NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not Europes responsibility to make Turkey improve them.

I never said it was. But surely it isn't a bad thing to help it?


Nothing. But they like the Turks are not Europeans. And therefor have no business in the EU.

What is a European.

Talk about "nice logic". :rolleyes: It's fictiouse...pah.

How is it not?

Anyway, it is better then "It just is."

In that case it's a good thing you don't decide about those things.

Bah stone me. I don't like private clubs which only allow based on ethnic background.

No. Not that they would want to join. Millions of square kilometers in Asia. (or is Asia also "fictiouse"?)
However the majority of the population and the 'richest' part are on the west of the Urals, the boundry of what you think Europe is.

And to be consistent, yes I consider the idea of an Asia land mass, independent of a European on is ficticious.

Just political boundaries created by men to divide. I'll keep this view until someone gives me geographical evidence of a difference.

As I've been skimming through this thread, I've noticed a general theme. Most, but not all, of those opposed to Turkey entering do so on cultural grounds. The rest are just side arguements created in deductive brain storms. Those for the joining of Turkey say that it is because it doesn't matter who the EU admits. So, to liven up the debate, let's take another applicant country, like Romania. Are those for or against Romania entering have their positions made based on the grounds so far developed in this thread?
My reasons were political, not cultural, but everyone ignored my post. Heh.

I would say no to Romania too, for similar reasons. Too poor, too corrupt, and with an utterly ineffective government. When they do something about being the middlemen for much of the illegal gun trade in Europe, maybe we can talk.

And on the subject of Israel, I think it is not an exaggeration in the slightest that virtually every EU citizen would sooner dissolve the Union than admit them.

hell if isreal was allowed in, i think we'd have to let the ither middle eastern countries in, or at least the ones bordering the mediteranean ocean. And if we let thoses ones in, there'd be no reason not let all the nations border the mediteranean in!

As I've been skimming through this thread, I've noticed a general theme. Most, but not all, of those opposed to Turkey entering do so on cultural grounds. The rest are just side arguements created in deductive brain storms.

Don't see human rights, democracy and economy are "cultural reasons" in your eyes. Most people speak about that and not about a other culture as a important factor.

Too true my friend,
but as you've said yourself, we are not competent or organised enough to formulate a coherent strategy towards the Middle Eastern conflict, let alone take in Isreal.
The other countries you mentionned, I have no idea what will happen to them, what about placing them under a commonwealth/protectorate system?
I agree that we can't keep adding countries and that we're not a World Union, so Turkey is as far as they will/should stretch it.
But that wouldn´t happen. It is very simple. There is the Arab-muslim world. Those countries can´t belong to the EU (North Africa, Middle East). Then there are the European countries who are located on the European continent.
And then they are the countries standing somewhere in between.
And that are Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, possibly Azerbaidshan and Israel.
We have to find a strategy for those countries. Either we allow all of them in - all that want at least - or we don´t do that and encourage them to form an East Mediterranean Union which could have a privileged partnership with the EU. This East Mediterranean Union could also include Central Asia (Turkmen Union) and Turkey would play a leading role in it).
But we have to make a choice: do we want to include the Eastern Mediteranean and the Caucasus into the EU or not.
The question goes beyond Turkey. It is a geostrategical question. And it is a question about the future of the EU.
The EU today is based on four liberties: freedom of capital, freedom of goods, freedom of services and freedom of labour in all countries. If enlarged that far we would have to cut away the fourth right at least for a very long time. It is as easy as that. But you can not have it both ways.

Don't see human rights, democracy and economy are "cultural reasons" in your eyes. Most people speak about that and not about a other culture as a important factor.
People speak about both actually. But that is indeed a difference. For the cultural faction a Turkish membership is never possible, for the other one if all requirements would be met (which isn´t the case and won´t be the case for many years to come).

As I've been skimming through this thread, I've noticed a general theme. Most, but not all, of those opposed to Turkey entering do so on cultural grounds. The rest are just side arguements created in deductive brain storms. Those for the joining of Turkey say that it is because it doesn't matter who the EU admits.
I have to agree with Purly Euclid. Most people seem to object to the fact that most of Turkey's citizens aren't christians. I don't really see why this matters. I bet the devout or "zealous" Muslims will start to quickly be sidelined once Turkey's economy starts really growing. The most devout Muslims I know here in Finland are Finns who have converted.

Muslim or Christian? Who cares?

I look forward to the day when Turkey, Germany and Israel become one country, called Turk-man-is-key.

My viewpoint is that the idea of Europe is ficticious, and trying to not allow people into a club on the basis that they are not within said fictitious area is bordering on predjudice.)
If you think the idea is fictinous why don´t you advocate the UK to leave the "fictionous" European Union?

