i'll have to follow.
Of course there's nothing illegal about adultery in any European country, not since the 19th century anyway.
That just shows the huge gap that there is between European countries and Turkey, Turkey still lives in the 19th century.
That's ironic, we are the ones being called close-minded because we don't want Turkey to join the EU, but at the same time political opponents are tortured in Turkish prisons and people praise Turkey for being such a great country.
thegurgi
12-10-2004, 07:00
Why don't you think about how than the Europeans could affect the Turks then instead of vice versa? Why is it never a positive thing... like "Hrmm, maybe we could help the Turks" instead of just turning away and letting them pass those votes, and if they came into the EU, than would the majority be AGAINST that law and it be shut down? ... you have yet to sway me on how this is BAD thing?
spyretto
12-10-2004, 09:20
Why don't you think about how than the Europeans could affect the Turks then instead of vice versa? Why is it never a positive thing... like "Hrmm, maybe we could help the Turks" instead of just turning away and letting them pass those votes, and if they came into the EU, than would the majority be AGAINST that law and it be shut down? ... you have yet to sway me on how this is BAD thing?
You're probably right but let the politicians decide whatever they want to do. Nothing that you, haku or I say will make any difference ( unless there's a referendum on whether Turkey should join. ) It's damn politics anyway...
you have yet to sway me on how this is BAD thing?Well, i'm not really trying to convince you, i'm just saying what i think.
But i've already said several times why i think it's a bad thing.
I'm what we call a Eurofederalist, i want the EU to become eventually a tightly integrated federation. I support the German project for the future of the EU, which is basically applying the German model to the EU scale, each member state becoming a "lander" of the EU.
I want European nations to fade into one single European nation. I want a strong federal government and i want an EU president directly elected by EU citizens.
I want one single army for the EU, and when the time comes, i want France to transfer its nuclear weapons to the EU armed forces and to transfer to the EU its permanent seat to the UN Security Council.
Eventually, we won't be a sovereign state at all, but just a part of a larger one.
This is a huge task, one that will take generations, and it can only be done with countries that share a common culture, a common history, common languages.
Turkey belongs to a totally different cultural area, one that stretches from Turkey in the west to the Uighur region in China in the East and includes most of the countries that end in "stan" in between.
Turkey happens to be in 'contact' with the European cultural area, but it is not a part of it, it won't fit, it's just too different. It will block all EU decisions, the EU will be in a deadlock.
For people like me, once Turkey is in, the dream of European unification is dead.
France will have a referendum on the admittance of Turkey anyway, and i'm convinced that the "no" will win. The latest polls showed that about 80% of people are against it, even the 10% of French citizens who are of Arab origin and mostly muslim are against it (they see Turks as a threat for their jobs).
Show me where you got that. Or is it your personal view? But if you think that way, Turkey should not have pursued to join the EU in the first place. Does it make sense?
How many EU member coutnries are muslim?
UK is a member of the EU
Exactlly.
Personal opinion or fact?
See my first response.
Very welcome, indeed, if... and it won't be in 20 years. For now there's not much to be said, because you express your opinion which might be proven right or wrong. I think it will be wrong, and we'll known about it very shortly.
I have faith in my fellow Europeans that they're neither bigots nor racists.
Having fait is one thing. Having blinders is another.
As for Moldova they are to join the EU sometime in the next century. :eek:
Well, they have 97 years to get their economy on track.
When a country joins the EU, a part of its sovereignty is transfered to the EU, legally an EU member is no longer fully sovereign.
WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON, WRONG WRONG. Oh, did I say this is wrong?
Country can enter an agreement that states that certain decisions are not made by that county. But if country has ability to withdraw from that agreement they retain sovereignity.
Some Himalaian states have agreed to allow India to conduct their foreign affairs. As they can withdraw from this at any point they maintain their sovereignity.
:newyear:
spyretto
12-10-2004, 16:58
Welcome back
I think there are only a few muslim countries around Europe anyway; and none of them is partucularly strong economically. But they belong in Europe, so eventually they're to be allowed into the European Union if they wish and make progress towards that goal.
