NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, should it? The Turkish minister has recently warned the EU (once again) to beware of becoming a christian club. I see no reason why Turkey shouldn't be part of the EU, except that they're not a complete democracy yet. Then again, I'm not European. Your thoughts?

It should be allowed to join as long as it meets the standards all the other EU nations are held too.

It should be allowed to join as long as it meets the standards all the other EU nations are held too.
Ditto, but I would add another thing: I'd like to see the CAP gone before they join. Otherwise it will ruin the EU financially.

Then again, more than one scholar has seen christianity as the unifying trait in Europe. Auerbach and Curtius, for instance.

If compliant with the acquis communautaire, then sure. It still has a long, long way to go, though... but then again, we let the Easterners in and many of them didn't meet it all, so...

Then again, more than one scholar has seen christianity as the unifying trait in Europe. Auerbach and Curtius, for instance.

Roman conquest probably played a role in that too. :)

Then again, more than one scholar has seen christianity as the unifying trait in Europe. Auerbach and Curtius, for instance.

That must be why there hasn't been a single war while there has been christianity.

No. The EU should consist solely of economically affluent, diplomatically potent, stable states. The term "global power" may no longer pertain to ex-colonial powers, but the likes of France and Britain, and Italy, Spain, Germany, the Low Countries, Scandanavia, Portugal and Austria. Less developed eastern european states, Turkey and Balkan states can, and should, fend for themselves.

Maybe one day.

But at the moment I think the EU should focus on making the new Eastern European States as developed as the Western ones, helping them the way it helped Ireland and Spain. Further expansion will not be meaningful until this is done.

People can talk endlessly about how great it would be adding a Muslim nation to the European Union, but in the end, that is irrelevant. The European Union is what it's name says it is. A union of European nations. Turkey is in no way a European nation, and therefore, should never have even been considered as a candidate.

Aside from that whole "partially in Europe" thing...which I'm pretty sure is the definition of "European nation"

People can talk endlessly about how great it would be adding a Muslim nation to the European Union, but in the end, that is irrelevant. The European Union is what it's name says it is. A union of European nations. Turkey is in no way a European nation, and therefore, should never have even been considered as a candidate.

Even though Instanbul is on European soil?

People can talk endlessly about how great it would be adding a Muslim nation to the European Union, but in the end, that is irrelevant. The European Union is what it's name says it is. A union of European nations. Turkey is in no way a European nation, and therefore, should never have even been considered as a candidate.

christian europe died nearly a hundred years ago, so religion shouldn't be a barrier. i've seen people object to the accession based on the fact that turkey won't apologize for the armenian genocide, but the europeans have a rich tradition of slaughtering innocent civilians in mass, so the turks should fit right in. eventually everyone is going to realize what a retarded idea the EU was in the first place and none of it will matter.

Even though Instanbul is on European soil?

Yes, and what percentage of Turkey does Istanbul make up? Not much.

If Istanbul was a separate country, then I would fully support its entry into the EU. Regardless of how European Istanbul and its people are, the vast majority of Turkey and Turks are not even close to being European.

Yes, and what percentage of Turkey does Istanbul make up? Not much.

If Istanbul was a separate country, then I would fully support its entry into the EU. Regardless of how European Istanbul and its people are, the vast majority of Turkey and Turks are not even close to being European.

And the ones that are, in fact, European?

Fact remains, the nation lies in Europe. It is therefore European.
It is simultaneously Asian. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. Why should being defined as two things restrict it from the rights and responsibilities of one of those identities? Should people who are ambidexterous not be allowed to use either hand?


What an awful analogy...

I would like to see the EU take Turkey, by force.

Turkey is in no way a European nation

It's not every day one gets to read something so blatantly factually incorrect.

eventually everyone is going to realize what a retarded idea the EU was in the first place and none of it will matter.

What's retarded about it?

And the ones that are, in fact, European?

Fact remains, the nation lies in Europe. It is therefore European.
It is simultaneously Asian. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. Why should being defined as two things restrict it from the rights and responsibilities of one of those identities? Should people who are ambidexterous not be allowed to use either hand?


What an awful analogy...

I do understand what you mean. It's not that part of the country isn't European that I have a problem with. For example, should Russia ever decide it wanted to join (which it never will), it would likely be accepted, despite the fact that huge parts of its land and people are Asiatic.

It would be acceptable for Turkey to join even if the European portion made up only a third of the country, but it doesn't. Istanbul and the rest of that peninsular make up a tiny portion of the country. It's just too impractical and difficult. Non-European Turkey is just too culturally different for it ever to work as being a part of Europe. This is unfortunate for those Turks who are European, and truly would benefit both sides by joining the EU, but that's life.

If it's so factually incorrect, then feel free to correct me with facts.

Zing!

Nice one!

It's not every day one gets to read something so blatantly factually incorrect.

If it's so factually incorrect, then feel free to correct me with facts.

If it's so factually incorrect, then feel free to correct me with facts.

Well, there is of course these things we call "maps" which immediately disprove your claim that Turkey is "in no way a European nation" because they show at least one way that Turkey is a European nation. Then there is of course history. Then there is of course culture. Then there is of course Turkey's full membership of the Council of Europe. So you see, your claim that it is in "no way" European is just poppycock that frankly elementary schooling should have had a better success than it did in ridding you of.

No. The EU should consist solely of economically affluent, diplomatically potent, stable states. The term "global power" may no longer pertain to ex-colonial powers, but the likes of France and Britain, and Italy, Spain, Germany, the Low Countries, Scandanavia, Portugal and Austria. Less developed eastern european states, Turkey and Balkan states can, and should, fend for themselves.
If they can fend for themselves, why not let them join? Considering the conditions for EU membership, EU member states are by definition economically affluent, diplomatically potent, stable states.

I do understand what you mean. It's not that part of the country isn't European that I have a problem with. For example, should Russia ever decide it wanted to join (which it never will), it would likely be accepted, despite the fact that huge parts of its land and people are Asiatic.

It would be acceptable for Turkey to join even if the European portion made up only a third of the country, but it doesn't. Istanbul and the rest of that peninsular make up a tiny portion of the country. It's just too impractical and difficult. Non-European Turkey is just too culturally different for it ever to work as being a part of Europe. This is unfortunate for those Turks who are European, and truly would benefit both sides by joining the EU, but that's life.

Define "European culture". You seem to think Europe has one homogenous culture.

Also, how do you know that other cities in Turkey aren't similar to Istanbul culturally?

I do understand what you mean. It's not that part of the country isn't European that I have a problem with. For example, should Russia ever decide it wanted to join (which it never will), it would likely be accepted, despite the fact that huge parts of its land and people are Asiatic.

It would be acceptable for Turkey to join even if the European portion made up only a third of the country, but it doesn't. Istanbul and the rest of that peninsular make up a tiny portion of the country. It's just too impractical and difficult. Non-European Turkey is just too culturally different for it ever to work as being a part of Europe. This is unfortunate for those Turks who are European, and truly would benefit both sides by joining the EU, but that's life.
Since when did culture have anything to do with the EU? The EU is a purely economic Union. I see no reason why Turkish culture could be incompatable or upset this.

Well, there is of course these things we call "maps" which immediately prove your claim that Turkey is "in no way a European nation" because they show at least one way that Turkey is a European nation.

Hmm, well last time I checked a "map", Turkey wasn't part of the European continent...

Then there is of course history. Then there is of course culture.

You mean like how Turkey as an state/empire, and Turkish people, have always existed outside of the European continent, and apart from European peoples, nations and cultures? Except, of course, when they spent several hundred years occupying the European peoples inhabiting the Balkans, but I hardly think that's relevant. History would show that Turkish people, and states which they have been a part of, have had far closer ties with the Middle East. I mean this is in both a social and cultural sense.

Hmm, well last time I checked a "map", Turkey wasn't part of the European continent...

Which would explain your ignorance, since you must never have looked at a map. They're glorious inventions, you really should get acquainted.

You mean like how Turkey as an state/empire, and Turkish people, have always existed outside of the European continent, and apart from European peoples, nations and cultures?

Actually, quite opposite - how they have always been an intricate part of Europe and its history, and how they have had a profound impact on European culture in a myriad of ways, including but not limited to language, science, cooking and so on.

Except, of course, when they spent several hundred years occupying the European peoples inhabiting the Balkans, but I hardly think that's relevant. History would show that Turkish people, and states which they have been a part of, have had far closer ties with the Middle East. I mean this is in both a social and cultural sense.

My, my your ignorance is not just contained to geography, but also to history. I am not surprised, even if I am disappointed that comprehensive schooling could fail someone so.

Which would explain your ignorance, since you must never have looked at a map. They're glorious inventions, you really should get acquainted.



Actually, quite opposite - how they have always been an intricate part of Europe and its history, and how they have had a profound impact on European culture in a myriad of ways, including but not limited to language, science, cooking and so on.



My, my your ignorance is not just contained to geography, but also to history. I am not surprised, even if I am disappointed that comprehensive schooling could fail someone so.


They're too brown, Fass! They're just too... brown!

;)

Hmm, well last time I checked a "map", Turkey wasn't part of the European continent...



You mean like how Turkey as an state/empire, and Turkish people, have always existed outside of the European continent, and apart from European peoples, nations and cultures? Except, of course, when they spent several hundred years occupying the European peoples inhabiting the Balkans, but I hardly think that's relevant. History would show that Turkish people, and states which they have been a part of, have had far closer ties with the Middle East. I mean this is in both a social and cultural sense.

Why should all of have to be on?

Only a bit of Russia is considered to be part of the "European continent", yet Russia is considered European. There are different cultural groups in Russia, are they all European by your standards (which by the way, you haven't defined yet)?

Also, Turkey's culture is more similar to the culture of a European country than a middle eastern one. The only real similarity would be that the majority in both countries would be Muslims, but that alone does not make two countries similar.

By the way, you make a lot of assertions, have you ever been to most of the countries in Europe, to Turkey, or to the Middle East?

Hmm, well last time I checked a "map", Turkey wasn't part of the European continent...


http://www.greece-map.net/europe/europe-map.gif

If it's so factually incorrect, then feel free to correct me with facts.

This may be a gross generalization and also may be completely wrong, but to me...if it was once owned by the Roman Empire or resides on the European continent in any! way, then it should be allowed to be part of the European Union. So by this logic, I think north African nations (if they want to join, and they meet the requirements) should be allowed to join as well. The reason I say this is because the Roman Empire is generally seen as the beginning of Western Civilization. Almost every people that has come in contact with the Roman Empire was changed dramatically.



(Because of this I propose a name change, the Union of *draws a blank*)







This is probably the dumbest post I've ever made...whatever.

Absolutely not. Geography people, Turkey is not in Europe. It's like saying Iraq should be part of the EU because they border Turkey. Not mention the fact their human rights record as far as the Kurds is terrible. They aren't ready and I reckon they never will be.

Geography people, Turkey is not in Europe.

Yes, it is. So much for your "geography".

It should be allowed to join as long as it meets the standards all the other EU nations are held too.

ditto

Yes, it is. So much for your "geography".

why because it borders European countries? But geography can be debated as people have different lines of what is "Europe". A stronger case for their denial of admittance can made solely on their culture, laws and human rights record.

Yes, it is. So much for your "geography".

Yeah. About 3% of it is. If it's really enough for turkey to be considered european, then how come no-one considers Spain to be a part of Africa? Or France to be a part of the Americas?

I think that the U.S. should join the E.U.

Yeah. About 3% of it is.

There you go, it is in Europe. Simple geographic fact. Why people have such a hard time realising that a country can be part of two different continents at the same time is an enigma. It's like it's too much for their brains to process - "Two continents at once? No one can live at that speed!"

why because it borders European countries?

No, because it is partly in Europe. That's why it's a full member of the Council of Europe.

I think that the U.S. should join the E.U.

No.

Yeah. About 3% of it is. If it's really enough for turkey to be considered european, then how come no-one considers Spain to be a part of Africa? Or France to be a part of the Americas?

Except that Spain is 0% in Africa, & France is 0% in the Americas.

France is 0% in the Americas.

Nope, you forget the American départements/régions d’outre-mer (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana) which are integral parts of France and have the same status as its other départements. That's why they're members of the EU, because they are part of France, and that's also why France is a transcontinental country.

Yeah. About 3% of it is. If it's really enough for turkey to be considered european, then how come no-one considers Spain to be a part of Africa? Or France to be a part of the Americas?

But what portion of the population is in that 3%? I can't seem to find that(my google-fu is betraying me), but 12 million of the country's 70 million live in Istanbul Province alone.

Well this "It's not really European anyway" sentiment isn't always, but often enough seems to come from the same folks who refer to "Western Culture" or "European Culture" as the defining factor and really mean "White European Culture."

Except that Spain is 0% in Africa, & France is 0% in the Americas.

W!R!O!N!G! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana


Educate thyself!

Last time I checked, French Guiana was in the America's.

Well this "It's not really European anyway" sentiment isn't always, but often enough seems to come from the same folks who refer to "Western Culture" or "European Culture" as the defining factor and really mean "White European Non Muslim Culture."
Corrected.

Absolutely not. Geography people, Turkey is not in Europe. It's like saying Iraq should be part of the EU because they border Turkey.
Except Turkey is european because it is in Europe, not next to it.

Except that Spain is 0% in Africa, & France is 0% in the Americas.

No, Spain still controls 3 port cities in North Africa, making it African. Melilla being the most prominent of the three.

I think any nation that is partially in Europe and a European type of nation then it should be allowed into the EU. They should require soem form of democracy and human rights.. some one previously metnioned the problems with the kurdish epople. It seems that both sides are guilty on that. Turkey won't give the kurds their own autonomous state but the kurds are in some cases resorting to some what terrorist like tactics.
The USA should not be in the EU becuase even though we are culturally very European just like most countries on the american continents we are not in Europe. I am open to an American union that would be allied with the European union and NATO.

I think any nation that is partially in Europe and a European type of nation then it should be allowed into the EU. They should require soem form of democracy and human rights.. some one previously metnioned the problems with the kurdish epople. It seems that both sides are guilty on that. Turkey won't give the kurds their own autonomous state but the kurds are in some cases resorting to some what terrorist like tactics.
The USA should not be in the EU becuase even though we are culturally very European just like most countries on the american continents we are not in Europe. I am open to an American union that would be allied with the European union and NATO.

An American Union, if formed, would inevitably fail because the balance of power would be so contorted. A union between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico would be utterly dominated by the United States and the other states would withdraw, thus causing said union to effectivly be ended.

Why don't you read the rest of my post.

The rest of your post was irrelevant, since France is indeed a transcontinental country.

3% is almost nothing.

And yet it isn't nothing. No matter how hard it may be for you to grasp.