Personally, I think any country should be allowed to join the Union if the want.)
Like the mean thing that NATO rejected Argentina because it was not part of the North Atlantic region.
Well, the EU is in its programm an union of European countries and open to all European countries. So we have to find a definition for what is Europe and what isn´t. It is as easy as that.

Do you think that Russia should be allowed in the EU (providing it passes all the tests of course)?
I think you are living in a dream world. Russia is currently returning back to a much more authoritarian style of government by concentrating again all power to the president.
My answer to that would be clearly No.
One reason why the EU works and the UN doesn´t is the fact that it includes a limitted amount of countries, which have although of differences common interests and even an in many ways common cultural and historic background.
In that sense we have more in common with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand than with Turkey or Russia. But probably you should make a poll in Poland about the idea of a Russian EU membership.

Can we really entertain the idea of letting turkey into the EU while it still illegally occupies 1/3 of an EU country?

I bet the devout or "zealous" Muslims will start to quickly be sidelined once Turkey's economy starts really growing. The most devout Muslims I know here in Finland are Finns who have converted.
Muslim or Christian? Who cares?
For example radical islamists, which are a strong faction in Turkey. And btw: if a country wants to join a club it has to abide the rules. And now seriously: Is Turkey abiding the rules: from human rights to the economy? I think nobody can seriously say that today given the situation in the country.Turkey is - even taking the most optimistic estimates- decades away from that. So, why pushing this issue now? Currently the EU is not even able to reform itself and to develop a consistent policy towards the Middle East. Letting Turkey in now would be irresponsible.

If i had to give my No to turkey. it would be on cultural grounds. Now before anyone goes bashing me, i'm not antimuslim. In fact i said earlier that turkey should join if it passes the tests.
The problem is turkey is not a european country. The mentality is not european. I have no problem with letting Bosnia join, which is predomantly muslim.

Can we really entertain the idea of letting turkey into the EU while it still illegally occupies 1/3 of an EU country?
I think Turkey is going to use that as an issue of pressure in order to get EU membership. Withdrawl from there against full membership. I don´t think it to be right to give in to blackmail though.

Every european nation has to
meet certain democratic standards
to joing the european union
until turkey meets those standards
it should not belong to europe.

I look forward to the day when Turkey, Germany and Israel become one country, called Turk-man-is-key.
And I look forward to the day when the US, Iraq, Japan and China are becoming one country. lol.

Amiraqchipan?

I look forward to the day when Turkey, Germany and Israel become one country, called Turk-man-is-key.
I look forward to the day that the US will ve integrated into greater Mexico.

Turkey joining the EU would mean two things IMO:

1. That Turkey accepts human rights and is a fully functioning democracy (it will not be accepted as a member till those things are certain),

2. That the EU agricultural and regional subsidies are dismantled (as there would be no way to incorporate Turkey in that system without most of the existing EU-members net-contributors, something countries such as France and Spain wouldn't look forward to becoming).

And as both those things sound great to me, I say:

Welcome! There's no free bar, but if you can pay your ways you'll be treated the same way as everyone else.

If we took over Mexico, companies would be forced to pay them minimum wage at least, and would give other US citizens a very meek fighting chance.
There are no mimimum wage laws set by the EU or through it. That is a national issue. Many countries in Europe don´t have such laws (like Germany) in contrasts to "socialists" Britain and the "socialists" United States of America.
I don´t think Mexico would accept it by the way. It is their only comparative advantage after all to compete with the US.

I would if I could be absolutley sure that they won't deviate from their position. Even if it would mean getting a US butt monkey chancelor. Which I'm not so sure of.
You have to make a choice, though what is more important for you.
The race is clear: Red-Green with Schröder-Fischer versus Black-Yellow with Merkel-Westerwelle.
And in that respect you can be shure. As long as she is in power they won´t get membership. There are numerous ways do delay such negotiations.
Who knows the development in the region. Turkey may soon be fed up with the thing, especially the aquis communitaire which contains 50.000 pages, they would need to implement before that anyway. And then the negotiations could be changed towards the aim of a "privileged partnership" instead.
But for that we would need another government in 2006.
And that can only be a conservative-liberal governments. Reds and Greens are going to push for that, because they want atract Turk voters and increase the base for their parties. So, time is running out indeed. If Schröder gets a third term Turkey is going to be member very soon.
He was after all the main pusher for this development (1999/2004).

I look forward to the day that the US will ve integrated into greater Mexico.

Mexicans would probably be all the happier if it did with the abject poverty and atrocious human rights record in Mexico. Something needs to happen...what that is I don't know.

I won't. It's just that the idea of an ethnic group forming a single nation is just alien to me. In my view, whoever wants to be an American is an American. In this sense, I agree with one of my favorite Founding Framers, Thomas Jefferson, that any human can live wherever he damn pleases (as long as he isn't a criminal). But that's just my two cents. If immigrants come, trust me, you'll learn to adapt and tolerate them, if not completly accept and celebrate them.