Welcome back
I think there are only a few muslim countries around Europe anyway; and none of them is partucularly strong economically. But they belong in Europe, so eventually they're to be allowed into the European Union if they wish and make progress towards that goal.
Don't count on it....
:newyear:
I don't think Turkey should be admitted to the European Union unless it changes completely, but it would be a big mistake to reject them now. It would just confirm all the negative opinions that Muslims have about Europe. I'm pleased that they've said that Turkey and other post-2004 will have to face much tougher assessments of actual implementation of the policies Europe insists on than the new ten did. I'm still very unhappy that the Czech Republic and Slovakia were admitted when they discriminate so much against Gypsies. But if they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have given Romania a clean bill of health for entry in 2007 - there are still problems with treatment of Gypsies, torture and lack of child protection. All this talk that it will be 10 or 15 years before Turkey is admitted, that's allowing us to spin out indefinitely negotiations with Turkey. But maybe it's just a ruse and then they want to wrap up the negotiations much faster.
I'm certainly not a Eurofederalist, in fact I opposed Maastricht (although fortunately it turned out to be nothing like as federalist in practice as it looked on paper) and the Euro. But I think there's a difference between countries like Britain, Denmark and Sweden, which are sceptical about the Eurofederalist project, and Turkey. Its voting weight would always be on the conservative side and make it almost impossible to enact any progressive measures.
I don't think Turkey should be admitted to the European Union unless it changes completely, but it would be a big mistake to reject them now.
Well, i don't think Turkey should be admitted to the EU ever, but i don't think it should be rejected either, but there are other ways than EU membership to achieve that.
Originally there were two competing organizations in Europe, the EEC (Benelux, France, Germany, Italy) which represented the French-German vision for Europe with economic and political integration (inspired by the BENELUX agreements), and the EFTA (Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, UK) which represented the UK vision for Europe with only economics in view. At some point, for a reason that i have never understood, the UK decided to leave the EFTA to join the EEC even though it didn't agree with the EEC project (it was a big mistake to accept the UK in the EEC in my opinion).
Then the EEC evolved into the EU and several EFTA members joined the EU, but the EFTA still exists today (it has 4 members: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein). Nowadays the EU and the EFTA are no longer competing, the EU and the EFTA have even created a new organization called the EEA which creates a free trade zone between the EU and the EFTA members that agreed to it (Switzerland refused to adhere to the EEA).
Basically, the EEA was designed for countries who want to be a part of the economic area of the EU but don't want to be a part of the political integration of the EU.
Personally, i would have no problem with Turkey joining the EFTA and the EEA, that way Turkey would be economically tightly integrated with the EU (which is the only thing that interests Turkey) but would remain outside the political aspects of the EU (which don't interest Turkey). I think that would be a satisfactory solution for everybody.
I'll add that with the adoption of the EU constitution which is a step forward federalism, the eurosceptic members of the EU are going to have to make a clear choice. The EU constitution has no chance of being adopted in the UK for example (i don't know for Denmark and Sweden), once the UK has rejected the EU constitution, it will be a logical conclusion in my opinion that it should withdraw from the EU and go back to the EFTA/EEA, that way the UK will continue to enjoy the free trade market with the EU but won't have to deal with the political side of the EU which it profoundly rejects and despises.
For people who are not Europeans and my not be familiar with the acronyms:
EEC: European Economic Community
EFTA: European Free Trade Association (http://secretariat.efta.int/)
EEA: European Economic Area (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/eea/)
Your EEA idea is interesting, but I can see a number of problems. First, Turkey has been an associate member since 1963, so it's not just about trade. There are other reasons for being in the EU rather than having an associate status, a point which I'll return to later.
Second, being in the EEA now brings with it the right to free movement. Since one of the major obstacles to Turkey's EU membership with the French and German publics is the prospect of Turks getting free movement, that would be a political difficulty.