I do understand what you mean. It's not that part of the country isn't European that I have a problem with. For example, should Russia ever decide it wanted to join (which it never will), it would likely be accepted, despite the fact that huge parts of its land and people are Asiatic.

It would be acceptable for Turkey to join even if the European portion made up only a third of the country, but it doesn't. Istanbul and the rest of that peninsular make up a tiny portion of the country. It's just too impractical and difficult. Non-European Turkey is just too culturally different for it ever to work as being a part of Europe. This is unfortunate for those Turks who are European, and truly would benefit both sides by joining the EU, but that's life.
What is impractical and difficult about it? What is the difference between the European portions culture and that of the Asiatic portions? "European culture" is a myth to begin with...the idea that a culture starts and stops at an arbitrary and artifical border is nothing short of assinine.

And while area-wise the European portion is a bit small (tho, I should note that it is larger than several European nations), I'd be very interested to see what the population is. IIRC, it is among, if not the, most populous region

There you go, it is in Europe. Simple geographic fact. Why people have such a hard time realising that a country can be part of two different continents at the same time is an enigma. It's like it's too much for their brains to process - "Two continents at once? No one can live at that speed!"

Why don't you read the rest of my post. 3% is almost nothing.

And are they 1% of Spain's total population and land area?

Why should that matter, they are legally part of Spain, thus Spain resides both in Europe and in Africa.

W!R!O!N!G! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana


Educate thyself!

Last time I checked, French Guiana was in the America's.

Interesting, didn't know that French Guiana was literally the part of Guiana that was part of France.

I would say that if France's holdings & population in South America are greater than 1% of its total, then France is a multicontinent nation.

Well, there is of course these things we call "maps" which immediately prove your claim that Turkey is "in no way a European nation" because they show at least one way that Turkey is a European nation. Then there is of course history. Then there is of course culture. Then there is of course Turkey's full membership of the Council of Europe. So you see, your claim that it is in "no way" European is just poppycock that frankly elementary schooling should have had a better success than it did in ridding you of.

If I may quote Trollgaard...

Zing!

Nice one!

:p

No, Spain still controls 3 port cities in North Africa, making it African. Melilla being the most prominent of the three.

And are they 1% of Spain's total population and land area?

It's called rounding down (the countries' population and land in that region should be .51% of the total).

Irrelevent. It doesn't matter how many people reside in the area, if it is legally part of its mother country then said country resides on two continents. Again, Spain is both a European, and African nation. AS it resides, at least partially, on both continents.

Why should that matter, they are legally part of Spain, thus Spain resides both in Europe and in Africa.

It's called rounding down (the countries' population and land in that region should be .51% of the total).

Why don't you read the rest of my post. 3% is almost nothing.
Almost nothing =/= nothing.

Interesting, didn't know that French Guiana was literally the part of Guiana that was part of France.

I would say that if France's holdings & population in South America are greater than 1% of its total, then France is a multicontinent nation.

Why 1%? France rules over full citizens on a seperate continent from its mainland. It is therefore multicontinental.

Is the United States located fully on the North American continent? No. We have Hawai'i. However, Hawai'i forms only .39 of our population. Should we not recognize our power over Hawai'i, based on this fact and despite the fact that they have the full rights and responsibilities of mainlanders? Should we claim that we are wholly located on the North American continent, despite the fact that it is a false claim?

Why do we require arbitrary deliniations?

Fine, it doesn't matter to me.

Good. Now that this argument is over. Lets move on *scans list of topics* I've got nothing. You?

Irrelevent. It doesn't matter how many people reside in the area, if it is legally part of its mother country then said country resides on two continents. Again, Spain is both a European, and African nation. AS it resides, at least partially, on both continents.

Fine, it doesn't matter to me.

Yeah, but last time I checked, France is not a part of Mercosur, and there is absolutely no talk of it joining.

That is France's prerogative and has nothing to do with France's status as a transcontinental country.

You're missing the point.

Your posts have been pointless, so I did not miss anything in them.

If they meet the criteria and improve their human rights situation a bit - and preferably don't turn into an islamic theocracy - then sure :)

The rest of your post was irrelevant, since France is indeed a transcontinental country.
Yeah, but last time I checked, France is not a part of Mercosur, and there is absolutely no talk of it joining. The idea here is that most countries are not considered to be parts of a continent that thay only have a small amount of land in. So why should we think of Turkey as European Country.

And yet it isn't nothing. No matter how hard it may be for you to grasp.
You're missing the point. I never said turkey had no land in europe, I already said that they have 3% there. I'm just saying that this 3% does not make them European.

Except you seem to believe that everyone thinks the smallest amount of overseas territory makes a country part of another country, and thus base your entire arguments around that.

Yeah, but last time I checked, France is not a part of Mercosur, and there is absolutely no talk of it joining. The idea here is that most countries are not considered to be parts of a continent that thay only have a small amount of land in. So why should we think of Turkey as European Country.Because, as you said, it is in Europe.


You're missing the point. I never said turkey had no land in europe, I already said that they have 3% there. I'm just saying that this 3% does not make them European.What does that 3% make them then?
Additionally, what arbitrary cutoff would you prefer?
How about the nations of the British Isles and Iceland? They are islands, completly seperated from Europe. Why are they European? They aren't even partially on the continent.

Except you seem to believe that everyone thinks the smallest amount of overseas territory makes a country part of another country, and thus base your entire arguments around that.
If a country rules over land on a seperate continent from that of the majority of its land, it is multicontinental. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest and disregards facts. Controlling land on a continent does make that country part of that continent, last I checked. Just because it isn't a majority doesn't mean anything. It is still there.

That is France's prerogative and has nothing to do with France's status as a transcontinental country.
Since when we were talking about whether or not France is a transcontinental country?

Your posts have been pointless, so I did not miss anything in them.


Sure. Since they present a view that disagrees with yours, they have to be pointless. :rolleyes:

Non-European Turkey is just too culturally different for it ever to work as being a part of Europe.

How is non-european Turkey culturally different to european Turkey, exactly? Is the Bosphorus some kind of culture barrier? Or is your ethno-vision rendering Turks as Arabs?

Since when we were talking about whether or not France is a transcontinental country?

You brought it up. It's nice of you to finally admit that it is irrelevant, just like I said it was, though.

Sure. Since they present a view that disagrees with yours, they have to be pointless.

They're pointless because while you'd like to think you were making some sort of point, you weren't.

How is non-european Turkey culturally different to european Turkey, exactly? Is the Bosphorus some kind of culture barrier? Or is your ethno-vision rendering Turks as Arabs?

You should see the cultural forcefield they have there. It glimmers ever so softly green against the night sky, quite beautiful really :)

Absolutly NOT. They're not ready for the EU, just like Poland and other eastern european countrys aren't ready. Ok, Poland entered, but to what cause?

Maybe in a couple of years :)

Well, should it? The Turkish minister has recently warned the EU (once again) to beware of becoming a christian club. I see no reason why Turkey shouldn't be part of the EU, except that they're not a complete democracy yet. Then again, I'm not European. Your thoughts?

Not in a million years. Turkey may be nominally a secular state but it has a very strong islamic party. Religion had been tamed in Western Europe, but unfortunately, the religious Eastern countries have been allowed to join too soon and religion is once again starting to show its vile face. Enough is enough. :mp5:

Psh, I would be fine with EU becoming a Christian Club. If they start running the Euro in Turkey they will be screwed anyway. At least it will give the American Dollar a chance to bounce back from the fricking Euro strangle hold.

Psh, I would be fine with EU becoming a Christian Club. If they start running the Euro in Turkey they will be screwed anyway. At least it will give the American Dollar a chance to bounce back from the fricking Euro strangle hold.

Paranucci. Shutup.

First, the EU will never be a 'Christian' club as most (if not all) of its members are secular states. Nations ruled by law not religion. Second, the only reason the dollar is in the shitter is because of bad economic policies. When we have a fiscally responsible government (fat chance of that) in the U.S. the dollar will bounce back. The Euro killing the dollar is nothing but a myth. Just because it is doing better at the moment means nothing.

The EU is a club, a club of countries that have their legal, social and aesthetic codes based on a common ancestry. This ancestry, whether you like it or not, is that of Christianity as promulgated by the both the Catholic and Protestant sects.
Underlying this there are fundamental beliefs about power relationships within society, and the ways in which power is limited and controlled by the society.

Turkey, despite being technically partially European does not share this common cultural heritage. The power relationships, both in the society in general and on the smaller scale of families or companies etc. simply are not compatible with those of the hegemonic structure in the EU.

As such it would be a very uncomfortable situation for both the Turks and the Eu for them to be members of the EU. Turkey wishes to join as it is clearly to their benefit financially to be a member, but I do not think that they could adapt to the legal, political and executive systems that membership implies.

It would be far easier for Australia, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, New Zealand etc. etc. to be members of the EU. These countries, amongst others, share the common heritage, having had their local culture defined by European colonists from the 15th century onwards.

Turkey is essentially alien to the European culture, and as such I do not feel that they should be a full member. I believe that an associate membership or some such could be created wherein there are beneficial arrangements to both sides, without trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Fass - You can argue all you want that Turkey has adopted a pro European line etc, but this does not change the historical facts: Turkey simply does not have the same bedrock for its culture that the members of the EU have.

The EU is a club, a club of countries that have their legal, social and aesthetic codes based on a common ancestry. This ancestry, whether you like it or not, is that of Christianity as promulgated by the both the Catholic and Protestant sects.
Underlying this there are fundamental beliefs about power relationships within society, and the ways in which power is limited and controlled by the society.

Turkey, despite being technically partially European does not share this common cultural heritage. The power relationships, both in the society in general and on the smaller scale of families or companies etc. simply are not compatible with those of the hegemonic structure in the EU.

As such it would be a very uncomfortable situation for both the Turks and the Eu for them to be members of the EU. Turkey wishes to join as it is clearly to their benefit financially to be a member, but I do not think that they could adapt to the legal, political and executive systems that membership implies.

It would be far easier for Australia, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, New Zealand etc. etc. to be members of the EU. These countries, amongst others, share the common heritage, having had their local culture defined by European colonists from the 15th century onwards.

Turkey is essentially alien to the European culture, and as such I do not feel that they should be a full member. I believe that an associate membership or some such could be created wherein there are beneficial arrangements to both sides, without trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Fass - You can argue all you want that Turkey has adopted a pro European line etc, but this does not change the historical facts: Turkey simply does not have the same bedrock for its culture that the members of the EU have.

How much do you know about Turkish culture?

You seem to think that it is somehow middle eastern, that somehow, Turkey's culture is more similar to that of the Arabic world than the European one. How do you pull shit out of your ass like that?

Fass - You can argue all you want that Turkey has adopted a pro European line etc, but this does not change the historical facts: Turkey simply does not have the same bedrock for its culture that the members of the EU have.

Bullshit. Turkey is about as European as you can be. Its culture has been continually influenced by Europe. If not for the Caliphate and the onset of Islam it would be almost identical to conventional Europe.

How much do you know about Turkish culture?

You seem to think that it is somehow middle eastern, that somehow, Turkey's culture is more similar to that of the Arabic world than the European one. How do you pull shit out of your ass like that?

Well then, who made you an authority on anything to judge others.

What I know of Turkish culture is admittedly based on a knowledge of the history of the area, which has been more than slightly turbulent for the last 3,000 years at least. (Prior to that, I am not too sure of the sources).

What can be observed is that the predominant culture in Turkey, which is a multicultural society anyway, is one that has been strongly influenced by a history that is significantly different to that of most of Europe. Or would you care to argue that history has no role in determining the culture of a region.
Perhaps you would prefer to argue that the influence of the dark ages, the renaissance, the reformation etc, etc, that are common historical events for Europe, but not for Turkey, was absolutely zero.

But I guess you will just resort to a pathetic ad hominen attack given that you have nothing better to say.

Turkey wishes to join as it is clearly to their benefit financially to be a member, but I do not think that they could adapt to the legal, political and executive systems that membership implies.
How so? They're already a democratic country, already a member of the Council of Europe, already a party to the European Convention on Human Rights...

It would be far easier for Australia, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, New Zealand etc. etc. to be members of the EU. These countries, amongst others, share the common heritage, having had their local culture defined by European colonists from the 15th century onwards.
That's nice...

*Pats*

We don't need to talk about the silly indigenous culture making its mark on the above-mentioned cultures, nor about the close interaction and development of the Turkish culture and other European cultures like, say, the Greek or the slavic cultures. I mean, the influences of the Ottoman empire and the Byzantine Empire would be stopped at the border, right? :rolleyes:


Fass - You can argue all you want that Turkey has adopted a pro European line etc, but this does not change the historical facts: Turkey simply does not have the same bedrock for its culture that the members of the EU have.

If you mean it might have an even more solid foundation, you might be right... If not, you're wrong.

Bullshit. Turkey is about as European as you can be. Its culture has been continually influenced by Europe. If not for the Caliphate and the onset of Islam it would be almost identical to conventional Europe.

And if not for the renaissance, Europe would still be in the dark ages. Humm - Turkey may well want to be European, but that does not make it culturally so. Any more than Argentina can be British.

Please do not understand this as an attack on (presumably) your culture. Cultures in my view are not 'better' or 'worse' than other cultures, they are simply different, and where they are different, these differences should be celebrated as a source of inspiration.

Do you really want the entire world to be subjugated under 'western' culture. I, for one, do not.

Turkey is, along with Mexico and Australia, in a position where it has some conscious say in the path that its culture takes in the future. Why do you want what is essentially a unique cultural mix to be 'homogenized' into the bland uniformity of the EU?

And if not for the renaissance, Europe would still be in the dark ages. Humm - Turkey may well want to be European, but that does not make it culturally so. Any more than Argentina can be British.

Please do not understand this as an attack on (presumably) your culture. Cultures in my view are not 'better' or 'worse' than other cultures, they are simply different, and where they are different, these differences should be celebrated as a source of inspiration.

Do you really want the entire world to be subjugated under 'western' culture. I, for one, do not.

Turkey is, along with Mexico and Australia, in a position where it has some conscious say in the path that its culture takes in the future. Why do you want what is essentially a unique cultural mix to be 'homogenized' into the bland uniformity of the EU?

I really fail to see what culture has to do with a primarily economic union

Turkey is, along with Mexico and Australia, in a position where it has some conscious say in the path that its culture takes in the future. Why do you want what is essentially a unique cultural mix to be 'homogenized' into the bland uniformity of the EU?

Why would entering the EU result in cultural homogenization? Why does Mexico have more of a say in the path its culture takes than any other country?

And if not for the renaissance, Europe would still be in the dark ages. Humm - Turkey may well want to be European, but that does not make it culturally so. Any more than Argentina can be British.