America was founded as a nation of immigrants. Europe &/or Germany was not. US citizens are in such different place cuturally there is no real comparision.

America was founded as a nation of immigrants. Europe &/or Germany was not. US citizens are in such different place cuturally there is no real comparision.
Lets take even Israel as an example. They have an Arab population. They are citizens.
They have a draft: But of course: the Arabs aren´t drafted into the Israeli military. Obviously they are not shure about their loyality towards the state.
Any person of jewish has legally the right to migrate to Israel and to get citizenship.
For Germany: Any person of German decent has legally the right to migrate to Germany and to get citizenship. For all other migration that lays in the disgracion of the legislature who can migrate (outside of EU countries) and who can get the citizenship and what conditions are fulfilled for that.
It can´t be said that those are very high. Though none the less most migrants from Turkey choose not to become citizens although they could ask for citizenship.

That's exactly what the isolationists and the Know nothing party said in America in the 1800s, that we'd be overrun. Look at the US today. It took a bit from every incoming culture to enrichen that which was already there. That will happen with these Arab and Turkic immigrants comming into Europe. I wouldn't be afraid of immigration, but embrace it. Besides, the European population is aging. Someone needs to be around so that the retirement age will be kept down.
So, if you want to embrace it why don´t you invite Turks and Arabs to migrate to the US???
Many would come for shure. But currently they are not allowed to!!!

Europeans should have more kids.
Then the populations would remain more stable and there would be no paranoia about being overrun.

Europeans should have more kids.
Then the populations would remain more stable and there would be no paranoia about being overrun.
For family policy they should look to France. For years France has had the largests birthrate in Europe. That they aren't yet at rpelacement levels proofs that a few changes need to be made. But France set's the example and other countries can try to work out the few bugs the French system has.

For family policy they should look to France. For years France has had the largests birthrate in Europe. That they aren't yet at rpelacement levels proofs that a few changes need to be made. But France set's the example and other countries can try to work out the few bugs the French system has.
The highest birth rate exists in Ireland though. Still a devout catholic country. Though France and Scandinavia are indeed doing better in that respect.

The highest birth rate exists in Ireland though. Still a devout catholic country. Though France and Scandinavia are indeed doing better in that respect.
The French and Irish fertility rate are nearly identical.

Europeans should have more kids.
Then the populations would remain more stable and there would be no paranoia about being overrun.
True. But that is more easily said than done. The people decide about how many children they get, not the government. We could provide a better infrastructure (Kindergarten, full-day school instead of half-day schools to make it easier for working woman to have children and to have a career and not being forced to make a choice between those two options).
But at the end it is an individual decision. Our individualistic life style has the logical consequence of having less children. The birth rates in Britain, Italy (if it continues that way there are going to be only 10 million Italians (currently 60 million) at the end of the 21 rst century) - a great concern also pointed out by the pope), Poland, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic and the other East European countries are also a cause for great concern. It is not purely a German problem. As a matter of fact, there are countries with even lower birth rates (Italy, Spain, Poland), though Germany lays below European average as well. But even that average is to low to keep the population stable. So, the concern to be overrun is not complettly paranoid. Remember what happened to the Romans????
In our case the Arabs could overrun as. They really have an exploding population.

The French and Irish fertility rate are nearly identical.
The Irish one is higher though. But I can only refer to numbers out of the year 2002.
If France has improved even more, you can probably give a link with the numbers.
Anyway: I´ve said that they are doing well in that respect.

True. But that is more easily said than done. The people decide about how many children they get, not the government. We could provide a better infrastructure (Kindergarten, full-day school instead of half-day schools to make it easier for working woman to have children and to have a career and not being forced to make a choice between those two options).
But at the end it is an individual decision. Our individualistic life style has the logical consequence of having less children. The birth rates in Britain, Italy (if it continues that way there are going to be only 10 million Italians (currently 60 million) at the end of the 21 rst century) - a great concern also pointed out by the pope), Poland, Spain, Portugal, the Czech Republic and the other East European countries are also a cause for great concern. It is not purely a German problem. As a matter of fact, there are countries with even lower birth rates (Italy, Spain, Poland), though Germany lays below European average as well. But even that average is to low to keep the population stable. So, the concern to be overrun is not complettly paranoid. Remember what happened to the Romans????
In our case the Arabs could overrun as. They really have an exploding population.

agreed. and that's one of the problems about the new "individual lifestyle". Having more than one child is an incovenience. Cuts into the money too much. There needs to be more support for these things. Would be good for everybody (in theory).

If you think the idea is fictinous why don´t you advocate the UK to leave the "fictionous" European Union?

Because that is irrevelent to the thread. However I am against the EU, and think it should be dissolved (along with national governments). But I see no reason for Turkey not to be allowed to join this entity that I oppose.