Third, another reason why Turkey would want to join, just like Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia wanted to join, rather than be in EFTA is because of EU regional aid. Being so poor, Turkey would be entitled to a lot of regional aid.
Fourth, EFTA isn't exactly a thriving organisation. Norway and Iceland are considering joining the EU. Without them, the only other EFTA members would be Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and only Liechtenstein is in the EEA.
Fifth, would Switzerland let Turkey into EFTA? I can imagine the Swiss reacting with even more disfavour to the idea of letting Turkey in and so granting Turks free movement to Switzerland (Switzerland has a free movement agreement with the EEA) than the French and German publics. I mean, these are people who won't even let people of non-Swiss ancestry born in Switzerland become citizens!
Why did Britain join if we don't believe in federalism? We joined because EFTA was free trade with a few small countries. The EEC was free trade with the other big countries in western Europe. At the time, there was no free trade between the two, because the EEC wanted to break EFTA. It only became more friendly to EFTA after Britain left.
At the time, the EEC itself was little more than a free trade area and a huge subsidy scheme for farmers, particularly French and Italian ones. The British didn't much like the idea of subsidising the French, but felt the other economic benefits were worth it. The British also joined to counter the French. If Britain hadn't wanted to do that originally, that was certainly the intention after General de Gaulle said 'non' to the British application in 1963.
Countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU in recent years because if you aren't in the EU you have to comply by many EU standards if you want free trade. So you have to follow the rules without having a say in them. It's better to be, as President Johnson once said, inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.
Regarding Britain having to leave if it rejects the EU constitution, we aren't the only ones who are likely to vote no in a referendum. Denmark and Poland are both likely to vote no too. Polls suggest that the Dutch and even the French might vote no. If the French people say 'non' to the constitution, do you think France should have to leave the EU? Or are some EU members more equal than others, haku?
The problem for European federalism is that the people of Europe don't want it. European integration has been a project of the political elites. The British and the Danes have been the awkward squad for many years, but nearly all the new members are anti-federalist too. That's why the constitution turned out to be such a small step towards federalism. The populations of these countries don't want to hand any more power to the European institutions. Some of that is because of a suspicion of centralisation (which I share) and some of that is because of nationalism (which I don't share), but it's a fact that Eurofederalists are going to have to face up to.
There is a big difference between the certain no of the UK to the constitution, and the possible no of France to the constitution.
The UK is going to vote no because it doesn't want a constitution at all, in France the socialist party is thinking about calling for a no vote because it thinks the constitution doesn't go far enough and is too liberal, the socialist party wants a stronger more federal constitution, it doesn't want France to leave the EU, it wants an even more integrated EU than what the constitution proposes.
I'm not saying that the UK should be kicked out of the EU, but i do think that after it rejects the constitution, the UK will have to reassess its position. For the past ten years the UK has rejected every further integration in the EU, at the last EU elections (if i'm not mistaken) the BNP has made a huge score, from what i've seen in British media, the large majority of British people want the UK to leave the EU, the British tabloids trashes the EU every chance they have and are also campaigning for the UK to leave the EU. If the British people are so unhappy about being in the EU, why force them to stay in? The UK should withdraw, the British people would be much happier obviously.
Whatever happens, the constitution is a turning point for the EU. Next year, the EU member sates will be divided in two groups, those that will have adopted the constitution, and those that will have rejected it. The EU will have to be reshaped, because there will be a huge gap between the members tied together with a common constitution which will continue toward further integration, and the "outsiders" which will remain pretty much where they are now.
There is a big difference between the certain no of the UK to the constitution, and the possible no of France to the constitution.
The UK is going to vote no because it doesn't want a constitution at all, in France the socialist party is thinking about calling for a no vote because it thinks the constitution doesn't go far enough and is too liberal, the socialist party wants a stronger more federal constitution, it doesn't want France to leave the EU, it wants an even more integrated EU than what the constitution proposes.
The irony is that the main effects of the constitution is to reduce the number of areas where nations can use their vetoes. Who caused the introduction of the veto? France.