Please do not understand this as an attack on (presumably) your culture. Cultures in my view are not 'better' or 'worse' than other cultures, they are simply different, and where they are different, these differences should be celebrated as a source of inspiration.

Do you really want the entire world to be subjugated under 'western' culture. I, for one, do not.

Turkey is, along with Mexico and Australia, in a position where it has some conscious say in the path that its culture takes in the future. Why do you want what is essentially a unique cultural mix to be 'homogenized' into the bland uniformity of the EU?

What? I do agree that Turkish culture is unique but it has STRONG ties to European culture. Look, the Roman Empire, and later the Byzantine Empire controlled the region, these two civilizations are the base for Western, and as such European, culture. This makes Turkey European at least in some cultural sense. 'Bland uniformity'??? I don't understand what you are saying here, every European nation has a unique culture that has developed over hundreds, even thousands of years. The European Union is at its base an economic union, but it is also an acknowledgement of european connection because all these cultures developed together and affected each other. Turkey is European, because it has a fundemental relationship with Europe. From the first nomadic tribes, to a united Roman Empire, to the Byzantine Empire, on through the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire, and finally modern Turkey. There is no denying it.

How so? They're already a democratic country, already a member of the Council of Europe, already a party to the European Convention on Human Rights...
Democracy does not culture make. How does the democracy function, what are the issues that are on the political agenda? What are the matters that are open for debate etc?
Membership of transnational talking shops and signing a convention or two is not the same as membership of the EU. There is completely different level of integration required, as you well know.

That's nice...

*Pats*
*wags tail*


We don't need to talk about the silly indigenous culture making its mark on the above-mentioned cultures, nor about the close interaction and development of the Turkish culture and other European cultures like, say, the Greek or the slavic cultures. I mean, the influences of the Ottoman empire and the Byzantine Empire would be stopped at the border, right?

Did I ever imply that there was no influence? What I am arguing is that the machinery of state, the basic belief set by which governance is, and has been, carried out, the issues and debates that are part of the political arena, are all fundamentally different in nature to those of the members of the EU club. I am not making a value judgment here, I am simply identifying a difference. Yes there are influences in both directions, just as there are with the North African communities, or the Far eastern societies etc. But influences are not history and do not have the same power to determine aspects the present.
As to the indigenous cultures having an influence on the nations I mentioned. They may have an influence in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but in Brazil they have left not so much as a minor ripple of the surface of the culture. The only challenge to a completely European culture in Brazil came from the African influences introduced with the slave trade. But that is a side issue.


If you mean it might have an even more solid foundation, you might be right... If not, you're wrong.

Why are you assuming that I am criticizing the culture? See my posts above.

I really fail to see what culture has to do with a primarily economic union

Because financial structures depend upon power relationships and these in turn are based on the culture of the society. I hope that answers your question.

Why would entering the EU result in cultural homogenization? Why does Mexico have more of a say in the path its culture takes than any other country?

Because there is a common set of laws, financial regulations, goals and aims defined for the members of the EU, i.e. the EU tells you what is good and what is bad. WHat result is possible from this other than cultural homogenization?

Mexico is in the situation where it has to decide at some point in the near future which block of countries it wants to identify itself with. It can opt to go with the North American countries, with their primarily Anglo Saxon Protestant culture, or it could choose to identify itself as a Latin American country that are primarily Mediterranean and Catholic in culture. It can sit on the fence, as it is now, trying to get the best of both worlds, but if it does this it will always be seen as an outsider by both groups.

Absolutely not. Turkey does absolutely nothing for the EU. The only thing that Turkey is capably of is drawing funds. Turkey in the EU is a bit like having a flat mate who doesn't pay for anything, yet eats the food you paid for and uses your phone. But, what do I know? I'm only an American.

What? I do agree that Turkish culture is unique but it has STRONG ties to European culture. Look, the Roman Empire, and later the Byzantine Empire controlled the region, these two civilizations are the base for Western, and as such European, culture. This makes Turkey European at least in some cultural sense. 'Bland uniformity'??? I don't understand what you are saying here, every European nation has a unique culture that has developed over hundreds, even thousands of years. The European Union is at its base an economic union, but it is also an acknowledgement of european connection because all these cultures developed together and affected each other. Turkey is European, because it has a fundemental relationship with Europe. From the first nomadic tribes, to a united Roman Empire, to the Byzantine Empire, on through the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire, and finally modern Turkey. There is no denying it.

We will have to agree to disagree. As I do deny it. I do not deny a connection, I deny the strength of the influence of this connection.

Through the Byzantine empire there is a common history with some parts of Europe, but there was an essential split when the Roman empire divided into East and West, with a cultural gap developing between the two parts that widened over the next 1600 years at least. Recently, in historical terms, Turkey has tried to realign itself as being European, and this has had some effect, but not enough yet for the degree of integration that is needed for membership of the EU. In my opinion. Your opinion, of course, may be different.

Because there is a common set of laws, financial regulations, goals and aims defined for the members of the EU, i.e. the EU tells you what is good and what is bad. WHat result is possible from this other than cultural homogenization?

Mexico is in the situation where it has to decide at some point in the near future which block of countries it wants to identify itself with. It can opt to go with the North American countries, with their primarily Anglo Saxon Protestant culture, or it could choose to identify itself as a Latin American country that are primarily Mediterranean and Catholic in culture. It can sit on the fence, as it is now, trying to get the best of both worlds, but if it does this it will always be seen as an outsider by both groups.

God help us if all there is to culture is law and finance.

And Mexico can't shut out the influence of America. The world's greatest power is right there, looming over them. And it can't shut out its spanish influence because it is historically tied to it. It's not a choice to sit on the fence, it's just the result of the situation it is in.

We will have to agree to disagree. As I do deny it. I do not deny a connection, I deny the strength of the influence of this connection.

Through the Byzantine empire there is a common history with some parts of Europe, but there was an essential split when the Roman empire divided into East and West, with a cultural gap developing between the two parts that widened over the next 1600 years at least. Recently, in historical terms, Turkey has tried to realign itself as being European, and this has had some effect, but not enough yet for the degree of integration that is needed for membership of the EU. In my opinion. Your opinion, of course, may be different.

The only differences that formed that are worth noting is the division between Greek and Latin culture in the Eastern and Western Empires (both are still European btw) and language. There are minor differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Papacy which futher deepended the split. But still, both are European. Turkey is European. Maybe not according to some of the more conventional definitions of what is 'European' but one cannot logically deny the fact that Turkey is European.

God help us if all there is to culture is law and finance.

And Mexico can't shut out the influence of America. The world's greatest power is right there, looming over them. And it can't shut out its spanish influence because it is historically tied to it. It's not a choice to sit on the fence, it's just the result of the situation it is in.

Put the cart before the horse, why not?

Of course there is more to culture than law and finance, but the way in which law and finance function is strongly influenced, if not completely defined by the culture. Having said that, if you want to integrate law and finance, you need to integrate the value sets that serves as a basis for this. Now these value sets are essentially what defines culture. So while culture is much more than law and finance, to unify law and finance you need to unify an awful lot of 'culture', leaving very little space for local variation in behaviour.

As to the choice that faces Mexico, it is one of affiliation. It will of course, be influenced by both cultures, but which one of these cultures does it want to be identified with by other nations? That is th decision it has to make. Does it want the USA to identify it as Latin America? Does it want Venezuela to identify it as North America? Right now people her do not think of it as part of Latin America, although it patently is, and I am sure that people in the US and Canada do not think of it as part of North America. Mexico is neither one thing nor the other - and this is not a good situation in the long term.

Democracy does not culture make. How does the democracy function, what are the issues that are on the political agenda? What are the matters that are open for debate etc?
Membership of transnational talking shops and signing a convention or two is not the same as membership of the EU. There is completely different level of integration required, as you well know.
Yet you do not show what Turkey is lacking when it comes to the legal, political and executive systems that EU membership imply. So I ask again: How so?


Did I ever imply that there was no influence?
Yes, when you claimed that Australia, Argentina, Canada, Brazil, New Zealand share a kind of European heritage that Turkey does not. You seem to disregard the above mentioned influences completely for some reason, and to draw a magical line around the Turkish border.

What I am arguing is that the machinery of state, the basic belief set by which governance is, and has been, carried out, the issues and debates that are part of the political arena, are all fundamentally different in nature to those of the members of the EU club.
Can you demonstrate the decisive differences between Turkey and, say, Bulgaria?

I am not making a value judgment here, I am simply identifying a difference. Yes there are influences in both directions, just as there are with the North African communities, or the Far eastern societies etc. But influences are not history and do not have the same power to determine aspects the present.
As to the indigenous cultures having an influence on the nations I mentioned. They may have an influence in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but in Brazil they have left not so much as a minor ripple of the surface of the culture. The only challenge to a completely European culture in Brazil came from the African influences introduced with the slave trade. But that is a side issue.
"Completely European"? Interesting how you view European culture as a completely homogenous entity.I would claim that it is not. I doubt Swedish or Polish culture has had a significant impact on Brazil, and I would dare to claim that the indigenous cultures have had a bigger impact on Brazilian culture than the former.

In short, your argument makes little sense.

Why are you assuming that I am criticizing the culture? See my posts above.
I'm not; I'm attacking your assertion that Turkish culture is somehow more loosely founded that the culture found in the EU countries.

Put the cart before the horse, why not?

Of course there is more to culture than law and finance, but the way in which law and finance function is strongly influenced, if not completely defined by the culture. Having said that, if you want to integrate law and finance, you need to integrate the value sets that serves as a basis for this. Now these value sets are essentially what defines culture. So while culture is much more than law and finance, to unify law and finance you need to unify an awful lot of 'culture', leaving very little space for local variation in behaviour.

As to the choice that faces Mexico, it is one of affiliation. It will of course, be influenced by both cultures, but which one of these cultures does it want to be identified with by other nations? That is th decision it has to make. Does it want the USA to identify it as Latin America? Does it want Venezuela to identify it as North America? Right now people her do not think of it as part of Latin America, although it patently is, and I am sure that people in the US and Canada do not think of it as part of North America. Mexico is neither one thing nor the other - and this is not a good situation in the long term.

That's how those laws evolved though. As they have already evolved, Turkey does not need to now go through those same processes. I think it would be extremely hard to argue that Turkey is culturally incompatible with EU financial regulations.

As for Mexico, affiliation or "which one of these countries does it want to be identified with" is once again nowhere near 'culture'. It's affiliation. The clue was when you called it affiliation.

Anbia,

Correct, it is not the Euro. It is the union. Like any union it is exclusive. Why do you think Turkey wants to join? Allow me to show you WHY it hurts the dollar in this quirky play.

English Ambassador and the French Ambassador.

English: Well, I suppose now that the jolly good war is over we should form some sort of a union so that we can gain economic foothold (NOTE: The Union's FIRST PURPOSE was a temporary one, to recover after world war two.)

French: Oi, mon ami zat sounds... fantastic!

English: Glad to 'ear it chum! How 'bout this den? I sell you oil and steel for 'alf of what the yanks are sellin' it? (The foundings of the EU NEVER mentioned price changes among members, even though now they do give discounts to members)

French: It sounds... fantastic!

American Ambassador: ... ummm... wha...? I thought you weren't supposed to do that... I mean where does that put us?

English: I s'pose it puts you in a bit of a sticky wicket den.

American: Ummm that it does. That it does.

German Ambassador: Yea, we got off on the wrong foot, is it ok if I...

English: Yes.

Fin.

And it COULD be called a Christian club because the majority of all of the countries are mainly Christian. And if you count Protestantism as Christian there is even more.

Of course, the EU wasn't started by the English and French in the aftermath of WW2

It's not every day one gets to read something so blatantly factually incorrect.

Your capacity to provide rude responses to posts, without justifying your opinion, never ceases to astound.

Turkey is great. Sometimes it's a littledry but I'd can't honestly think of a point in my life when I said anything along the lines of "Eu, turkey."

Yes, I know it wasn't the English and French... I was just using that for my explanation of what the EU is doing now.

Even though Instanbul is on European soil?

....Constantinople

Anbia,

Correct, it is not the Euro. It is the union. Like any union it is exclusive. Why do you think Turkey wants to join? Allow me to show you WHY it hurts the dollar in this quirky play.

English Ambassador and the French Ambassador.

English: Well, I suppose now that the jolly good war is over we should form some sort of a union so that we can gain economic foothold (NOTE: The Union's FIRST PURPOSE was a temporary one, to recover after world war two.)

French: Oi, mon ami zat sounds... fantastic!

English: Glad to 'ear it chum! How 'bout this den? I sell you oil and steel for 'alf of what the yanks are sellin' it? (The foundings of the EU NEVER mentioned price changes among members, even though now they do give discounts to members)

French: It sounds... fantastic!

American Ambassador: ... ummm... wha...? I thought you weren't supposed to do that... I mean where does that put us?

English: I s'pose it puts you in a bit of a sticky wicket den.

American: Ummm that it does. That it does.

German Ambassador: Yea, we got off on the wrong foot, is it ok if I...

English: Yes.

Fin.

And it COULD be called a Christian club because the majority of all of the countries are mainly Christian. And if you count Protestantism as Christian there is even more.

I do believe that the EU began between the Low Countries, not England and France. England joined somewhat later, I believe. And it's not really a Christian club, since most Europeans are only loosely affiliated with Christianity, which is on the decline over there.

EDIT: and just to put it all in perspective, how is your dialogue relevant to the entrance of Turkey?

It was adressed to anbia's saying that the EU had nothing to do with the setback of the dollar, which in fact it does. If the EU had stuck to what it was originally designed to do and repair Europe, then everything would be fine. But then they became chums and started cutting each other breaks on tariffs and prices. They cut America out. What I said is not relative to Turkey's joining EU, it was a response to anbia's statement. And, as I said before, I understand that it was not between France and England. It was actually founded between France, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands in the Treaty of Rome. Please, I am no history idiot. I merely used French and English because they are major countries in Europe.

It was adressed to anbia's saying that the EU had nothing to do with the setback of the dollar, which in fact it does. If the EU had stuck to what it was originally designed to do and repair Europe, then everything would be fine. But then they became chums and started cutting each other breaks on tariffs and prices. They cut America out. What I said is not relative to Turkey's joining EU, it was a response to anbia's statement. And, as I said before, I understand that it was not between France and England. It was actually founded between France, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands in the Treaty of Rome. Please, I am no history idiot. I merely used French and English because they are major countries in Europe.

Ok. You were trying to illustrate an example. But why should the US be included? We're clearly not European, we've expressed no interest in joining, and our policies are...controversial to them, to say the least. They joined together to make things better for themselves. If it hurts us in the process, then we better find a better way to survive. One that preferably doesn't involve outsourcing the economy to China.

That is not the point. The originial purpose of the EU was temporary.