I think you are living in a dream world. Russia is currently returning back to a much more authoritarian style of government by concentrating again all power to the president.
My answer to that would be clearly No.
One reason why the EU works and the UN doesn´t is the fact that it includes a limitted amount of countries, which have although of differences common interests and even an in many ways common cultural and historic background.
In that sense we have more in common with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand than with Turkey or Russia. But probably you should make a poll in Poland about the idea of a Russian EU membership.
OK, I didn't think it through proper;y. The Only reason I asked is because Russian teams from the Asian part used to be eligible to be part of the UEFA cup or something (I admit my knowledge on football is not very goo, but I have been assured this by one who is)

http://www.religiousconsultation.org/Population_News/EU_population_grew_by_1_million_in_2003.htm

this might be of use regarding figures...

heres another
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.europe.html

Because that is irrevelent to the thread. However I am against the EU, and think it should be dissolved (along with national governments). But I see no reason for Turkey not to be allowed to join this entity that I oppose.)
There is a logic in that actually. Enlarge an entity to the extent that it is overstrechted and unworkable. That is the best way to "disolve" it. But in such a scenario we would see a lot of destability. The re-nationalisation of economic policy within smaller alliances or on an individual state basis would be the result. Aside from a new nationalism.
The Balkans are a good negative modell for such a scenario of re-nationalisation.


OK, I didn't think it through proper;y. The Only reason I asked is because Russian teams from the Asian part used to be eligible to be part of the UEFA cup or something (I admit my knowledge on football is not very goo, but I have been assured this by one who is)
In contrast to the United Kingdom Russia has just one national football team.
I don´t know the regulations of UEFA and I don´t know whether there actually are even good football teams east of the Ural (Moscow is in Europe as well as parts of Istanbul) but that is not the question here. After all: we can´t divide countries in order to fit them into Europe. The question therefore is: do we let them in although they are mainly Asian or not.
But if we let Turkey in we can indeed hardly argue not to let Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidshan in one day.
Probably even Russia. That would however be unworkable.
That would either mean to allow massive migration into the old EU or to give massive structural funds to the EU to be spent to the less developed regions - which the old members would have to pay fore and especially the UK but also the others are not willing to do - or to remove the freedom of labour (which grants every citizen of an EU country to apply for work everywhere in the EU).
In short - the development would go to the end of the EU and back to EFTA in a positive scenario and to the collapse of the entire thing and to massive conflicts and even wars in the worst-case scenario.

So, the concern to be overrun is not complettly paranoid. Remember what happened to the Romans????
In our case the Arabs could overrun as. They really have an exploding population.

From what I've seen history is very cyclical. Rome is just one of many examples! People in Western culture are successful and they don't want to cut back on their standard of living(though most of us have more than we need). When a culture quits having children that's a huge sign of trouble to come for that civilization. War is not the ONLY way to kill off a culture... greed and complacency is a big factor as well. Whether people want to admit it or not having children and mantaining a healthy birth rate is extremely important.

Whether people want to admit it or not having children and mantaining a healthy birth rate is extremely important.
Completly agree here. But in todays overregulated society it's the governments job to create the incentive(sp). It's working for France. Though they might want to work out the few flaws their system still has as it's not yet at replacement levels. But at least the French acknowledge that something needed to be done.

Yes, I really hope the rest of Europe follows France's example.

Yes, I really hope the rest of Europe follows France's example.

can either of you supply a link regarding what france is doing please?

can either of you supply a link regarding what france is doing please?
http://www.childpolicyintl.org/countries/france.html

You may search for other links.
There is a lot information on the internet about it.

can either of you supply a link regarding what france is doing please?
Embassy of France (http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/fam_pol.asp)

From what I've seen history is very cyclical. Rome is just one of many examples! People in Western culture are successful and they don't want to cut back on their standard of living(though most of us have more than we need). When a culture quits having children that's a huge sign of trouble to come for that civilization. War is not the ONLY way to kill off a culture... greed and complacency is a big factor as well. Whether people want to admit it or not having children and mantaining a healthy birth rate is extremely important.
I agree with that. Though due to "political correctness" people who are stating such simple truths are labelled nationalists or even Nazi.
I think the French and Scandinavian example should be followed.
A culture and nation can not survivie in the long-run if it stops getting children or only gets few children, as it is the case in many European countries.

This is a start:

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~ra828/assets/tina/print_page.html

http://www.childpolicyintl.org/countries/france.html

You may search for other links.
There is a lot information on the internet about it.

thanks. useful

This is a start:

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~ra828/assets/tina/print_page.html
Good link.

Good link.

thanks to u 2

That last link was the incorrect article so I deleted it ...Sorry :(

Was an intersting article though about the neccessity of structural reforms in Continental Europe.
I for my part support in principal the agenda 2010 of Chancellor Schröder. Actually, the oppositional conservatives and liberals are even more supporting it and pushing the government further than the government parties, especially Schröders own party, the SPD.
So: if there is a change of government in 2006 that would actually mean more reforms than today under the centre-left government. In contrast to France were the socialists opposition is going for a fundamental blocade of the reforms. In that respect President Chirac is showing courage actually.