I'm not saying that the UK should be kicked out of the EU, but i do think that after it rejects the constitution, the UK will have to reassess its position. For the past ten years the UK has rejected every further integration in the EU, at the last EU elections (if i'm not mistaken) the BNP has made a huge score
The BNP didn't do very well. It was the UK Independence Party (UKIP) that did very well, with 15%. They're not neo-fascists like the BNP, they're just xenophobic right-wing nationalists.
from what i've seen in British media, the large majority of British people want the UK to leave the EU
No, in a recent poll only 22% wanted to leave the EU, although another 29% wanted a less integrated EU. Even putting both Eurosceptic options together, that's only just over half. The British people are pretty evenly divided between pro- and anti-Europeans. It's just that a large majority oppose the constitution - only 21% would vote in favour, according to another poll.
If our referendum is last and all the others are carried, then they will tell us that we have to vote yes or leave. Faced with a forced choice of the EU constitution or leaving, perhaps most people will prefer to stay in the EU. I expect that Poland and Denmark will vote no first and we'll vote no in solidarity, so they don't get picked on.
the British tabloids trashes the EU every chance they have and are also campaigning for the UK to leave the EU. If the British people are so unhappy about being in the EU, why force them to stay in? The UK should withdraw, the British people would be much happier obviously.
The British people don't really want to leave. They just enjoy complaining about the EU.
Whatever happens, the constitution is a turning point for the EU. Next year, the EU member sates will be divided in two groups, those that will have adopted the constitution, and those that will have rejected it. The EU will have to be reshaped, because there will be a huge gap between the members tied together with a common constitution which will continue toward further integration, and the "outsiders" which will remain pretty much where they are now.
We'll have to see how many countries vote no. Legally, the constitution can't enter into force unless all members agree. There's no provision for a country to leave the EU (the constitution will create a procedure for secession). I don't know how a two-speed Europe would work where some countries agree to majority voting and others can opt out. I think they'd go back to the drawing board and agree a new much more modest treaty.
Legally, the constitution can't enter into force unless all members agree.
That's not totally true, that's probably what the British eurosceptics are going to say to their people (if you vote no, nothing will happen), but that's not true.
From the EU constitution itself:
"If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending the Treaty establishing the Constitution, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council."
In clear, if at least 20 member states have ratified the EU constitution, it will become effective for those member states. The others will have the choice between simple withdrawal from the EU, or a new "associate membership" which probably won't be much more than an EEA membership. This new "associate membership" is not mentioned anywhere but it is already discussed in the "corridors" of Brussels, this new status could also be ultimately the one proposed to Turkey, since nobody really believes that Turkey will ever vote yes to the EU constitution, and if countries like the UK, Denmark and Sweden have become associate members, Turkey won't be as offended by it as it would now.
There is a bit of controversy about it - encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com says:
In the event that 80% of EU member states have ratified the treaty after two years (i.e. by June 2006), while one or more member states have “encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification”, the European Council has agreed to reconvene and consider the situation. This agreement does not specify what the Council may decide to do, but it remains the case that no treaty can enter into force without being ratified by all parties to it.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Treaty%20establishing%20a%20constitution%20for%20E urope
But I agree that it's opening the door for the 20-plus that ratify to proceed, while the others (Britain, probably Denmark and quite likely Poland) don't. Sweden isn't going to hold a referendum (only the Green Party and the Left Party are calling for one), so they will ratify regardless of what the population wants.
The majority of British people would probably be happy with EEA membership, because it brings a customs union and the right to live and work in other European countries. The other benefits EU membership has brought in terms of environmental and social policy are much less apparent to the public (although after expansion to the east, further progress in those areas is going to be limited anyway). But I can't imagine Tony Blair (who I think would probably resign) or even Gordon Brown being happy about leaving the EU. I don't think the constitution itself contains anything very worrying and bringing agriculture not only into qualified majority voting, but also partly under the control of the Parliament is a big improvement. Unfortunately, the environmentally disastrous fisheries and transport policies remain unreformed.