Please please prove that.

That is not the point. The originial purpose of the EU was temporary. Everything would be fine if they had stuck to that. But they didn't. And as for outsourcing... lol I am an Executive Attorney for IBM... we outsource like HECK! Do you know WHY? Because Americans are too dang LAZY to do blue collar jobs for an amount of money that would allow companies to make a profit. Do not blame it on the companies. Blame it on yourselves.

That is not the point. The originial purpose of the EU was temporary. Everything would be fine if they had stuck to that. But they didn't. And as for outsourcing... lol I am an Executive Attorney for IBM... we outsource like HECK! Do you know WHY? Because Americans are too dang LAZY to do blue collar jobs for an amount of money that would allow companies to make a profit. Do not blame it on the companies. Blame it on yourselves.

Companies do not outsoure because americans are lazy, they outsource because it is cheaper and easier to take advantage of poverty stricken countries. For a company to work effectivly in the states they must pay enough for their employees to live. But no, most companies choose to outsource and take jobs away from Americans, this hurts our economy. Why? Because we import billions of dollars in goods, but no one has a job because their jobs were outsourced and thus they have no money to purchase the imported goods, so billions are basically wasted. What is hurting the United States is poor economic planning and policy. The EU has nothing to do with it. If anything I think the EU should expand and cut the US out completly, because all we do is exploit them and when they say enough is enough we call them dirty communists.

Where is your proof that the EU was designed to be temporary. Source please!

That is not the point. The originial purpose of the EU was temporary. Everything would be fine if they had stuck to that. But they didn't. And as for outsourcing... lol I am an Executive Attorney for IBM... we outsource like HECK! Do you know WHY? Because Americans are too dang LAZY to do blue collar jobs for an amount of money that would allow companies to make a profit. Do not blame it on the companies. Blame it on yourselves.

Really? You're an Executive Attorney for IBM and you're mad at the EU? I thought you'd be thrilled at this opportunity to turn a profit in European countries. Oh well, I guess money really isn't everything, even for an Executive Attorney at IBM. :rolleyes:

On a more serious note, you're against the EU because it hurts the United States, but you're for outsourcing, which hurts the United States?

Here is my file (IBM files). Case number 4587: IBM v Richards

"Mr. Richards, the plaintiff, is filing a suit against IBM for laying him off and transferring his job overseas. He is filing for the loss of 675 thousand work dollars and 500 thousand compensation dollars for emotional and physical disrepair.

The case is brought to court and it is ruled that, due to Mr. Richard's unwillingness to work at a reasonable wage his job was outsourced.

The court ruled in favor of IBM, appointing the plaintiff no compensation."

Mr. Richards was being paid 60,000 a yr. A good wage, no? But Mr. Richards was not a very good worker and refused to work for less so he was outsourced. The judicial system obviously knows which side is right.

Here is my file (IBM files). Case number 4587: IBM v Richards

"Mr. Richards, the plaintiff, is filing a suit against IBM for laying him off and transferring his job overseas. He is filing for the loss of 675 thousand work dollars and 500 thousand compensation dollars for emotional and physical disrepair.

The case is brought to court and it is ruled that, due to Mr. Richard's unwillingness to work at a reasonable wage his job was outsourced.

The court ruled in favor of IBM, appointing the plaintiff no compensation."

Mr. Richards was being paid 60,000 a yr. A good wage, no? But Mr. Richards was not a very good worker and refused to work for less so he was outsourced. The judicial system obviously knows which side is right.

Companies cannot expect their employees to take corporate exploitation up the ass and not say something about it. You cannot expect them to work effectivly if you are paying them less than the cost of living and thus putting them in poverty!

Look buddy, don't portray us as thieves. We are not going to pay a guy who sits in a chair and watches robots make computer chips 50,000 a year when 8 dollars an hour is enough to live on. Americans will not take dirty jobs. It is a fact. And ya know what else? I say hurrah to the Mexicans that cross el bordero cuz with that new workforce that will do work that nobody else will we can actually keep SOME of our company in America. If Americans would be willing to work for a bit less and do some different jobs then we would not outsource.

Look buddy, don't portray us as thieves. We are not going to pay a guy who sits in a chair and watches robots make computer chips 50,000 a year when 8 dollars an hour is enough to live on. Americans will not take dirty jobs. It is a fact. And ya know what else? I say hurrah to the Mexicans that cross el bordero cuz with that new workforce that will do work that nobody else will we can actually keep SOME of our company in America. If Americans would be willing to work for a bit less and do some different jobs then we would not outsource.

Thats exactly it. You are fucking thieves. You pay Americans almost nothing for the work they do, you don't provide health insurance, and when they cease to bend over and take your shit lying down you outsource and call them lazy. Most major corporations make billions, paying their employees reasonable wages will not impact PROFITS!

Here is my file (IBM files). Case number 4587: IBM v Richards

"Mr. Richards, the plaintiff, is filing a suit against IBM for laying him off and transferring his job overseas. He is filing for the loss of 675 thousand work dollars and 500 thousand compensation dollars for emotional and physical disrepair.

The case is brought to court and it is ruled that, due to Mr. Richard's unwillingness to work at a reasonable wage his job was outsourced.

The court ruled in favor of IBM, appointing the plaintiff no compensation."

Mr. Richards was being paid 60,000 a yr. A good wage, no? But Mr. Richards was not a very good worker and refused to work for less so he was outsourced. The judicial system obviously knows which side is right.

Regrettably, I'd require a source to believe that.

Though even if it were real, how could you possibly be for outsourcing, yet against the EU on the grounds that it hurts the United States.

Well then, who made you an authority on anything to judge others.

What I know of Turkish culture is admittedly based on a knowledge of the history of the area, which has been more than slightly turbulent for the last 3,000 years at least. (Prior to that, I am not too sure of the sources).

What can be observed is that the predominant culture in Turkey, which is a multicultural society anyway, is one that has been strongly influenced by a history that is significantly different to that of most of Europe. Or would you care to argue that history has no role in determining the culture of a region.
Perhaps you would prefer to argue that the influence of the dark ages, the renaissance, the reformation etc, etc, that are common historical events for Europe, but not for Turkey, was absolutely zero.

But I guess you will just resort to a pathetic ad hominen attack given that you have nothing better to say.

Turkey is involved in all three of those events. Was it not, in part, Turks pressing up against the Byzantines, that brought about the dark ages? People needed security, they wanted order. They turned to their local landlord, they turned to the church, and thus we have the Dark Ages (though granted there are many other factors).

Byzantine, Arab, and Turkish knowledge all helped bring about the Renaissance. The trade with the East (including modern day Turkey) also helped fund the Renaissance. A lot of culture, cooking, science, art, was taken from the East, including modern day Turkey.

And finally, the Ottomans were perhaps the single greatest factor in the Reformation. If it were not for the shadow they cast over Europe, Charles V would have destroyed the Reformation before it could begin. The "most powerful man" in Europe had more important foes to deal with (the Ottomans). Had Charles V not had to deal with the Ottomans, he would have been able to donate much more time to internal matters, and the Reformation would never have occurred.

Again, I will say that Turkey's culture is more similar to that of Europe (though I personally think it's hard to figure out what "European culture" is exactly) than to Arab culture. European and Turkish culture have similarities, and have both borrowed from each other, and are deeply intertwined.

Finally, as many have brought up, the European Union is not some cultural club, so this isn't all too relevant anyways.

LOL, exploit the EU? HAHA do not make me LAUGH! EXPLOIT THEM?! They hate us! We bearly got permission to build a factory in London. And as for your proof that EU was meant to be temporary?

Wikipedia:

Robert Schuman says "... and this union will not be needed after we have recovered from this terrible tragedy, and so it will be discarded after the repairs have been made."

How more temporary can you get?

LOL, exploit the EU? HAHA do not make me LAUGH! EXPLOIT THEM?! They hate us! We bearly got permission to build a factory in London. And as for your proof that EU was meant to be temporary?

Wikipedia:

Robert Schuman says "... and this union will not be needed after we have recovered from this terrible tragedy, and so it will be discarded after the repairs have been made."

How more temporary can you get?

Do you think I wouldn't check your source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union I did not see that particular 'quote' anywhere. Sounds like you made it up. Anyway, I'm tired, and I'm going to bed.

I am AGAINST the EU because, as I have shown, it was MEANT to be temporary and they have gone and cut prices and formed a permanent union. The only slightly permanent thing about it was to merge the French and German oil and steel companies to make war impossible.

I am FOR outsourcing as long as Americans continue to refuse to do jobs for FAIR wages. When I say FAIR I mean not only fair for the worker, but for the COMPANY. We hire ABOVE min. wage in America. That is generous, considering that we do not have to. Ya wanna go after a monster company? Visa is your gal. They are TOTALLY outsourced. You call 'em and you get someone in AUSTRALIA.

Anbia, if you would mind telling me who you work for, what you do, what wage you get, how it pleases you, and please name a starving girl in china that wouldn't gladly do it for less and be twice as satisfied as you are?

I am too young to get a job, but it appears I know more about economics than you do... how very strange.

Anbia, if you would mind telling me who you work for, what you do, what wage you get, how it pleases you, and please name a starving girl in china that wouldn't gladly do it for less and be twice as satisfied as you are?

I think that companies should not out source when there are american workers available but i do think that workers should earn what they are paided. So if they are being paid more than they are worth the company should try to get them to take a paycut. If they don't they should be fired and the comapny should try to find a not very well of person that is capable of doing the job and train them to do it so they can get the money and the satisfaction of the job. If they can't find that then they can out source i belive.

I am too young to get a job, but it appears I know more about economics than you do... how very strange.

Because he's clearly a 14 year old child. After running a search, there is no London plant. As to his bizarre and seemingly contradicatory stances, that'll forever remain a mystery.

Oh yes, and here is a little ditty that I have checked up on by my own accord. In the past 10 years a chip plant in America has been producing. 7 years ago we finished one in china. In that seven years the China plant has had almost double the output of the plant in America. We are not the thieves. We just don't see why we have to settle for mediocre employees who work for high wages when we can get employees that are almost twice as efficient and are grateful, hear that? GRATEFUL for what they DO get.

You are right, my bad, not a factory, UK HQ, check it. And we have TRIED to keep up with the EU. Thus the cross-border manufacturing or "product by plant" where we tried to make everything in one plant. It helped, but not by much.

We are being hard-pressed not to go Euro completely. Then, as EU did, we can cut American bluecollars out altogether. The only reason we would be in America at all is for offices. Eh. And I am not a fourteen year old child. Excuse me for not bothering to look back through all that crap and get the specifics. I will try not to go nitty-gritty now.

Oh yes, and here is a little ditty that I have checked up on by my own accord. In the past 10 years a chip plant in America has been producing. 7 years ago we finished one in china. In that seven years the China plant has had almost double the output of the plant in America. We are not the thieves. We just don't see why we have to settle for mediocre employees who work for high wages when we can get employees that are almost twice as efficient and are grateful, hear that? GRATEFUL for what they DO get.

Okay, since you seem not to understand the principles of economics I'll break it down for you.

Lets say you have a plant in the US that produces microchips, it produces 10,000 a month at an average cost of 50 cents a chip. Whereas in China a plant can produce 100,000 for 30 cents a chip. China is obviously better, right? NO! Because companies that outsource get quantity not quality. Companies do make millions in profits and they do save money, but people stop buying their products because the products are of poor quality, i.e. they're pieces of shit!

I made up those numbers, but I think I made my point.

Anbia... have you ever heard of minimum wage? *alleluia chorus* trust me... we pay ABOVE min. wage (in most cases) we pay enough to live on... Even if we didn't want to we wouldn't have a choice.

Anbia... have you ever heard of minimum wage? *alleluia chorus* trust me... we pay ABOVE min. wage (in most cases) we pay enough to live on... Even if we didn't want to we wouldn't have a choice.

I thought you outsourced? And only payed your employees in China a buck an hour.

Admit it, your nine years old and are on your dads computer. Because you don't even understand the basic points of economics.

And what is this "too young to work" nonsense? You are never too young to work.

Ever heard of Child Labor Laws? Oh, yeah I forgot, you use six year olds in China and you work them to death and you pay them nothing. That is called exploitation.

This is my point:

Put heart into your jobs, do your best, do not just be so so. If you have good output we would be glad to start moving back to the States. But as is, you whine, wheedle and complain for higher salaries even though you have terrible output. Shut your yap, time is money, get back to work. That is a great motto. Stick to that and you WILL get better wages.

And what is this "too young to work" nonsense? You are never too young to work.

Anbia. Let me break REAL WORLD economics down for you. It goes something like this: The more ya got the more ya sell, If you make less go to... well... Besides. Chinese do make better quality contrary to popular belief. They actually put heart into their jobs. Besids it is basically the same quality when you talk about chips.

No. Just no. You have no idea what you are talking about. Focusing on quantity deteriorates quality. The lesser the quality, the less you sell. If you focus on quality you may have less, but you generate demand for the product, but if you flood the markets with cheap crap then you have too much and no one is buying it. Its called supply and demand. You generate demand, and you supply the demand. That is how money is made, that is how economics work.

Anbia. Let me break REAL WORLD economics down for you. It goes something like this: The more ya got the more ya sell, If you make less go to... well... Besides. Chinese do make better quality contrary to popular belief. They actually put heart into their jobs. Besids it is basically the same quality when you talk about chips.

Here is a wee poem that I made while waiting for your response:

Americans won't work for less than ten,
But in Japan they'll work for 200 yen,
That's how the world goes round

With The Koreas by my side,
I will show you all my Asian pride,
Outsource, go into the west,
There you will find the quality's best

It is a start, I think I will expand it.

Oh, you have enlightened me to your superior intellect.

Fuck it, I give up trying to explain this to you. I will leave the task to the next unfortunate victim of your stupidity.

Here is a wee poem that I made while waiting for your response:

Americans won't work for less than ten,
But in Japan they'll work for 200 yen,
That's how the world goes round

With The Koreas by my side,
I will show you all my Asian pride,
Outsource, go into the west,
There you will find the quality's best

It is a start, I think I will expand it.

Anbia,

The stuff they make in China is better than what they make in America. It really is. I bet the computer you are using can testify to that. Is it Certera? China. Is it IBM? Japan, Korea, China, maybe America. Microsoft? China, Japan, and maybe possibly America. Whatever computer you are using... I bet at least half of it was made out of country. OMG I cannot for the life of me figure out how this forum works. Does it go up does it go down? Sheesh. And at least I can express myself without using dirty language. And yes, I admit the poem was a bit eccentric...

Ok... this forum... is screwing with me... My post apears down there and then yours magically appears right above it...

