European Union [discussion thread]
 

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:

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:

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:

Congratulations on your membership. I think it's gonna be real good.

: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:

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.

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.

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.


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.

Me too.

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...ullnews&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.)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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:

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:

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...

Which country has had most troubles with entry negotiations? Is that country by any chance muslim?

Kick Brits out then. :rolleyes:

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.

Yes, EU is not pressuring Turkey to become christian. Turkey just isn't welcomed in EU because they are muslims.

Want to talk about human rights in Hungary? France?

:newyear:

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?



no comment :gigi:



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.

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?

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:

You're talking to the wrong person here, i'm all for kicking Israel out of every European organizations.

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.

So, according to wikipedia, Turkey is more European than southern France :D

Macedonia is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Yes.

Because they (Turks) are muslims.

Yes.

No.

What?

Fine. But don't complain about Turkey's lack of willingness to play by EU "rules" when you have Brits doing same.

If either of them ever gets in.

Dubt it.

But still muslim.

So why are they not in yet?

No, they aren't.

And BTW, Syria isn't radical muslim state. Dictatorship yes, radical islmaic no. Remember Hama?

But that doesn't prevent them from entering EU.

What about US and how does US affect Turkish entry in EU?

Are you aware that this process is going on for some 20 years? Lest we forget.

:newyear:

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:

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:

Have a guess :D

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.


Will see about that. i think both will be.



They will, trust me. Be a little patient.


So what?



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.




Yeah, but we're not talking about one or two instances; Turkey used to systematically abuse human rights until recently.


It doesn't, it was just an example. But I think the US does engage in human rights abuses.


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, where did you get that from? I said muslim countries aren't welcomed in, not muslim people.

Not a clue.

So Turkey must accept all EU rules while UK can ignore them?

De iure no, de facto yes.

Neither is likelly.

How long?

So not welcomed in.

Every contry that isn't muslim.

No they aren't what?

Which is:
A. Lebanese
B. Shi'ia
C. Mostly supported by Iran

One or two instances my arse. :rolleyes:

So does Mozambique. Your point?

So they will be in soon?

You believe what you want. ;)

:newyear:

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?


UK is a member of the EU

Personal opinion or fact?

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.

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.

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)

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)