What is worrying is that the Council and Parliament together can amend the constitution in future. So we could be signing up to a superstate by stealth.
I doubt Labour would want us just to have EEA membership. More likely we'll stay in the EU, but with a weakened form of membership. I think the Danish public would be happy with that too. Poland would probably be lured back in with the promise of regional aid. The Swedish public will probably wish they could get a similar deal - after all they regret ever having joined.
People who follow EU politics know that the new EU commission has been rejected a few days ago by the EU parliament. The main reason being that one of the commissioners, Rocco Buttiglione, has made homophobic and misogynistic comments which have outraged the left wing of the EU parliament.
This is good news for EU democracy, since the EU parliament is directly elected by the people whereas the EU commission is appointed by the 25 governments. In a way, it's a victory of the people against the governments.
What is more worrying is that apparently this new commission only lacked about 30 votes (out of 732 EU MPs) to be accepted. This shows that the conservative side is still very strong in Europe, the liberals had the majority, but only a thin one.
This event is also a perfect example of what i've been saying about Turkey's membership and how it's going to unbalance the EU.
Each time the EU is dealing with "sensitive" issues (like gay rights for example) there is always an almost equal repartition between conservatives and liberals, most of the time the liberals win, but only by a thin margin.
That will change when Turkey is a member, Turkey will add about 120 MPs to the EU parliament, almost all conservatives! The balance between conservatives and liberals will be broken with the Turkish MPs, the conservatives will become the large majority in the EU parliament.
I've seen a lot of people saying that once Turkey is a member, it will become more liberal but the recent events show that it's the opposite that is going to happen. With Turkey as a member, it's the whole EU that is going to become more conservative.
If Turkey had been a member now, this new commission would have had enough votes to be accepted, and now we would have a homophobic and misogynistic commissioner.
Knowing that the EU will become much more conservative in the future is definitely not good news, at least not for someone like me.
Not very exciting news, haku, but I believe in the reasonale approach even from the conservatives as the general EU strategy should be based on the idea of the equality of the humans and their rights. I doubt that EU will suddenly turn into a block of dictatures which will pass the line of any democratic values and become a bunch of restorators. In this case, Turkish presence inside the EU may serve a positive purpose as they have to behave strategically correct. In another words, I'm fine with Turkey becoming an EU-member. :)
I'm reviving this thread because two important events have occurred this week which relate to discussions we had earlier in this thread.
Less improtantly, the members of the French Socialist Party voted 59-41 to support the European constitution. That makes it unlikely that France will vote 'no' in its referendum, which would kill the constitution.
Probably more importantly for the future of Europe, the Ukrainian Supreme Court ruled that there should be a revote of the second round of the presidential election by 26 December. It now looks very likely that Viktor Yushchenko will be elected president of Ukraine and will lead the country towards the West.
A few months ago, haku wrote that the EU should never admit Ukraine and should accept that it is part of Russia's sphere of influence. I argued that if Ukraine wanted to join the EU, we should be prepared to let it in when it was ready.
There is an article in this week's edition of The Economist, 'The implications of a democratic Ukraine'. It talks about how France and Germany are appearently opposed to admitting Ukraine because if it was added after Turkey it would move the centre of gravity of the EU even further east. It also writes about how the objective of creating a single European welfare state is undermined by further expansion (too many countries at different levels of economic development) and how Ukraine would kill the Common Agricultural Policy (all those wheatfields). It concludes that just as the objective of a peaceful Europe requires expanding to include the Balkans (as the EU recognises), so it also requires expanding to strengthen freedom and democracy by incorporating the Ukraine. In a typical dig from The Economist, it comments that this is a more worthwhile objective than the Common Agricultural Policy or the working time directive.
I don't agree with The Economist very much (I'm actually fairly left-wing), but I think that they have a point here. I don't think that there's a logically consistent reason for the EU to expand to include the Balkans and not be prepared to include Ukraine.