Yes, thank you for the link as well, Von Witzleben. :D

That last link was the incorrect article so I deleted it ...Sorry :(

well still some interesting info either way. even if it was not too detailed.

everybit helps

Well if you want more Children in Europe you could just ban contraception. It has worked for the Irish in the past!

My not very serious argument wants to show of course that child policy is not an easy topic. In the last 30 years, since women had their minds liberated and they study in great numbers society has changed. After their studies they want to work and they can not leave a promising carreer only to have children. This is the reason why fertility rates have fallen so much.

No social programme can solve this problem. It can ease it a bit, but if we want our women to be educated and free they have to spend most of the time between their 20s and 30s studying and working. This is true for our young men too. After that one part of the couple (man or woman) can devote some time in raising children. But women can have healthy children until they are 35 more or less. So they can have a maximum of 2-3 children. Now think there are some infertile couples and some singles who never have children and you see that a fertility rate higher than 2 is very hard to get.

So if Europe wants to remain liberal (this means not forcing couples to have more children) we will have a need for immigrants for many years still. Stop being afraid of them and think of ways to integrate them, is my opinion.

Regarding Russia, although it is truly a vast country from the Baltic to the Sea of Japan, I think it is fundamentally European. Think Tchaikovsky, think Dostoyewsky, Rachmaninow, think Stalin :-) Turkey, Morocco etc can hardly show a comparable influence on European culture and history.
Now accepting Russia in the EU is almost impossible, but keeping a very close relationship with them and having a free trade area is the obvious way for the future...

Sotirilandia,

I´m looking forward to a real reconciliation between Greece and Turkey and within Cyprus though. And I don´t see that happening. Aside of the domestic problems in Turkey.
Immigration is not the solution to Europes problems. Especially not since most immigrants are low qualified and don´t fit in the labour market of the EU. That is clearly shown by the higher unemployment rate of this group. Aside of the cultural shock they are causing. This is causing cultural problems and could give rise of radical ideologies. That includes new nationalism and islamism.
I see this development as dangerous for the future of Europe.
Immigration policy is a right of every sovereign nation states. That would collapse if Turkey gets a full membership due to the free movement within the EU. Increasing the borders of free movement to the borders of the Caucasus, Iran, Iraq and Syria doesn´t make Europe safer. It obviously makes it more dangerous, since those borders are insecure. The same can be said for the dangerous islamists tendencies within Turkey which could be exported (via immigration) to Europe.

Russia is certainly an important partner. Especially in the field of the energy partnership. But we can hardly argue that Turkey should be considered a part of Europe (though only having 3% of its territory on the European continent) and on the other hand Russia shouldn´t.
I prefer to offer both countries a privileged partnership.
Their membership in the EU would destroy the EU in its current form. European integration and enlargement can not go hand in hand.
In the past 47 years since the foundation of the EEC (today EU) by France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg and Germany in 1957 the process of the European community was going in the direction: Integration up, national sovereignity down.
This process was disputed and remained disputed. It only worked due to a certain amount of common interests, which began with its foundation in the 1950s after World War II to the treaty of Maastricht in 1993. Since we are in a period of enlargement. But we are in that process without a substantial reform of EU instituitions. And it looks that even the moderate reforms of the EU constituition won´t be passed. Regardless of that interested groups are pushing for further enlargement.
The result is going to be the disintegration of the EU. It is not possible to put everything under one umbrella from Dublin to Wladiwostok.
I only think about the structural funds. The idea to develop all regions and to support the worse developed with EU funds depends on the willingness of some countries to pay. Do you really think Britain, France and Germany are willing to pay tens of billions for that? Even Turkey alone would cost 20-30 billion Euro additional.
So, the answer to that would clearly be one thing. The cut of EU programs and the re-nationalisation of more fields of policy.
And it would be the end of freedom of movement within the EU since countries would feel the need for more restrictions on it in order to prevent waves of immigrants from less developed members.
The EU would loose its consistency. Disputes would become the rule. The EU would at the end become more and more like the UN - irrelevant.
This development leads to the end of the EU in its current form as a close union. It would loosen the integration and would lead to even more disputes. Whether it even survives is an open question with this development.
But it would be the end of the EU in its current form and the degeneration of it into a pure free-trade area.
The question is whether we want this development.
It is no surprise that the traditional EU-sceptics are the most staunch supporters of enlargement, since they know that it is going to lead to the disintegration of Europe.