Ok, so China makes more, and they are the same if not better than the few that we make in america, at higher expense... and you complain when we outsource... right... it is like that little three year old child tugging onto his mother's leg when she is walking away to have some fun for herself. And even though I am greatly enjoying myself I must go now. I might be on later.

People can talk endlessly about how great it would be adding a Muslim nation to the European Union, but in the end, that is irrelevant. The European Union is what it's name says it is. A union of European nations. Turkey is in no way a European nation, and therefore, should never have even been considered as a candidate.

Using a strict geographic definition of Europe, one wonders why Cyprus even got a candidacy, let alone membership. Turkey is more geographically European than Cyprus will ever be, and, using a strict interpretation of geographical membership rules, Turkey should be considered a candidate.

Using a strict geographic definition of Europe, one wonders why Cyprus even got a candidacy, let alone membership. Turkey is more geographically European than Cyprus will ever be, and, using a strict interpretation of geographical membership rules, Turkey should be considered a candidate.

hell, Turkey is more on the European continent than Great Britain and Iceland

hell, Turkey is more on the European continent than Great Britain and Iceland

True, but they are not not culturally or ethnically European. (to my knowledge, at least)

Not culturally or ethnically.

You would be surprised how secular and 'Western' like Turkey is, also do you propose expelling all 'non-European' ethnicities from Europe or something?

You would be surprised how secular and 'Western' like Turkey is, also do you propose expelling all 'non-European' ethnicities from Europe or something?

Nope. I was just sayin' for the sake of sayin'.

Roman conquest probably played a role in that too. :)

The present territory of Turkey used to be part of that Roman conquest too, until the disaster that was Manzikert began its downfall.

When Turkey allows complete religious freedom for the Orthodox Church and all other religions, including the right to freely teach, preach, proselytize and convert, then it may begin to be worthy to join the EU. Don't hold your breath on that happening.

Question:

Can anyone come up with a purpose for the EU that wouldn't work if Turkey joined?

If the EU is an economic union, then Turkey joining adds plenty of consumers and labourers, as well as balancing out the ageing populations in western Europe.

If the EU is a political union, Turkey joining will add enormous weight to its diplomacy with regards to the Middle East. Excluding Turkey would also do significant damage to the ability of the EU to create positive change in prospective members.

If the EU is an exercise in ending a millennium of warfare between the European powers, then Turkey must naturally be a part of it, since it has been a party in that warfare pretty much continuously in one form or another.

I see no point whatsoever to this geography argument. "European Union" happens to be the name of the organisation, but that's hardly a basis for approving membership, unless you want to turn it into some sort of giant "No Homers Club". The EU is an organisation, and organisations have some sort of purpose. So to those who are opposed to a Turkish membership on principle: what do you think its purpose is?

The present territory of Turkey used to be part of that Roman conquest too, until the disaster that was Manzikert began its downfall.

When Turkey allows complete religious freedom for the Orthodox Church and all other religions, including the right to freely teach, preach, proselytize and convert, then it may begin to be worthy to join the EU. Don't hold your breath on that happening.

Not only was it part of it, but Istanbul(Constantinople) became the capital of the Roman Empire for a while. *nod*

Not only was it part of it, but Istanbul(Constantinople) became the capital of the Roman Empire for a while. *nod*

LG beat me to that.

If the EU is an economic union, then Turkey joining adds plenty of consumers and labourers, as well as balancing out the ageing populations in western Europe.
The "balancing out the ageing populations" bit might be part of the reason why a lot of people oppose Turkish membership. I'm not really too keen on the idea of the mass Turkish immigration that would occur. We've had plenty already with the previous enlargements.

If the EU is a political union, Turkey joining will add enormous weight to its diplomacy with regards to the Middle East. Excluding Turkey would also do significant damage to the ability of the EU to create positive change in prospective members.
Should we care? For the diplomacy part, I think my country is already far too involved in what goes on in the middle east. If the sort of positive change you're talking about is along the lines of increasing democracy and human rights I don't really care. Looking at how the increase in democracy in Turkey has brought an islamist party to power, that may not be such a good thing after all. Also, the whole idea of the EU being a political union is not something I like one bit.

If the EU is an exercise in ending a millennium of warfare between the European powers, then Turkey must naturally be a part of it, since it has been a party in that warfare pretty much continuously in one form or another.?
I can't see Turkey going to war at any point in the forseeable future (With the exception of northern Iraq, which seems to be a relatively small thing). At least not a war that Britain needs to get involved with.

I would like to see the EU take Turkey, by force.
Best of luck with that, seeing as it's basically like a Balkans country with muchos hills, and the second largest army in NATO.

*edits*

Oh and it really makes no odds if they join. Yeah, it's nice to have a Muslim country for more of that Unity in Diversity lark, but Turkey plus all of those lame-arse Eastern European states which were far too poor to join and expect to be competitive, especially all at once?

Easy way to bankrupt the EU for limited gain.

Not only was it part of it, but Istanbul(Constantinople) became the capital of the Roman Empire for a while. *nod*
Indeed, it was the Eastern Empire of Rome, with the official language being Greek and all that jazz, before becoming the Byzantines.

hell, Turkey is more on the European continent than Great Britain and Iceland
Iceland isn't in the EU, it's in the EEA.

The present territory of Turkey used to be part of that Roman conquest too, until the disaster that was Manzikert began its downfall.

When Turkey allows complete religious freedom for the Orthodox Church and all other religions, including the right to freely teach, preach, proselytize and convert, then it may begin to be worthy to join the EU. Don't hold your breath on that happening.
You'll be pleased to know that they intend to lift the ban on women wearing head scarves at universities, thus increasing religious freedom. I can imagine that you're thrilled by that news :)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,530994,00.html

Okay, since you seem not to understand the principles of economics I'll break it down for you.

Lets say you have a plant in the US that produces microchips, it produces 10,000 a month at an average cost of 50 cents a chip. Whereas in China a plant can produce 100,000 for 30 cents a chip. China is obviously better, right? NO! Because companies that outsource get quantity not quality. Companies do make millions in profits and they do save money, but people stop buying their products because the products are of poor quality, i.e. they're pieces of shit!

I made up those numbers, but I think I made my point.
Any examples of this happening?

AMD, which are supposedly worse than Pentium processors, have a larger market share, and are genuinely better for running things on a PC, than their more expensive rivals.

hell, Turkey is more on the European continent than Great Britain and Iceland

Hardly. The European Continent, much like any other continent, does not exclude the islands about it.

In any case, as ever, the idealists and general fuckwits that serve as the majority on NSG fail to appreciate two crucial factors that ought to preclude Turkey's entry into the EU; firstly, it is not in the interests of the EU. Secondly, historically, the foundations of the Turkish state are in Anatolia, not the Europe that yoiur definition so crudely delineates.

And the ones that are, in fact, European?

Fact remains, the nation lies in Europe. It is therefore European.
It is simultaneously Asian. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand. Why should being defined as two things restrict it from the rights and responsibilities of one of those identities? Should people who are ambidexterous not be allowed to use either hand?



So that makes me (an American) also an Asian since America still maintains territories in Asia, with Americans living on them. Therefore America has the right to join any Asian union under that ideology. Correct?

So that makes me (an American) also an Asian since America still maintains territories in Asia, with Americans living on them. Therefore America has the right to join any Asian union under that ideology. Correct?
No, because that's just "maintaining territories", rather than the vast majority of people living in a country on that continent.

That'd be like the UK joining the AU or CAFTA because we have essentially client states in Africa and in Central America. Which would be ridiculous.

Hardly. The European Continent, much like any other continent, does not exclude the islands about it.

In any case, as ever, the idealists and general fuckwits that serve as the majority on NSG fail to appreciate two crucial factors that ought to preclude Turkey's entry into the EU; firstly, it is not in the interests of the EU. Secondly, historically, the foundations of the Turkish state are in Anatolia, not the Europe that yoiur definition so crudely delineates.
I'd say that the economic issue is vastly more important than the one of where its historical background lies.

The most important reason for not letting Turkey into the EU is because of European trading standards, and a general backwardness of the economy outside of the major cities.

Obviously, this could be rectified, as has happened quite a bit in Greece with EU money, but if we're not letting them into the union, then that's that, really.

Well, should it? The Turkish minister has recently warned the EU (once again) to beware of becoming a christian club. I see no reason why Turkey shouldn't be part of the EU, except that they're not a complete democracy yet. Then again, I'm not European. Your thoughts?

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union

Negotiations were started on 3 October, 2005, and the process is likely to take at least a decade to complete. The membership bid has become the central controversy of the ongoing enlargement of the European Union.
Lots of controversy to Turkey wishing to join the EU, as there are a number of issues for Turkey to address before it can be fully supported by other EU nations.

Public reactions
[edit] In the EU
Public opinion in EU countries generally opposes Turkish membership, though with varying degrees of intensity. The Eurobarometer September-October 2006 survey [59] shows that 59% of EU-25 citizens are against Turkey joining the EU, while only about 28% are in favour. Nearly all citizens (about 9 in 10) expressed concerns about human rights as the leading cause. In the earlier March-May 2006 Eurobarometer, citizens from the new member states were more in favour of Turkey joining (44% in favour) than the old EU-15 (38% in favour). At the time of the survey, the country whose population most strongly opposed Turkish membership was Austria (con: 81%), while Romania was most in favour of the accession (pro: 66%). On a wider political scope, the highest support comes from the Turkish Cypriot Community (pro: 67%) (which is not recognised as sovereign state and is de facto not EU territory and out of the European institutions). These communities are even more in favour of the accession than the Turkish populace itself (pro: 54%). [60]

Opposition in Denmark to Turkish membership was polled at 60% in October 2007, despite the Danish government's support for Turkey's EU bid.[61]


[edit] In Turkey
The opening of membership talks with the EU in December 2004 was celebrated by Turkey with much fanfare,[26] but the Turkish populace has become increasingly eurosceptic as negotiations are delayed. Based on what it views as lukewarm support for its accession to the EU and alleged double standards in its negotiations (France and Austria have indicated they will hold referendums on Turkey's membership), the Turkish public has become increasingly eurosceptic in recent times. A mid-2006 Eurobarometer survey revealed that 43% of Turkish citizens view the EU positively; just 35% trust the EU, 45% support enlargement and just 29% support an EU constitution.[62]

It seems there is alot of public opposition to Turkey being accepted into the EU, that and even citizens in Turkey are becoming Eurosceptic, as talks drag on and on.
The table in the Wikipedia is an interesting guide as to whether Turkey is ready for entry to the EU. It appears that it's a very complicated process and all countries in the EU have to unanimously agree to vote Turkey in.

In order to accede to the EU, Turkey must first successfully complete negotiations with the European Commission on each of the 35 chapters of the EU's acquis and then the member states must unanimously agree to Turkish membership.

This adds further problems to it's ability to join, not only does Turkey have to negotiate with the EC on each of the 35 chapters of EU acquis, but it has to have support of it's own populace, that's quite a feat for any country to achieve.
Turkey (according to Wikipedia source) doesn't have proper implementation of womens rights, refuses to recognise status of conscientious objectors or give an alternative to military service. This shows another reason to deny entry for Turkey until it has better procedures for womens rights, so Turkey isn't fully democratic, yet.

The average economic growth rate between 2002 and 2006 was above 7%,[25] almost four times higher than average growth in the EU.[26] Despite the strong economic gains in 2002-06, which were largely due to renewed investor interest in emerging markets, IMF backing, and tighter fiscal policy, the economy is still burdened by a high current account deficit, high debt and unemployment.[27]
From this we can see that Turkey has immense economic growth, but largely due to investor interest, yet having high levels of debt and unemployment.

Future
The earliest date that Turkey could enter the EU is 2013, the date when the next financial perspectives (the EU's six year budgetary perspectives) will come into force. Ankara is currently aiming to comply with EU law by this date,[12] but Brussels has refused to back 2013 as a deadline.[13] It is believed that the accession process will take at least fifteen years.[14]

So Turkey has a long way to go before it can be accepted, at least 10 years.
Yes i think Turkey can become a member of the EU however it needs to carry out alot of work first.

So that makes me (an American) also an Asian since America still maintains territories in Asia, with Americans living on them. Therefore America has the right to join any Asian union under that ideology. Correct?

No, because that's just "maintaining territories", rather than the vast majority of people living in a country on that continent.

That'd be like the UK joining the AU or CAFTA because we have essentially client states in Africa and in Central America. Which would be ridiculous.

Also note that there are not 50 million Americans living in those Asian territories.

So that makes me (an American) also an Asian since America still maintains territories in Asia, with Americans living on them. Therefore America has the right to join any Asian union under that ideology. Correct?

What territories are you thinking of?

Hardly. The European Continent, much like any other continent, does not exclude the islands about it.

In any case, as ever, the idealists and general fuckwits that serve as the majority on NSG fail to appreciate two crucial factors that ought to preclude Turkey's entry into the EU; firstly, it is not in the interests of the EU. Secondly, historically, the foundations of the Turkish state are in Anatolia, not the Europe that yoiur definition so crudely delineates.
Point of Order No. 1754: Calling people fuckwits doesn't make people any more likely to see your point of view.

I'd say that the economic issue is vastly more important than the one of where its historical background lies.

The most important reason for not letting Turkey into the EU is because of European trading standards, and a general backwardness of the economy outside of the major cities.

Obviously, this could be rectified, as has happened quite a bit in Greece with EU money, but if we're not letting them into the union, then that's that, really.

I really fail to see the merits of handing out EU money, money which, I mioght add, is taken from my taxes, to backward countries. However, I cannot argue with your economic point; I do, all the same, take issue with the "irrelevance" of history. If the historical background of Turkey is of little merit to the discussion in itself, the social and cultural dichotomy it creates between a Europe united, to an extent, in a Christian heritage, and a militantly Islamic state, precludes any possibility of entry.

Point of Order No. 1754: Calling people fuckwits doesn't make people any more likely to see your point of view.

I am aware of that. I simply get vexed beyond belief at the seemingly unending tranche of American posters with precious little knowledge of European affair, posturing as "liberal" and "sophisticated" because the Bible group mummy makes them attend offends their adolescent rebellious tendencies.

I really fail to see the merits of handing out EU money, money which, I mioght add, is taken from my taxes, to backward countries. However, I cannot argue with your economic point; I do, all the same, take issue with the "irrelevance" of history. If the historical background of Turkey is of little merit to the discussion in itself, the social and cultural dichotomy it creates between a Europe united, to an extent, in a Christian heritage, and a militantly Islamic state, precludes any possibility of entry.
Why so? The EU isn't a cultural entity, and Turkey isn't a militantly Islamic state, and hasn't been since its founding.

As if it mattered. EU is only a small fish that is not able to make any important decisions and it has enough its own problems. Turkey is basically ally of USA and with half of politicians of EU trying to strengthen their indenpedence from USA and another doing the opposite and with question of Kurds (but really Kosovo, Basque, Northern Ireland, Latvia) it is not very probable for Turkey to join powerless EU.