DinoBora
04-12-2004, 21:04
In another words, I'm fine with Turkey becoming an EU-member. Turkey will be foreign body in United Europe for sure. It's an islamic country. The majority of turks have never shared and do not share the so called western values. I think that eurocracy should rather treat Ukraine as a potential candidate in the distant future. It's more democratic and more european.
But Turkey will have to undergo changes and they'll be under European parliament. The majority of the countries in the EU are non-islamic countries so there's no risk that EU will become islamic. :D
Ukranian question is still hanging up in the air. We'll see.
DinoBora
04-12-2004, 22:39
But Turkey will have to undergo changes and they'll be under European parliament.
Yeah! They'll have to pass billls regarding equality of sexes, human rights issues in general,national minorities issues , freedom of press, use of death penalty and so on and so on... and moreover make alll those changes effective and not just put on paper. If the officials in Ankara try to implement all the requirements imposed by eurocrats and these guys ... I mean european officials... usually are so scrupulous and fight for every single letter, I fear Turks will revolt against their government.
It's done, Turkey will become an EU member. :mad: So, in a few years, the biggest, most populated, most powerful, most influencial country in the EU will be an Asian country that does not share any of the European values, this is ludicrous, outrageous, and dangerous. :bebebe: For me this is the end, the Ottomans have won.
It's done, Turkey will become an EU member. :mad: So, in a few years, the biggest, most populated, most powerful, most influencial country in the EU will be an Asian country that does not share any of the European values, this is ludicrous, outrageous, and dangerous. :bebebe: For me this is the end, the Ottomans have won.
Interesting thread.
Turkey may be a Muslim country but with the Islamaphobia of the West it wont have a significant impact on the EU. It is simply a wait and see approach ....
Maybe they will adopt European values, although I struggle to see any that are genuine across the EU members anyway, maybe they will resurrect the power of the Ottoman empire. Then we can all s**t ourselves ... :rolleyes:
LOL. Easy Haku. It's not like Turkey is a fundamentalist islamic dictatorship of the Middle East like Iran, or like Afghanistan or Iraq were some time ago. Infact it's the most pro-west orientated Islamic country ever. It's still far from the liberal nature of the Euro countries, but it's not as bad as it looks superficially.
With the pressure of EU, Turkey is actually about to resolve the Cypriotic question. EU may have a positive influence on Turkey and get a fast developing and soon very prosperious country as a member. Haku is very much influenced by French media I think. We all are influenced of course but still, it depends on if you have an optimistic view or not. I have. :) I've been to Turkey and I like this country and people a lot, I even have a working pal who is Turkish, so my experience has been positive so far.
It's not like Turkey is a fundamentalist islamic dictatorshipIt's not my point, even if Turkey was an advanced democracy (which it is far from being), i would still be opposed to it, and i don't care about the main religion over there (i'm French, we are strictly laic, we are the ones who opposed to God and Christianity being mentioned in the EU constitution).
No, as i've already said countless times, i am opposed to Turkey simply because it's not a European country, it's not part of the European cullture, Turkey belongs to a totally different cultural area. In a few years, the biggest, most powerful EU member will be a non-European country, which is a ridiculous situation. I was totally ok with Germany having that role until then, Germany is at the heart of Europe, a link between Western and Eastern Europe, it was a balanced situation. Now it's going to be Turkey, a country in Asia at the far South-East of the EU, ludicrous.
Plus, like i've said in another post, Turkey is an ultra conservative country, they will have more than 120 MPs at the EU parliament, the balance between conservatives and liberals is going to be broken, with Turkey's MPs, the conservative side is going to be much stronger than the liberal one, with the help of Turkey's MPs the views of people like Rocco Buttiglione will provail then.
To me, sharing citizenship and sovereignty with the Turks is unacceptable.
Haku is very much influenced by French mediaNot that much, i've always been opposed to Turkey becoming an EU member, i remember having discussions about that in 1980s.