I won't. It's just that the idea of an ethnic group forming a single nation is just alien to me. In my view, whoever wants to be an American is an American. In this sense, I agree with one of my favorite Founding Framers, Thomas Jefferson, that any human can live wherever he damn pleases (as long as he isn't a criminal). But that's just my two cents. If immigrants come, trust me, you'll learn to adapt and tolerate them, if not completly accept and celebrate them.
To give your you two cents back: That would require the immigrants to be willing to integrate into their society. And that would first of all at least to learn the language. And even that is not happening in many cases. Islamism is on the rise in Europe. The danger is growing. I´m very concerned about the developments. We may see a balcanisation of Europe - and what development we saw on the Balcans I think you are very well aware of.

I won't. It's just that the idea of an ethnic group forming a single nation is just alien to me. In my view, whoever wants to be an American is an American.
The idea of a national state is an European concept. It is not limitted on one nation of the world. It is a concept valued by many nations.
The idea to have a jewish state (Zionism since the end of the 19 th century) is also a result of this conception.
That this conception has problems is true. But we don´t have another concept that worked. All multi-ethnic states in Europe have collapsed. From the imperial Austro-Hungarian Empire, to the Russian Empire and later the USSR to Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia. In some cases it happened with a lot of bloodshed in others peacefuly. In all cases it just didn´t work. So, why should we go for a concept which always failed in our history?

.
I only think about the structural funds. The idea to develop all regions and to support the worse developed with EU funds depends on the willingness of some countries to pay. Do you really think Britain, France and Germany are willing to pay tens of billions for that? Even Turkey alone would cost 20-30 billion Euro additional.

actually Britain is paying almost nothing and France is receiving great amounts from the CAP. The big contributors per head are Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden etc

No I do not believe they will accept the idea of giving Turkey such amounts of money. If you read what I have said, I do not think Turkey can ever get full membership!
But the Structural Funds are not the biggest problem. Already once-poor countries like Ireland have incomes higher than the EU average. And hopefully the other countries receiving funds will converge too in the next 10-15 years, so some funds will be freed for the poorest members.

However the biggest problem is probably the CommonAgriculturePolicy, where half the EU budget is spent. And this problem will not be solved so easily, specially if France does not agree...

But the Structural Funds are not the biggest problem. Already once-poor countries like Ireland have incomes higher than the EU average. And hopefully the other countries receiving funds will converge too in the next 10-15 years, so some funds will be freed for the poorest members.
However the biggest problem is probably the CommonAgriculturePolicy, where half the EU budget is spent. And this problem will not be solved so easily, specially if France does not agree...
Both funds (structural and agriculture) are big problems.
And in the field of agriculture subsidies there actually could be a Franco-Polish alliance since in that field both countries have common interests (keeping subsidies). Poland is going to be number two benefitor of those subsidies.

If you read what I have said, I do not think Turkey can ever get full membership!
I hope you are right. But I´m not that shure, though.
I think we are going to see a weakening of the EU and the disintegration of Europe and the re-nationalisation of policy areas. Agricultural policy could be one of them (in order to please France to allow it to give its own subsidies).
The referendums could be a problem though. France has said that they should be a referendum about Turkish membership in the EU. Currently more than two thirds are against it.

The EU should not allow membership to an unstable country which is home to many terrorists and notorious for criminal element and drug activity!

Ban Italy!!!

but im armenian so its natual. but they shouldnt be admitted, they should admit what they did to the armenians then maybe but there all lying scumbags in the government at least the people are for the most part good.

bump

. France has said that they should be a referendum about Turkish membership in the EU. Currently more than two thirds are against it.
Same thing in the Netherlands I heard.

The Armanian above has a point, they should appologise first.

Same thing in the Netherlands I heard.
The Armanian above has a point, they should appologise first.
And then we allow Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidshan, Moldavia, Ukraine and Belarus in?
After all - they are more than Turkey European countries.
I think we are seeing a degeneration of the EU.
Mr. Verheugen already pointed out that it will not be possible to keep the four freedom: freedom of capital, freedom of goods, freedom of services and freedom of labour. He said that the last freedom (freedom of labour) will be permanently restricted by an security clause that allows current members to bloc Turkish labour migration PERMANENTLY as a matter of their chosing. That is right, because everything else would be unacceptable.
But it means the end of the four freedoms and the reduction to three. The EU degenerates into NAFTA (which also has three freedoms).

This development is clearly going into one direction: The disintegration of the EU and its development to a pure free trade area. That is the end of the EU in its current form, which includes the idea of a political union.
That is dead now.
I would prefer a privileged partnership to those countries.
But since the decision was taken now - in principal - to enlarge into Little Asia the inclusion of those countries can´t be denied.
I´m very interested how this entire thing is going to be financed. The current benefitors in the South and East of Europe would need to give up tremendously since the payers are not willing to pay more.
I think we may see a re-nationalisation of policy areas.
The EU is degenerating back into a free-trade area.