I am aware of that. I simply get vexed beyond belief at the seemingly unending tranche of American posters with precious little knowledge of European affair, posturing as "liberal" and "sophisticated" because the Bible group mummy makes them attend offends their adolescent rebellious tendencies.
Well, we're quite happy to discuss American affairs. I can't see any reason someone outside Europe can't understand European affairs. It's not as if there's exactly a shortage of information about the EU avaliable.

As if it mattered. EU is only a small fish that is not able to make any important decisions and it has enough its own problems. Turkey is basically ally of USA and with half of politicians of EU trying to strengthen their indenpedence from USA and another doing the opposite and with question of Kurds (but really Kosovo, Basque, Northern Ireland, Latvia) it is not very probable for Turkey to join powerless EU.

Cue 10 posts explaining that the EU does have lots of power.
Can you expand on what you mean by Turkey being an ally of the USA, and why?
Question of the Kurds? Do you mean the hatred Turkey has towards Kurds, can you explain this further?
Your main point seems to be the EU can't make any important decisions, so which important decisions are these?
You raise some interesting issues, but i would like to see a source or two to prove your points.

Give it another few years, and make sure they are well aware what the EU is, and what criteria need to be met before being allowed to join up. Turkey has made enormous progress already with the ultimate goal of joining the EU, so I think that the day they do manage to meet the qualifications, they should of course be allowed to become a full member.
Well, we let them enter outher pan-European organisations. I don't see why the EU should be any different. People whined when the Baltic states, people whined when Poland joined and the same people whined when Bulgaria and Romania joined. And each time, the spectacular collapse of Western Europe didn't happen.

I really fail to see the merits of handing out EU money, money which, I mioght add, is taken from my taxes, to backward countries. However, I cannot argue with your economic point; I do, all the same, take issue with the "irrelevance" of history. If the historical background of Turkey is of little merit to the discussion in itself, the social and cultural dichotomy it creates between a Europe united, to an extent, in a Christian heritage, and a militantly Islamic state, precludes any possibility of entry.

More economically backwards then say, mmm, Italy,... or the very least Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia combined?

Militant Islamic state? I thought that Kemal Pasha got rid of that. Or maybe you're just being paranoid.

On the the geographic debate,... why's Cyprus also in the EU then?

Well, should it? The Turkish minister has recently warned the EU (once again) to beware of becoming a christian club. I see no reason why Turkey shouldn't be part of the EU, except that they're not a complete democracy yet. Then again, I'm not European. Your thoughts?

Not at the moment, no. They've got too many human rights issues to sort out, and as long as they keep their attitude towards Cyprus they'd be a critically destabilising factor in the EU.

Give it another few years, and make sure they are well aware what the EU is, and what criteria need to be met before being allowed to join up. Turkey has made enormous progress already with the ultimate goal of joining the EU, so I think that the day they do manage to meet the qualifications, they should of course be allowed to become a full member.

As if it mattered. EU is only a small fish that is not able to make any important decisions and it has enough its own problems. Turkey is basically ally of USA and with half of politicians of EU trying to strengthen their indenpedence from USA and another doing the opposite and with question of Kurds (but really Kosovo, Basque, Northern Ireland, Latvia) it is not very probable for Turkey to join powerless EU.

Well, they're very keen on joining, and have been for years. If they weren't, the question itself would be moot, wouldn't it?

Why so? The EU isn't a cultural entity, and Turkey isn't a militantly Islamic state, and hasn't been since its founding.

The EU, however, should be a cultural entity. There is precious little purpose to it otherwise, since it renders it much like the prevailing, and wholly wrong, interpretation of the nation state; an economic and administrative, rather than cultural, organism. However, perhaps this should stand as part of the valediction of the EU; it exemplifies all that is vacuouc, soulless and deluded in modernity.

Where Turkey is concerned, the state founded at Versailles may not have been militantly Islamic; this idiosyncrasy owes more, however, to the insistence of the victorious powers than any inclination upon the part of the Turks, who remained little more than the heartlands of the Ottoman empire, which, to my knowledge, was an expansionist, militantly Islamic state.

The EU, however, should be a cultural entity. There is precious little purpose to it otherwise, since it renders it much like the prevailing, and wholly wrong, interpretation of the nation state; an economic and administrative, rather than cultural, organism. However, perhaps this should stand as part of the valediction of the EU; it exemplifies all that is vacuouc, soulless and deluded in modernity.

Where Turkey is concerned, the state founded at Versailles may not have been militantly Islamic; this idiosyncrasy owes more, however, to the insistence of the victorious powers than any inclination upon the part of the Turks, who remained little more than the heartlands of the Ottoman empire, which, to my knowledge, was an expansionist, militantly Islamic state.

A cultural entity? I seriously doubt it. I've lived in several EU countries, and I've spent some time in Turkey. Turkey isn't any more different from, say, Greece or Italy, than Germany is from Poland or Norway.
I don't think the EU could currently be a cultural entity, even if it wanted to (which it doesn't, really). It might grow into one, but that will take a few generations, and that process might as well include Turkey.

Cue 10 posts explaining that the EU does have lots of power.
Can you expand on what you mean by Turkey being an ally of the USA, and why?
Question of the Kurds? Do you mean the hatred Turkey has towards Kurds, can you explain this further?
Your main point seems to be the EU can't make any important decisions, so which important decisions are these?
You raise some interesting issues, but i would like to see a source or two to prove your points.

I think that there are some bases of USA in Turkey and agreement of them against Kurds.Turkey does not present antagonstic foreign policy against USA and they have economical connections. Turkey acts as spreader of influence (of "West" not just USA) in Near East and keeping other Arabic countries in line.

I mean that in EU are people like "Oh indepedence to Kosovo, more rights to Basque people or someone should stop hatred in Nothern Ireland" but they are not concerned with justified (some, not all) needs of Kurds, but you know, teoretically should EU help them all, so there is some inconsistency in politics of EU (officially proclaimed) and Turkey about Kurds.

Important decisions:
For example their constitution or their market policy or question of money from member countries to EU budget or metric system.

On the the geographic debate,... why's Cyprus also in the EU then?

Because it's not Turkey, and you don't have to search desperately for any and every reason to keep them out of the union. :)

I think that there are some bases of USA in Turkey and agreement of them against Kurds.Turkey does not present antagonstic foreign policy against USA and they have economical connections. Turkey acts as spreader of influence (of "West" not just USA) in Near East and keeping other Arabic countries in line.

I mean that in EU are people like "Oh indepedence to Kosovo, more rights to Basque people or someone should stop hatred in Nothern Ireland" but they are not concerned with justified (some, not all) needs of Kurds, but you know, teoretically should EU help them all, so there is some inconsistency in politics of EU (officially proclaimed) and Turkey about Kurds.

Important decisions:
For example their constitution or their market policy or question of money from member countries to EU budget or metric system.

There are US bases all over Europe as well. And I'm not sure what you mean by "presenting antagonstic foreign policy against USA". Can you provide an example of any country in the EU that would have such policies?
And they all have intimate economic links with the US, most far more so than Turkey.

And the EU is concerned about the problems of the Kurds, not least so since last time the Kurds got uneasy, they took the problems straight to the heart of the EU.

There are US bases all over Europe as well. And I'm not sure what you mean by "presenting antagonstic foreign policy against USA". Can you provide an example of any country in the EU that would have such policies?
And they all have intimate economic links with the US, most far more so than Turkey.

And the EU is concerned about the problems of the Kurds, not least so since last time the Kurds got uneasy, they took the problems straight to the heart of the EU.

I cannot (just MAYBE (not exactly antagonistic but not exactly like policy of UK) neutrals like Sweden). That means that they are allies of USA, right? So Turkey is one of allies too as I said.

As if that had any meaning as I already said that EU is powerless.

I really fail to see the merits of handing out EU money, money which, I mioght add, is taken from my taxes
You're a student, you don't pay taxes...
to backward countries.
I wouldn't be so opposed to it had they done it properly - i.e. let in a couple of these countries every couple of years, so that the money that's spent on development could be focussed and all of that. Dealing with 12-odd piss poor countries is a nightmare.
I do, all the same, take issue with the "irrelevance" of history. If the historical background of Turkey is of little merit to the discussion in itself, the social and cultural dichotomy it creates between a Europe united, to an extent, in a Christian heritage, and a militantly Islamic state, precludes any possibility of entry.
It's not a militantly Islamic state, that's the point of the military in their state.

Also, the EU's motto is "United in Diversity". How is the inclusion of Turkey into the EU not meeting that objective?

...two crucial factors that ought to preclude Turkey's entry into the EU; firstly, it is not in the interests of the EU.

Yes it is.


See? It's fun to just throw out unfounded statements :)

I cannot (just MAYBE (not exactly antagonistic but not exactly like policy of UK) neutrals like Sweden). That means that they are allies of USA, right? So Turkey is one of allies too as I said.

As if that had any meaning as I already said that EU is powerless.

I think you contradict yourself there... Sweden is, as you said, neutral. How would it be antagonistic towards the US in any way?

Powerless in what respect?
See, I live in Ireland these days. 15 years ago, Ireland was one of the very poorest country in Europe, and in the EU. Today, it's one of the fastest growing economies and a strong international player when it comes to information technologies and services. I think calling a union that managed to build up a troubled country to such an extend can hardly be called powerless, do you?

I think you contradict yourself there... Sweden is, as you said, neutral. How would it be antagonistic towards the US in any way?

Powerless in what respect?
See, I live in Ireland these days. 15 years ago, Ireland was one of the very poorest country in Europe, and in the EU. Today, it's one of the fastest growing economies and a strong international player when it comes to information technologies and services. I think calling a union that managed to build up a troubled country to such an extend can hardly be called powerless, do you?

That is why I said MAYBE. But really neutrality in some context is in opposition to warmongering.

Ah,yes. Irish tiger. But Portugal was not that lucky and is in EU. Slovakia needs 20+ years to reach your economical level even in EU (not talking about Romania and Bulgaria) and being praised as "economical tiger of Middle Europe". I do not think that EU with all its regulations and byrocracy is such a stimulant for economical growth. Nowadays many EU countries are fighting with unemployment and such. But I agree that being in EU helped your country. But only as being more attractive for investors and such. If my own country would profit from being in EU, I would agree that EU is NOT economically powerless.

Also Turkey is in NATO and USA likes to say that all members of NATO are its allies.

Modern turkey, as founded by Atatürk is a democracy, has a good seperation between church/mosque and state (It would mobilise the army when extremists would come into power)
It's economy is developping well... so, on this principles it would be justified to let turkey (also already a NATO country) enter the Union.

HOWEVER, there is still the problem of Cyprus.
Turkey should recognise them as an independant country before joining, for it would indeed give some awkward situations when it comes to voting on resolutions.:rolleyes:

And the Armenian genoside... I recognise that it is a problem, but I don't know much about that situation, could someone please imform me?

If this is solved then I don't see a problem to welcome Turkey witch open arms (and load the planes with tourists:p

And the Armenian genoside... I recognise that it is a problem, but I don't know much about that situation, could someone please imform me?
OK.

Basically, in World War 1 the Turkish basically kicked all of the Armenians out of the country, took their houses etc.

What happened was that it basically created a really large version of the Japanese Death Marches, and people were dying all along the way from hunger, thirst and minor illnesses. That and there were basically concentration camps all over the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) which held hundreds of thousands of Armenians.

Altogether, about 600,000 Armenians died, according to most sources, although the Turkish claim 300,000 and the Armenian state claims 1,500,000.

That is why I said MAYBE. But really neutrality in some context is in opposition to warmongering.

Ah,yes. Irish tiger. But Portugal was not that lucky and is in EU. Slovakia needs 20+ years to reach your economical level even in EU (not talking about Romania and Bulgaria) and being praised as "economical tiger of Middle Europe". I do not think that EU with all its regulations and byrocracy is such a stimulant for economical growth. Nowadays many EU countries are fighting with unemployment and such. But I agree that being in EU helped your country. But only as being more attractive for investors and such. If my own country would profit from being in EU, I would agree that EU is NOT economically powerless.

Even Protugal has grown economically since it joined the EU.
And Ireland is not "my country", I was born in Germany. I've come to this country as there is work here, contrary to Germany at the moment.
Yes, some country are stuggling with unemployment, but none at the level of Ireland in the 1980s, when it peaked at 35%.

If you want to compare the EU regarding economic power, you'll find it as an entity well in the top ten of overall around 200 countries worldwide.
I daresay calling it "powerless" makes you look rather uninformed and ignorant.

Also Turkey is in NATO and USA likes to say that all members of NATO are its allies.

Well, NATO also comrpises Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and several other EU member nations.

Anbia, I saw your last post. Correct, there is no min. wage in China. I simply thought you would realize that I was talking about the jobs we DO offer in America. You said that in America we didn't pay enough to live on... when minimum wage laws are there for that reason. I was simply saying that the people we hire in America get paid above minimum wage (for the most part.) It is not unlivable. That is the point of minimum wage in America... And please note. I am not a financeer, this is not my bag of chips. I am not an expert in this area. I am an attorney. I don't get paid to watch finances. I get paid to defend the company against suits and write wavers and disclaimers. However, I know that if Americans would be willing to work for FAIR wages and have GOOD production, we would move to America again. Do not solely blame it on the companies. It would be like saying "Hey, what if I WANT to work less and get paid more? You shouldn't actually try to get somebody that would work for fair wages and get good output, it might ruin our economy!" I mean REALLY. You say we shouldn't expect workers to take crap from us? We shouldn't take crap from workers! They don't have unions in China. And as for benifits I am living proof that IBM gives benifits. I get health, chiropractic, and dental. IBM is no crappy company. There are worse ones. In fact we have a program that, if you install a bit of software on your computer, when your computer goes into sleep mode we use its power to help find cures for cancer. A strive for good, no?

However, I know that if Americans would be willing to work for FAIR wages and have GOOD production, we would move to America again.

Would you be willing to work for $8 an hour?

[QUOTE=Cabra West;13403010]Even Protugal has grown economically since it joined the EU.
And Ireland is not "my country", I was born in Germany. I've come to this country as there is work here, contrary to Germany at the moment.
Yes, some country are stuggling with unemployment, but none at the level of Ireland in the 1980s, when it peaked at 35%.

If you want to compare the EU regarding economic power, you'll find it as an entity well in the top ten of overall around 200 countries worldwide.
I daresay calling it "powerless" makes you look rather uninformed and ignorant.[/QUOTE

Sorry, fellow Eucitizen. But you have some bonds to Ireland?:D

Countries of EU are in top ten - OK. They reached it on their own and they are historically that powerful and colonial resources etc. not because they are in EU (from 1993). But economy in Eurozone itself rather stagnates, I think.