No, as i've already said countless times, i am opposed to Turkey simply because it's not a European country, it's not part of the European cullture, Turkey belongs to a totally different cultural area. In a few years, the biggest, most powerful EU member will be a non-European country, which is a ridiculous situation. I was totally ok with Germany having that role until then, Germany is at the heart of Europe, a link between Western and Eastern Europe, it was a balanced situation. Now it's going to be Turkey, a country in Asia at the far South-East of the EU, ludicrous.
Plus, like i've said in another post, Turkey is an ultra conservative country, they will have more than 120 MPs at the EU parliament, the balance between conservatives and liberals is going to be broken, with Turkey's MPs, the conservative side is going to be much stronger than the liberal one, with the help of Turkey's MPs the views of people like Rocco Buttiglione will provail then.
To me, sharing citizenship and sovereignty with the Turks is unacceptable.
Eu is still run by UK and France and Germany, which are super influencial countires and Turkey has no chance against EU policies. EU is not going to change and become an islamic union because of that. Then, Turkey is not going to be the most powerful country of the EU because they have the biggest population. :)
Not that much, i've always been opposed to Turkey becoming an EU member, i remember having discussions about that in 1980s.
Politically, you are brought up on French media and that's enough.
Politically, you are brought up on French media and that's enough.What i meant (and i'm sorry i didn't make that clearer) is that in the 1980s, French politicians and media were in favor of Turkey's membership, and despite that fact, i was opposed to it, so i'm not following the media blindly. They have changed their opinion, i haven't.
In the 1980s France supported Turkey's admission because France thought that Turkey had the same laic ideals than France. Both countries had built a republic based on a strict laicity, removing religion from political institutions and schools. France thought that Turkey was to the muslim world what France was to the christian world, an example of how religion can be removed from the public sphere and be stricly limited to the private sphere.
This good opinion of Turkey in France was shattered when an extemist muslim party came recently into power, after that a lot of French politicians and media changed their opinion, Turkey revealed itself to not be the country they thought it was.
haku, Okay then, the explanation is good enough. Then French media was influenced by you! :D
Time will show. We have Bulgaria on the way too. Turkey is already considering some changes in their political system by a pressure from EU, so what do you think?
spyretto
17-12-2004, 23:14
Where is the update on this issue, huh? Now we have EU giving the "green light" - sort of speak - to our Asian muslim friends of Turkey for their eventual integration with EU ( as long as they recognise Cyprus as a unified country for the first time, that was the Greek stance in the first place ) though a lot is left to be discussed and the process might take up to 15 years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4103931.stm
Any thoughts on the subject? Do we really want this country in the EU? ( Well I bet Blair and his buddy Bush - who hasn't got a say in this but anyhow - would find it very welcoming but what about the others? Germany and Austria say they'll go for a referendum on this issue )
Any thoughts?
I read something about Gypsies being oppressed in Romania, that's the most untrue story.
About joining EU : I think Romania isn't prepared yet.
agriculture : ha ! like in medieval age => 2-3 millions unemployed, at least
industry : low quality, low-tech => 1 million unemployed, at least
services : the most compatible with EU standards, but many of low quality and only at the begining. however, this sector will boom by joining the EU.
and also : corruption ! with EU money, the "cancer" planned to build 1 billion euro dam, somewhere in mountains !! or a 3.8 billion euro highway (10% of GDP) :blabla: ... of course, in less corrupt countries these would be 2-3 times cheaper !
Joining EU will be a disaster, not for democracy, not for justice, but for the people. A more realistic date would be 2015.
coolasfcuk
18-12-2004, 01:27
Well Bulgaria is up to join EU as well ... in January 2007 and about to sign in April 2005.... what can i say ... Romania, Bulgaria - the difference is minimal.
I read something about Gypsies being oppressed in Romania, that's the most untrue story
This sort of attitude is widespread among Romanians. Like in other Central and Eastern European countries, Roma (Gypsies) actually experience tremendous discrimination in Romania. I've heard the kind of opinions that even educated and otherwise liberal Romanians express. Rates of unemployment are very high largely because of blatant discrimination in job hiring. Most Romanians perceive all Roma as stupid, lazy and criminal and see nothing wrong in such discrimination. Most Roma children are classified by the authorities as 'mentally handicapped' and put into a separate education system supposedly for the mentally handicapped, but mostly for normal Roma children. Roma are frequently subjected to violent attacks and the police do not intervene to protect them. There is police violence, torture and deaths in custody - most of the victims are Roma. Amensty International's 2003 report on Romania commented on this phenomenon.