And then we allow Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaidshan, Moldavia, Ukraine and Belarus in?
After all - they are more than Turkey European countries.
I think we are seeing a degeneration of the EU.
Mr. Verheugen already pointed out that it will not be possible to keep the four freedom: freedom of capital, freedom of goods, freedom of services and freedom of labour. He said that the last freedom (freedom of labour) will be permanently restricted by an security clause that allows current members to bloc Turkish labour migration PERMANENTLY as a matter of their chosing. That is right, because everything else would be unacceptable.
But it means the end of the four freedoms and the reduction to three. The EU degenerates into NAFTA (which also has three freedoms).

This development is clearly going into one direction: The disintegration of the EU and its development to a pure free trade area. That is the end of the EU in its current form, which includes the idea of a political union.
That is dead now.
I would prefer a privileged partnership to those countries.
But since the decision was taken now - in principal - to enlarge into Little Asia the inclusion of those countries can´t be denied.
I´m very interested how this entire thing is going to be financed. The current benefitors in the South and East of Europe would need to give up tremendously since the payers are not willing to pay more.
I think we may see a re-nationalisation of policy areas.
The EU is degenerating back into a free-trade area.

Ha ha, this is unusual, but I agree with Kybernetia.
I think Turkey would be even harder to deal with in political negociations than UK has been in the past.
I also agree that it would cost a hell of a lot of funding to bring Turkey up to the EU level of infrastructure etc, and Turkey has a population bigger than any of the other less developed EU countries that have been absorbed in the past (eg the South and Eastern countries Kybernetia mentioned).
And clearly, whilst their human rights situation has improved, it still has an awfully long way to go before it can be accepted into Europe.
So, I agree with Kybernetia, for now we should arrange for some kind of priviledged partner status. But we have to ask, do we really want the "EU proper" to extend outside of Europe's boundaries?

Ha ha, this is unusual, but I agree with Kybernetia.
I think Turkey would be even harder to deal with in political negociations than UK has been in the past.
I also agree that it would cost a hell of a lot of funding to bring Turkey up to the EU level of infrastructure etc, and Turkey has a population bigger than any of the other less developed EU countries that have been absorbed in the past (eg the South and Eastern countries Kybernetia mentioned).?
Also given the fact that Turkey is going to have a population that is higher than the 10 new members accounted together.

And clearly, whilst their human rights situation has improved, it still has an awfully long way to go before it can be accepted into Europe.
So, I agree with Kybernetia, for now we should arrange for some kind of priviledged partner status. But we have to ask, do we really want the "EU proper" to extend outside of Europe's boundaries?
That is the question. History doesn´t allow a vacuum. Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaidshan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and (if they don´t join Russia) Belarus are other likely candidates.
It is a question about the future of the EU. Does it want to disintegrate into a pure free-trade area (like Nafta) without freedom of labour and without or at least heavily cut structural and agricultural funds (would those who get that really be willing to give that up? As we two are from two main payer countries we could actually strictly go for the position that we don´t pay more and that it is the responsibilty of the South and East of Europe to make the necessary concessions (agree to less funds) for Turkish membership).
Probably a privileged partnership to Turkey and the other countries is - at least for the time being - the more realistic and more feasible option.

Turkey is also for another reason a problem. In contrast to all other applying countries it has a vastly growing population. That means that the migration pressure is going to be much higher than in other cases (I just want to mention that the freedom of labour for East Europe can - and mostly is - banned till 2011).
Today Turkey has 70 million people, in 2015 80 million and in 2030 about 100 million.
Turkey would be the biggest and most populous country in the EU. It would shift the focus of the EU to the south-east into the Middle East.
It means to have borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. That is the most dangerous region of the world. Given the fact that there is no common foreign and defense policy I see as a result the disintegration of Europe into a purely free-trade area like NAFTA.

Ha ha, this is unusual, but I agree with Kybernetia.
Why is that so unusal?
Just because we disagree on many things it doesn´t mean that we have to disagree on everything.

I just found Germany has a "church tax." Weird. Then again we have a Queen, so what can I say.

What is "German Culture?" I'd think that Germany of all places would want to distance itself from the past.

I'm against Turkey joining the EU, mainly for the same reason I'm against the EU generally: the bigger it gets, the more undemocratic it becomes.

I just found Germany has a "church tax." Weird. Then again we have a Queen, so what can I say.
Finland too has 'church tax'. The Lutheran and Greek orthodox churches gain money every time i lift my finger...to work. :) Well, used to. I'm not a member of any church anymore. Why this archaic system is still valid... another conversation entirely.

Why is that so unusal?
Just because we disagree on many things it doesn´t mean that we have to disagree on everything.

I know, I was only joking! :D

But yes, I do agree, without the CFSP, I feel even the level of integration the EU has currently managed to achieve would fall back.