Sorry, fellow Eucitizen. But you have some bonds to Ireland?:D

Countries of EU are in top ten - OK. They reached it on their own and they are historically that powerful and colonial resources etc. not because they are in EU (from 1993). But economy in Eurozone itself rather stagnates, I think.Um... Germany was hardly a colonial power of any merit, certainly not after WWI, and definitely not after WWII. Part of the Wirtschaftswunder can be attributed to the first steps towards the EU, such as the European Community for Coal and Steel.

If I were a blue collar and that was what I did, I sure as hell would watch machines put computers together for 8$ an hour.

Colonial resources not for ALL countries. That should be clear to anyone. And I agree that economical organisations BEFORE EU helped countries. But now, in EU era (1993 onward) economics of "old" EU countries stagnate, because (partly of EU byrocracy, regulations. inability to make important decisions and so on).

Sorry, fellow Eucitizen. But you have some bonds to Ireland?:D

Countries of EU are in top ten - OK. They reached it on their own and they are historically that powerful and colonial resources etc. not because they are in EU (from 1993). But economy in Eurozone itself rather stagnates, I think.

I live and work in Ireland now. That's the only bond I've got, really. That and some friends I've made since moving here.
Btw, I couldn't have moved here this easily and the Celtic tiger couldn't have happened the way it did if the oh-so-terrible buerocracy that allows EU citizens to live and work anywhere within the EU without any permits and hassle.
I wouldn't say it stagnates. It does stagnate or slow down in the traditionally strong countries, but the new countries are fast developing. Ireland is one example, but even Slovakia would be a good example now.

I live and work in Ireland now. That's the only bond I've got, really. That and some friends I've made since moving here.
Btw, I couldn't have moved here this easily and the Celtic tiger couldn't have happened the way it did if the oh-so-terrible buerocracy that allows EU citizens to live and work anywhere within the EU without any permits and hassle.
I wouldn't say it stagnates. It does stagnate or slow down in the traditionally strong countries, but the new countries are fast developing. Ireland is one example, but even Slovakia would be a good example now.

That is because they are not that tied down with EU and because they hit a bottom during their transformation of ec. systems so they had to go up. You will see. Euro will strangle economy of Slovakia and wil rise prizes. Because of bureaucracy, Slovakia will not gain money from funds and meaningless regulations will not help economy either.

The EU, however, should be a cultural entity. There is precious little purpose to it otherwise, since it renders it much like the prevailing, and wholly wrong, interpretation of the nation state; an economic and administrative, rather than cultural, organism. However, perhaps this should stand as part of the valediction of the EU; it exemplifies all that is vacuouc, soulless and deluded in modernity.
You know, reality cares more about what the EU and 'modernity' is rather than what you think it should be. When the EU is a cultural enity, you might have a point.

Where Turkey is concerned, the state founded at Versailles may not have been militantly Islamic; this idiosyncrasy owes more, however, to the insistence of the victorious powers than any inclination upon the part of the Turks, who remained little more than the heartlands of the Ottoman empire, which, to my knowledge, was an expansionist, militantly Islamic state.
Except I don't recall the Ottoman Empire existing any more, in the same way France isn't a militant Christian state because it used to persecute Protestants. Regardless of what happened at the end of WW1, the modern Turkish state is secular and has been for nearly a century.

If I were a blue collar and that was what I did, I sure as hell would watch machines put computers together for 8$ an hour.

But you don't earn $8 an hour, do you?

That is because they are not that tied down with EU and because they hit a bottom during their transformation of ec. systems so they had to go up. You will see. Euro will strangle economy of Slovakia and wil rise prizes. Because of bureaucracy, Slovakia will not gain money from funds and meaningless regulations will not help economy either.Portugal and Ireland are both in the Eurozone. Ireland has been booming, and it's had the Euro for years, if you don't count the fact that its been around de facto for more than a decade.

That is because they are not that tied down with EU and because they hit a bottom during their transformation of ec. systems so they had to go up. You will see. Euro will strangle economy of Slovakia and wil rise prizes. Because of bureaucracy, Slovakia will not gain money from funds and meaningless regulations will not help economy either.

The Euro allowed Slovakia to grown, actually.
Especially in my line of work, many of the great IT companies have opened branches there as the wages are lower than in most of the rest of Europe, the infrastrucuture is acceptable and thanks to the EU expanding, and there is the required workforce, again, thanks to the EU, mostly young well-educated graduates working aborad for a while. Same as what Ireland is profiting from at the moment.

-snip-
Wait.... you're in Cork now?

Portugal and Ireland are both in the Eurozone. Ireland has been booming, and it's had the Euro for years, if you don't count the fact that its been around de facto for more than a decade.

Portugal is not booming that much. And other countries who had Euro from start are having ec. problems now (Germany, France, Italy etc.) and EU does not know how to oppose it and is trying to give the challenge of facing the problems to countries.

If I were a blue collar and that was what I did, I sure as hell would watch machines put computers together for 8$ an hour.

But what if you earned $8 an hour? You are an executive attorney, as you said earlier in the thread, right? You don't actually produce anything, you just sit on your ass all day and think of ways to beat people out of more money. I think you could be paid $8 dollars an hour and subsidize a few of the workers with the money we save.

The Euro allowed Slovakia to grown, actually.
Especially in my line of work, many of the great IT companies have opened branches there as the wages are lower than in most of the rest of Europe, the infrastrucuture is acceptable and thanks to the EU expanding, and there is the required workforce, again, thanks to the EU, mostly young well-educated graduates working aborad for a while. Same as what Ireland is profiting from at the moment.

Slovakia does NOT have Euro yet. Brain drain because of EU? We build infrastructure with no help from EU. Wages are lower? Result of communism, not of EU. Slovakia does not profit from being in EU in any way. ( I do NOT say we will not in the future) We have responsibilities, we pay, we send soldiers abroad.

Portugal is not booming that much. And other countries who had Euro from start are having ec. problems now (Germany, France, Italy etc.) and EU does not know how to oppose it and is trying to give the challenge of facing the problems to countries.I'm pretty sure Germany's financial troubles have more to do with the reunification process, the crash in 2001, and the weak dollar.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13402537']-snip-
I'm not talking about whether or not you like the points I made, but what you actually think the EU is meant to be doing.

Looking at how the increase in democracy in Turkey has brought an islamist party to power, that may not be such a good thing after all.
They are called an Islamist Party, but that doesn't mean they're the Muslim Brotherhood or a bunch of frothing at the mouth Wahhabists.

You should know perfectly well how fiercely Turkey defends its secular ideals, because there is at least one figure more important there than any religion, and that's Kemal Atatürk.

I can't see Turkey going to war at any point in the forseeable future (With the exception of northern Iraq, which seems to be a relatively small thing). At least not a war that Britain needs to get involved with.
And in 1951 it didn't look particularly likely that France and Germany would somehow find the time and money to go to war with each other. Nonetheless the idea of giving up sovereignty in exchange for a guarantee that the two countries wouldn't have the coal and steel industries needed to fight each other was a major motivation for the first treaty of what later became the EU. So as far as a purpose for the EU is concerned, it's a valid thing to be thinking about.

We build infrastructure with no help from EU.
Wanna bet that you don't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_budget#State_by_state_analysis

Contribution to EU Budget: 393,148,777 Euros
Receipts from EU Budget: 696,200,000 Euros

http://www.finance.gov.sk/en/Default.aspx?CatID=3

According to a few documents on this website, you'll see that EU money is involved in many major programs, including transport infrastructure (as well as "health infrastructure" and "social infrastructure").

You'll be pleased to know that they intend to lift the ban on women wearing head scarves at universities, thus increasing religious freedom. I can imagine that you're thrilled by that news :)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,530994,00.html

I repeat: when Turkey officially, by law, irrevocably confers on the Orthodox Church, all other Christian denominations, and all other non-Islamic religions complete equality with Islam in every way, then they may begin to be worthy of EU membership. No such development appears in imagination, let alone in sight. I'll stand on my head if it ever does happen.

I repeat: when Turkey officially, by law, irrevocably confers on the Orthodox Church, all other Christian denominations, and all other non-Islamic religions complete equality with Islam in every way, then they may begin to be worthy of EU membership. No such development appears in imagination, let alone in sight. I'll stand on my head if it ever does happen.

Turkey's government is secular.

Why should it? Turkey is not European and public opinion in Europe is against Turkish membership.

Turkey's government is secular.

The "secular" Turkish government has a long history of stealing the property of the Orthodox Church and other Christian churches:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HelsinkiGreece.shtml

The "secular" Turkish government seems determined to finally wipe out any Christian presence within their territory:

http://www.aina.org/news/20080111135036.htm

My point stands.

Isn't Turkey the "Sick man of Europe"?

The Ottoman Empire was.

Quite.
Due to that no longer relevant and historical fact, Turkey should not be allowed into the EU.

The "secular" Turkish government has a long history of stealing the property of the Orthodox Church and other Christian churches:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HelsinkiGreece.shtml

The "secular" Turkish government seems determined to finally wipe out any Christian presence within their territory:

http://www.aina.org/news/20080111135036.htm

My point stands.

It does the same with other religions.

It does the same with other religions.

Make that other minority religions, i.e., anything except Sunnism.

Isn't Turkey the "Sick man of Europe"?

The Ottoman Empire was.

Quite.
Due to that no longer relevant and historical fact, Turkey should not be allowed into the EU.

WTF?

Just because a 250 year old phrase doesn't apply to the state anymore, it's not eligible to join a union?

WTF?

Just because a 250 year old phrase doesn't apply to the state anymore, it's not eligible to join a union?

Wow. You actually made me laugh. Thanks. :D

Sorry about the misdirection, I was being sarcastic with that statement.

Make that other minority religions, i.e., anything except Sunnism.

No, the government is strict on all religion.

isn't turkey an asian country?

Not at all. Historically, Turkey hasn't been European, and still isn't. Just because a small part of Turkey is on the European continent doesn't make it European. For one, the people aren't European. They're Turks.

Wow. You actually made me laugh. Thanks. :D

Sorry about the misdirection, I was being sarcastic with that statement.

Well, that's good. I'm happy to know that I made someone laugh.

isn't turkey an asian country?

Is it unthinkable that a country can span two continents?

A rather populous portion of Turkey rests in Europe.

Not at all. Historically, Turkey hasn't been European, and still isn't. Just because a small part of Turkey is on the European continent doesn't make it European. For one, the people aren't European. They're Turks.

Read the damn thread! This has been refuted enough already.

Is it unthinkable that a country can span two continents?

A rather populous portion of Turkey rests in Europe.

Yes it can, but I think, contrary to what you've said, the majority of Turkey's cultural connections lie in the Middle East. The only truly secular, democratic, western part of the country is the Army, whose clamp on the country questions its democratic nature.

Yes it can, but I think, contrary to what you've said, the majority of Turkey's cultural connections lie in the Middle East. The only truly secular, democratic, western part of the country is the Army, whose clamp on the country questions its democratic nature.

Middle Eastern culture is, for the most part, Arabic culture.

And Turks are not Arabs.

Middle Eastern culture is, for the most part, Arabic culture.

And Turks are not Arabs.

Are the Iranians not Middle Eastern either? Much of the foundation of Middle Eastern culture comes from Arabs, but the Turks, Iranians, and Kurds are very much Middle Eastern. Their strong roots in Islam, not simply religiously, but socially, politically, and legally as well. Turkish also has, I've been told, quite a number of borrowed Arabic words, quite like french borrowed words in English. Any Western tendency in the country is pretty much forced on them by the military. They certainly have more connections with the west then the rest of the Middle East, but they're still decidedly Middle Eastern.

The EU, however, should be a cultural entity.

Your opinion is noted.

Now, back to reality, the EU *is not* a "cultural entity" and as such "cultural differences" have no bearing on EU membership.

Are the Iranians not Middle Eastern either? Much of the foundation of Middle Eastern culture comes from Arabs, but the Turks, Iranians, and Kurds are very much Middle Eastern. Their strong roots in Islam, not simply religiously, but socially, politically, and legally as well. Turkish also has, I've been told, quite a number of borrowed Arabic words, quite like french borrowed words in English. Any Western tendency in the country is pretty much forced on them by the military. They certainly have more connections with the west then the rest of the Middle East, but they're still decidedly Middle Eastern.

Persian culture is also very different from Arabic culture. And Kurds are really just Arabs.

Spanish & English have tons of words taken from Arabic, yet they are not considered to have Middle Eastern cultures.

Islam is not restricted to the Middle East, nor does a nation that is heavily influenced by Islam become Middle Eastern (see Indonesia). Islam is an international religion, interpreted differently across the world. Simply because Islam has a great impact on a region does not mean that it has more in common with other Muslim nations than with Europe.

Turkish culture has influence European culture, and vice-versa. For instance, Sufism is popular there, and Sufis often use drugs and alcohol, which are looked down upon by many Muslims. In this aspect, Turkey is more similar to Europe.

Tell me, what is your homogenized European culture like?

At the current time, no I don't think it should.
However once it can pass all the tests and such, than yes, I think it should be able to become a aprt of the EU.

Another thing, there is no European continent.
Europe is a region of the contintnent of Eurasia, much like central America is a region of North America.

Persian culture is also very different from Arabic culture. And Kurds are really just Arabs.

Spanish & English have tons of words taken from Arabic, yet they are not considered to have Middle Eastern cultures.

Islam is not restricted to the Middle East, nor does a nation that is heavily influenced by Islam become Middle Eastern (see Indonesia). Islam is an international religion, interpreted differently across the world. Simply because Islam has a great impact on a region does not mean that it has more in common with other Muslim nations than with Europe.

Turkish culture has influence European culture, and vice-versa. For instance, Sufism is popular there, and Sufis often use drugs and alcohol, which are looked down upon by many Muslims. In this aspect, Turkey is more similar to Europe.

Tell me, what is your homogenized European culture like?

Persian culture has had a rather profound impact on Arabic culture, and given the Kurds refusal to assimilate, I'd say they aren't really Arabs. That the Middle East is exclusively Arabic is a rather ethnocentric take on it all (I assume you're Arab). The foundations of Turkish culture have been profoundly impacted by the Arabs, far more than anything Europe has provided. Shared cultural traits between Turkey and Europe is certain, given the proximity, but it is decidedly Middle Eastern.

Homogenized European Culture? I'd say it would be European, strongly liberal democratic, secular, nation state model, with a shared Christian and historical heritage, and a strong emphasis on scientific empiricism. Whether that should be the basis of the European Union is the point of this thread.