I don't have something in for Romania. Much the same is true of other Central European and Balkan countries. But it's a real problem that needs to be recognised, not denied.
spyretto
25-04-2005, 21:17
Well Bulgaria is up to join EU as well ... in January 2007 and about to sign in April 2005.... what can i say ... Romania, Bulgaria - the difference is minimal.
According to this article by yahoo.com, there are distinct differences in terms of democratic and economic institutions, between the two countries:
Romania, Bulgaria sign 'historic' EU entry pact (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050425/wl_afp/euenlargeromaniabulgaria_050425170023)
Well, I don't know, I'm positive about the whole thing and I always have been. That was the idea of the early "European Community" anyway: to gradually encompass all European nations and strengthen peace and ecomonic stability within the Union. I think there'll be no problem with Bulgaria and Romania joining, if not in 2007, maybe a bit later. The biggest challenge for the EU won't be Bulgaria or Romania but Turkey. As for the Ukraine, they should be free to join if they make the political reforms and economic adjustments necessary because they're historically part of Europe, be it under the influence of Russia or not. The UK is traditionally under the influence of one U.S.A, in fact they feel more American than European. They're shunning the constitution and currency, but that hasn't prevented them from being full members. They're all political decisions after all. If there was to be a referendum tomorrow on leaving or staying in the EU , I wouldn't be surprised if the Brits voted in favour of the former. So it may be that the Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Romanians, or even the Albanians, feel more "European" than the Brits, after all.
So let them all in. The food has gone better since the UK joined the EU, and I wouldn't mind it at all if the Isles were infested by Eastern bloc babes :D :D
We said no… I can't believe it… I feel so utterly ashamed.
Of course it was predictable, many things have upset French people in recent years; social dumping from new eastern members that were probably integrated too soon in the EU, the beginning of talks for Turkey to become a member which French people radically oppose, the fact that many EU countries supported the US war instead of the French-German anti-war position, and more generally France losing more and more influence within EU institutions.
But that's no excuse, that's a shame and a catastrophe for the country, 50 years of work for nothing, and a lifetime dream that just vanished for me. *falls into depression*
coolasfcuk
29-05-2005, 23:52
We said no… I can't believe it… I feel so utterly ashamed.
yeah, I just read here, in the 'parisian News' for Bulgarian Francophones : http://www.parisvesti.com/?u_s=2&u_a=189&sid= - it says that The French said NON :blabla: supposedly, as stated in the article, this will not affect the Romania and Bulgarian joining in 2007 (for now its said), but i doubt it that would hold :hmmm:
spy, I just saw your post as welll, and the link is not working
We said no… I can't believe it… I feel so utterly ashamed.
It was expected. The constitution goes to the trash-can as there's no further prospect. A sort of pity as it was worth to give it a try.
The analysts said that French people would probably vote "No" to demonstrate its disagreement with the current French government generally.
I've voted "No"....:lalala:
Not because of social dumping from new eastern members that were probably integrated too soon in the EU, ....., the fact that many EU countries supported the US war instead of the French-German anti-war position, and more generally France losing more and more influence within EU institutions.
....but because of the constitution itself: we've spent so many years before to succeed to vote for our President in a Direct Vote ...the french people chooses directly its President....I don't want to not be able to vote Directly for the President of Europe....
The Netherlands also said no to Europe. The EU is dead. I guess it's only fair that it would be two founding members that would destroy what they started 50 years ago.
The EU is dead
Not too fast, please. It was about the constitution only. EU remains.
The EU won't last long without a constitution, the current treaty (treaty of Nice) was only meant as an interim treaty until the constitution would be ad