Finland too has 'church tax'. The Lutheran and Greek orthodox churches gain money every time i lift my finger...to work. :) Well, used to. I'm not a member of any church anymore. Why this archaic system is still valid... another conversation entirely.

Sweden used to have a "church tax" too until 2000 when we disestablished the Church of Sweden from the state. Since then we have a "church charge/fee". It's still collected by the Tax authority though... so it's just a rebranded church tax really!

I am against it. Turkey is far from meeting the human rights standards we require in the EU. I don't trust the politicians to see clearly in this. Also seeing the immigration we can expect here in Germany from Turkey, with the existing issues we have, this is a most worrying development in my opinion.

Isn't it kind of cold to turn your back on your former allies now?
And wouldn't their acceptance into the EU make them more likely to emigrate to european nations other than Germany? It seems to me that helping them get their own country stabilized politically and economically would decrease their need to emigrate anywhere.

Isn't it kind of cold to turn your back on your former allies now?
And wouldn't their acceptance into the EU make them more likely to emigrate to european nations other than Germany? It seems to me that helping them get their own country stabilized politically and economically would decrease their need to emigrate anywhere.
Exactly wrong. As long as they are not a member of the EU the immigration policy would completle lay in our hands. Since Germany and Austria have the biggest Turkish communities they would be most affected by Turkish immmigration just like France would be if Algeria would become an EU member for example.
The power to regulate migration from Turkey would - in principal - be lost if they are a member of the EU. So realisticly they would need to accept to be a member without freedom of labour. That is not really a full membership. We should be honest and offer them a privileged partnership and not a full membership.
As a matter of fact a full membership (which also includes the freedom of movement) is not even that what the EU offers Turkey now. It is in some sense a membership of second class. I´m for honesty with Turkey and that would mean to say: No to a more or less false EU membership, yes to a privileged partnership.

Isn't it kind of cold to turn your back on your former allies now?
And wouldn't their acceptance into the EU make them more likely to emigrate to european nations other than Germany? It seems to me that helping them get their own country stabilized politically and economically would decrease their need to emigrate anywhere.
It's not cold. Just realistic and cautious for my own situation. I live in an area with a lot of russian immigrants and it's sometimes not pretty :)

I just found Germany has a "church tax." Weird. Then again we have a Queen, so what can I say..
First of all this tax is only collected from church members and goes to the church.

What is "German Culture?" I'd think that Germany of all places would want to distance itself from the past.
German history does not begin in 1933 and doesn´t end in 1945. That this is a period Germany wants to distance itself is clear. I do think as well that Russia should distance itself from the Stalinists era and Turkey should distance itself from the genocide against the Armenians during World War I (2 million deaths) - which they haven´t done up until now- and Kambodschea distances itself from the era of the Khmer Rouge.
To define what a culture is is a difficult if not impossible task. What is British culture for example? And how about the differences within the United Kingdom.
The Federal Republic of Germany is a federal state with regional differences. Bavaria and Schleswig-Holstein are almost as different as the differences are between West and former East Germany.
None the less: Germany is a nation and has to exist as a nation. The only other option would be if all European nations merger to one. Only that could lead to the end of Germany. But since it would also mean the end of all others it won´t happen. After the end of the Cold War and the reunification Germany has to redefine its national identity. The status of an anti-communist front state (West Germany, which contains 80% of the population) is gone.
After 40 years of division the nation needs to grow together. That is going to need more time as hoped. Well - the antagonism between northern and southern states also continued for quite a while in the US and in Italy there is still a lot of antagonism between the north and the south.
A part of the self-definition can be the positive parts of our history. The democratic movement of the 19 th century (revolution of 1848 - which failed at the end), the first republic (1918-30/33), the history of the resistence, the history of the Federal Republic of Germany since it foundation in 1949 and the revolution of 1989 which led to the end of the communists regime and the reunification in 1990 (accession of the five east german states into the Federal Republic).
In foreign policy Germany has to redefine its role since it is not any more a front-state but in the centre of Europe and also of the EU.
It has to consider its position within its traditional (since the 1950s) pillars of its foreign policy which are: the transatlantic partnership with the US and the european partnership especially with France.
I think the government has moved to close to France. But that would be another topic.



I'm against Turkey joining the EU, mainly for the same reason I'm against the EU generally: the bigger it gets, the more undemocratic it becomes.
I think you raise a point. While I´m not against the EU in principal the legitimacy of the instituition needs to increased. And by just adding more members the lack of legitimacy is growing.
The EU needs reform. But that is not happening and the reform proposals are likely to fail. I think it is irresponsible to add new members (especially Turkey which is going to have 100 million people in 2030 - it can´t be compared to Bulgaria. Turkey really is a great power) under such circumstances.

Isn't it kind of cold to turn your back on your former allies now?
To your information: the German government is in favour of Turkish membership. Just like most other governments.
In contrast to two thirds of the people in EU-Europe.