Persian culture has had a rather profound impact on Arabic culture, and given the Kurds refusal to assimilate, I'd say they aren't really Arabs. That the Middle East is exclusively Arabic is a rather ethnocentric take on it all (I assume you're Arab). The foundations of Turkish culture have been profoundly impacted by the Arabs, far more than anything Europe has provided. Shared cultural traits between Turkey and Europe is certain, given the proximity, but it is decidedly Middle Eastern.

Homogenized European Culture? I'd say it would be European, strongly liberal democratic, secular, nation state model, with a shared Christian and historical heritage, and a strong emphasis on scientific empiricism. Whether that should be the basis of the European Union is the point of this thread.

I will grant that Persian culture and Arabic culture have effected each other mutually, on the other hand, Kurds are essentially a subgroup within Arabs. You'll need to prove that they are different. And no I'm not an Arab, I actually even said that Middle Eastern culture is "generally Arab" (or something to that extent) culture, simply because most Middle Easterners are Arabs.

What shared cultural traits are these? And what cultural traits do all European Union countries have that Turkey does not?

Turkey is all of those things, except Christian, and honestly, Europe isn't very Christian nowadays either.

I will grant that Persian culture and Arabic culture have effected each other mutually, on the other hand, Kurds are essentially a subgroup within Arabs. You'll need to prove that they are different. And no I'm not an Arab, I actually even said that Middle Eastern culture is "generally Arab" (or something to that extent) culture, simply because most Middle Easterners are Arabs.

What shared cultural traits are these? And what cultural traits do all European Union countries have that Turkey does not?

Turkey is all of those things, except Christian, and honestly, Europe isn't very Christian nowadays either.

Turkey may be all of those things, but that's because the Army forces it on a reluctant populace. Since the occupation, Iraq fits the list as a western country, but would you consider it western in the same sense you consider France Western?

Turkey may be all of those things, but that's because the Army forces it on a reluctant populace. Since the occupation, Iraq fits the list as a western country, but would you consider it western in the same sense you consider France Western?

The only reason you're saying that is because you could not come up with reasons as to how Turkish culture is different to some inherent culture shared by the member states of the EU.

I'm still waiting for my answer.

I always thought that the reason that Turkey hasn't been accepted into the EU was because of its war crimes against Greece and the current territorial disputes that plague relations between Turkey and Greece. I mean economically having Istanbul/Constantanople has always been advantageous for any country. For EU it would allow a unTaxable trade route into the black sea and the region around there that has always been a oil/gas rich region. Also having the ability to move troops into turkey gives a key and much needed resource for any future and present operations in the region. In addition the stability and a pro western country in the region would help us alot more. Of course it will bring a strain on the EU but it will help them too.

I always thought that the reason that Turkey hasn't been accepted into the EU was because of its war crimes against Greece and the current territorial disputes that plague relations between Turkey and Greece. I mean economically having Istanbul/Constantanople has always been advantageous for any country. For EU it would allow a unTaxable trade route into the black sea and the region around there that has always been a oil/gas rich region. Also having the ability to move troops into turkey gives a key and much needed resource for any future and present operations in the region. In addition the stability and a pro western country in the region would help us alot more. Of course it will bring a strain on the EU but it will help them too.

Greece has committed war crimes against Turks as well though.

The only real issue similar to what you discuss is the Armenian Genocide. Apparently, they are unwilling to accept it ever occurred, and if they did acknowledge, it would become a non-issue. Because let me remind you, Germany has done far worse, and more recently (but they recognize that it happened).

Yes they have both done bad towards eachother but Greece has always been seen by the british government as their little brother and a major tactical importance to maintain in the region. I was not using it as a reason why they shouldn't be installed I just pointed out that that was the reason I thought that they were not in the EU. I am for Turkey being brought in even though it is not part of Europe its has always been a major part of European History and will continue to be a major part. Our dependance on Fossil fuels makes the friendship with any country in the region even more important and Turkey has always been seen as a key to the region. They are ingrained with Western culture on some level and are the closest and most willing to compromise.

Yes they have both done bad towards eachother but Greece has always been seen by the british government as their little brother and a major tactical importance to maintain in the region. I was not using it as a reason why they shouldn't be installed I just pointed out that that was the reason I thought that they were not in the EU. I am for Turkey being brought in even though it is not part of Europe its has always been a major part of European History and will continue to be a major part. Our dependance on Fossil fuels makes the friendship with any country in the region even more important and Turkey has always been seen as a key to the region. They are ingrained with Western culture on some level and are the closest and most willing to compromise.

Even if that were true,

British government interests != European Union interests

Eh I dunno about that but still as we have seen in Iraq that British interest=American interest, atleast until recently. And American interest is in cheap oil and a stable middle east both of which can be obtained alot easier with a friendly and cooperative Turkey. It will not only ease the heat off of Israel for being the only Western Friendly Country but bring a Muslim country in to help us solve race relations between us and hopefully slowly bring relations with other Muslim countries toward a more pro western stand point. I also believe that more friendly relations with Malaysia would help Western countries with their problems with the cultural differences.

Wanna bet that you don't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_budget#State_by_state_analysis

Contribution to EU Budget: 393,148,777 Euros
Receipts from EU Budget: 696,200,000 Euros

http://www.finance.gov.sk/en/Default.aspx?CatID=3

According to a few documents on this website, you'll see that EU money is involved in many major programs, including transport infrastructure (as well as "health infrastructure" and "social infrastructure").

How that in any way beats my argument about Slovakia not profiting from being in EU NOW ? I SAID that it is possible to profit in the future. And these projects will end in far-away future and those 700 mil. are for specific projects that we are not able to make because of our own laziness, corruption, bureaucracy of EU, bad decision of priorites etc. So it is not real benefit, however contribution is real. And EU will not finance any project without our own money too (sometimes half)

my thought, is that while i oppose condeming any nation for past attrocities of previous governments rather then their current policies, isn't europe a specific geographic regeon? and isn't turkey in anOTHER geographic regeon, i mean even leaving aside its current policies, some of which are far from sterling and nearly as seamingly irrational to an outsider, as those currently of the u.s.?

i'm not saying turkey hasn't come a long way, but even if it was totally cool, and i don't think if it was 'christian' that would make it totally cool either, it still just isn't geographicly part of europe.

it may be the western most part of asia, immediately east of and adjacent to, europe, and i mean, once you get north of those big inland seas it really is physically one continent, europe and asia or eurasia, still, is japan part of the e.u.? is india? there's no reason there shouldn't be an a.u., i.e. asian union equivelant in every way with the european, including countries like turkey, india, and japan, maybe even iran, pakistan and p.r.c.china, et c. et al.

i think it would be good for europe to not be so thoroughly christothemic, and i certainly support good positive, even integrative relationships between it an nations east of the bosporus, but unless geography classess stop calling europe and asia seperate continents, which physically of course they really arn't, i don't see the sense or point of turkey joining a EUROPEAN union.

=^^=
.../\...

Eh I dunno about that but still as we have seen in Iraq that British interest=American interest, atleast until recently. And American interest is in cheap oil and a stable middle east both of which can be obtained alot easier with a friendly and cooperative Turkey.I'll go one step further and say that an uncooperative Turkey will seriously screw the US in Iraq. At the moment, American interest is being allowed to fly over Turkey into Iraq and use Incirlik as the primary logistical hub in the region.

Wait.... you're in Cork now?

Yup. County Cork, though, not Cork city.

Slovakia does NOT have Euro yet. Brain drain because of EU? We build infrastructure with no help from EU. Wages are lower? Result of communism, not of EU. Slovakia does not profit from being in EU in any way. ( I do NOT say we will not in the future) We have responsibilities, we pay, we send soldiers abroad.

My bad, I meant to say the EU. You know, being able to live and work wherever you want and all that?
The infrastructure is strongly supported by EU funds, all over the EU.
And I daresay that Slovakia is not yet one of the countries that put more funds into the EU than they receive in return. That's actually a select few...

And what soldiers??? :confused:

How that in any way beats my argument about Slovakia not profiting from being in EU NOW ? I SAID that it is possible to profit in the future. And these projects will end in far-away future and those 700 mil. are for specific projects that we are not able to make because of our own laziness, corruption, bureaucracy of EU, bad decision of priorites etc. So it is not real benefit, however contribution is real. And EU will not finance any project without our own money too (sometimes half)

Wait a sec... you're receiving twice of what you pay in, and you claim you're not profiting from that? Care to explain how?

I repeat: when Turkey officially, by law, irrevocably confers on the Orthodox Church, all other Christian denominations, and all other non-Islamic religions complete equality with Islam in every way, then they may begin to be worthy of EU membership. No such development appears in imagination, let alone in sight. I'll stand on my head if it ever does happen.

Well then, if that's your requirement, you'll be even happier to know that you may stand on your head! :)

Turkey does, officially, by law, irrevocably confer on the Orthodox Church, all other Christian denominations, and all other non-Islamic religions complete equality with Islam in every way.

The constitution and law provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respected this right in practice; however, the government imposed significant restrictions on Muslim and other religious groups.

The law establishes the country as a secular state and provides for freedom of belief, freedom of worship, and the private dissemination of religious ideas; however, other constitutional provisions regarding the integrity and existence of the secular state restrict these rights.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78844.htm

The practice and restrictions on freedom of religion in general leaves something to desire however, so I'm happy you didn't mention that. And also, by comparing it to Islam, you don't see a problem where the practice of the Islamic faith is also repressed, so you make it easy.

Have fun upside down! :D

Well, should it? The Turkish minister has recently warned the EU (once again) to beware of becoming a christian club. I see no reason why Turkey shouldn't be part of the EU, except that they're not a complete democracy yet. Then again, I'm not European. Your thoughts?

A bellyfeel and some thoughts.

Bellyfeel: Turkey isn't Europe. Ukraine, Russia, Armenia are Europe, Turkey isn't.

Thoughts:
1.Turkey should stop its invasion of part of the EU territory. Cyprus, I mean.
2.Turkey should comply with SoN resolution creating the State of Kurdistan and stop oppressing the Kurds (in Turkey it's a crime even to speak kurdish in public), be it in turkish territory or abroad.
3.Turkey should allow an international body to investigate its present and past links with separatist groups in Caucasus and Balkans.
4.Turkey should kick its military out of the politics.
5.Turkey should abolish some laws about opinion crimes (turkish writers have been tried and jailed because they wrote that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians in WW1).
6.Turkey should improve the human rights standards in its prisons.

Once these conditions are met, I think I could accept the idea of Turkey joining the EU. Until then, I think that the best Turkey can get from the EU is the EuroMed free trade and cooperation area.

What is interesting in this debate in general, is that the US is trying to push the EU into annexing Turkey. I have a better idea: why doesn't Turkey become the 51st state of the USA? That way the US can influence politics in the region, place military bases there to play Wargames and take advantage of all those "advantages" they claim the EU would get from annexing Turkey. And while they're at it, the can add Israel as well and solve the palestine issue once and for all.

That way us Europeans can focus on integrating the tens of millions of Turks that are already living in EU countries! Cause thats already quite a job.

What is interesting in this debate in general, is that the US is trying to push the EU into annexing Turkey. I have a better idea: why doesn't Turkey become the 51st state of the USA? That way the US can influence politics in the region, place military bases there to play Wargames and take advantage of all those "advantages" they claim the EU would get from annexing Turkey. And while they're at it, the can add Israel as well and solve the palestine issue once and for all.

That way us Europeans can focus on integrating the tens of millions of Turks that are already living in EU countries! Cause thats already quite a job.How a European could speak of the EU annexing anything is beyond me...

What is interesting in this debate in general, is that the US is trying to push the EU into annexing Turkey. I have a better idea: why doesn't Turkey become the 51st state of the USA? That way the US can influence politics in the region, place military bases there to play Wargames and take advantage of all those "advantages" they claim the EU would get from annexing Turkey. And while they're at it, the can add Israel as well and solve the palestine issue once and for all.

That way us Europeans can focus on integrating the tens of millions of Turks that are already living in EU countries! Cause thats already quite a job.

Well, I think mostly because Turkey has applied for EU membership decades ago, and never applied for membership in the USA...

Well then, if that's your requirement, you'll be even happier to know that you may stand on your head! :)

Turkey does, officially, by law, irrevocably confer on the Orthodox Church, all other Christian denominations, and all other non-Islamic religions complete equality with Islam in every way.


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78844.htm

The practice and restrictions on freedom of religion in general leaves something to desire however, so I'm happy you didn't mention that. And also, by comparing it to Islam, you don't see a problem where the practice of the Islamic faith is also repressed, so you make it easy.

Have fun upside down! :D

Laws are meaningless if not enforced equally:

"Yet Turkish police charged 293 people with "missionary activity" from 1998 to 2001, a state minister told parliament recently. People who place calls to Christian groups operating inside Turkey are warned against uttering the word "missionary" on an open phone line."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801278.html

The fact remains: Turks now inhabiting EU countries are able to acquire property for their temples and engage in "missionary activity." Christians do not have those freedoms in Turkey.

YES!!! IT SHOULD BE!!! I have been to Turkey as a survey for the UK gov on HIV and when I talked to people there about the EU they where so eager to join and said they would do ANYTHING!!! France has a problem with Muslims as far as I can tell though so might not happen.

YES!!! IT SHOULD BE!!! I have been to Turkey as a survey for the UK gov on HIV and when I talked to people there about the EU they where so eager to join and said they would do ANYTHING!!! France has a problem with Muslims as far as I can tell though so might not happen.
Sarkozy and Cyprus are the main problems they face at the moment, yeah. And their disgraceful treatment of women.

How a European could speak of the EU annexing anything is beyond me...
Remember, in the UK the EU is considered to be something like the Galacic Empire, with Barroso as some sort of Emperor Palpatine.

Here's the text of a letter, about the prospect of Turkey being admitted into the EU, that I saw printed in one British paper_

I'm sure that a place could be found for them. Ours.

;)

Forgive me if this was asked before, but if Turkey is not in Europe; geographically falling to the east of Istanbul, how come Cyprus can be?

Laws are meaningless if not enforced equally:

"Yet Turkish police charged 293 people with "missionary activity" from 1998 to 2001, a state minister told parliament recently. People who place calls to Christian groups operating inside Turkey are warned against uttering the word "missionary" on an open phone line."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801278.html

So... Who says it's not enforced equally?

The fact remains: Turks now inhabiting EU countries are able to acquire property for their temples and engage in "missionary activity." Christians do not have those freedoms in Turkey.

I see the blood has rushed too your head. Don't stay upside down too long, it can be unhealthy. :)

Oh, and you're suddenly comparing apples and oranges. Different countries, different legislations...

Sarkozy and Cyprus are the main problems they face at the moment, yeah. And their disgraceful treatment of women.
Merkel is also strongly against Turkey, not just Sarkozy.

There are many other problems too, but they've already been listed here.