NationStates Jolt Archive

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_



;)

They're right. ;) GB should leave and an Anglo-Economic-Alliance should be formed between America, Canada, Australia, GB and New Zealand. (note, not political, but economic).

They're right. ;) GB should leave and an Anglo-Economic-Alliance should be formed between America, Canada, Australia, GB and New Zealand. (note, not political, but economic).
Why would that suit the UK more than the current set-up?

Remember, in the UK the EU is considered to be something like the Galacic Empire, with Barroso as some sort of Emperor Palpatine.

The Galactic Empire probably intervened less than the EU does, and cost those it ruled less as well.

It also got things done, rather than discuss them ad infinatum in Brussels.

I bet that thrills the Turks in Germany.

They're more than entitled to return to Turkey then, aren't they?

Hurrah for Sarkozy!!:)

Why would that suit the UK more than the current set-up?

I sincerely doubt it... they would probably get along with New Zealnd and Canada, but with the USA... I don't see that happening.

Merkel is also strongly against Turkey, not just Sarkozy.


I bet that thrills the Turks in Germany.

The Galactic Empire probably intervened less than the EU does, and cost those it ruled less as well.
Yeah, a (albeit fictional) racist, genocidal, authoritarian dictatorship with massive military power and a hatred of individuality and non-conformity would intervene less than a union with a mind towards economic and legal coherence...

I rarely use this, but: :rolleyes:

I sincerely doubt it... they would probably get along with New Zealnd and Canada, but with the USA... I don't see that happening.
Not in any way.

One suspects (perhaps incorrectly) that TAi thinks of those countries as having similar 'peoples'...

They're more than entitled to return to Turkey then, aren't they?

Hurrah for Sarkozy!!:)

Yeah, cause the German economy could cope with losing the workers... :rolleyes:

Well, given the unemployment there, they probably could.
It'd be buggered without the kebab price wars in the major cities and the cheap-as-free labour of the Turkish. Seriously. They'd have to start employing Lithuanians for a pittance, and they're not brown enough to channel public rage at.

They're more than entitled to return to Turkey then, aren't they?
Most are German-born, not immigrants.

They're not returning anywhere.

They're more than entitled to return to Turkey then, aren't they?
Most of them have been living there since they were invited during the Wirtschaftswunder in the 1950s, when Germany had practically zero unemployment, and needed cheap labour.

They're more German than Turkish.

Yeah, cause the German economy could cope with losing the workers... :rolleyes:

Well, given the unemployment there, they probably could.

Most are German-born, not immigrants.

They're not returning anywhere.

Just saying, yes they are. About 10% (200,000) have returned "home" during the last 5 years.

Just saying, yes they are. About 10% (200,000) have returned "home" during the last 5 years.
Perhaps, but those who emigrate to Turkey aren't returning (mostly). They're German citizens emigrating to a country their parents or grandparents called home.

Just as Black Britons emigrating to the Carribean or Africa aren't 'returning home'. They're emigrating.

Perhaps, but those who emigrate to Turkey aren't returning (mostly). They're German citizens emigrating to a country their parents or grandparents called home.

Just as Black Britons emigrating to the Carribean or Africa aren't 'returning home'. They're emigrating.

Not exactly though. They've been issuing citizenship to some German Turks, but quite a few Turks, even second and third generation Turks lack German Citizenship. I suppose that's the problem with Jus Sanguinis.

Just latched onto this thread. Sorry, felt the need to say something, but Turkey (though its capital is on European soil) is classed as an eastern country, and is therefore Asiatic.

But as correctly pointed out this is not such a bar, and nor is the economy. However I am of the opinion that EU membership is already far too great, Eastern European nations joining are having the economic benefit, insofar as most of their citizens can now legally settle in more developed countries.

Remember Britain joined the EU to screw the French over to keep them from getting cosy with the Germans, the French joined because they wanted to feel important again, and they are slightly more clandestine and subtle than Napolean was and the Germans joined originally to get re-admittance to the human race (congratulations by the way Germany, thriving once again ;) )

What are the other countries reasons?

Merkel is also strongly against Turkey, not just Sarkozy.Her government, on the other hand, is not. In fact, she had to agree to uphold Schröder's pro-Turkey stance in order to become chancelor.

Ummmmm. Isn't Turkey part of well, Asia? I may be missing something here but I am not sure how a non-European country can become part of the European Union? I remember that we studied the EU when I was in college and although I cannot recall any actual membership requirements other than economic and political ones I do not feel to silly making the assumption that any new members have to be from Europe.

Ummmmm. Isn't Turkey part of well, Asia? I may be missing something here but I am not sure how a non-European country can become part of the European Union? I remember that we studied the EU when I was in college and although I cannot recall any actual membership requirements other than economic and political ones I do not feel to silly making the assumption that any new members have to be from Europe.

See Rumelia. Tis in Europe geographically.

Ummmmm. Isn't Turkey part of well, Asia? I may be missing something here but I am not sure how a non-European country can become part of the European Union? I remember that we studied the EU when I was in college and although I cannot recall any actual membership requirements other than economic and political ones I do not feel to silly making the assumption that any new members have to be from Europe.

Cyprus is already in the EU, so it's already outside of Europe. And Turkey is in both Europe and Asia, so it's not a hinderance anyway. But that's already been debated in the thread...

So... Who says it's not enforced equally?
They really aren't though.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10337900
The cross and the crescent

Why Christians feel under threat in today's Turkey

It's not necessarily official government policy (the government is just finding it hard to change the status quo, seeing what a delicate issue religion is for the Islamist party), but it happens nonetheless. And you wouldn't accuse The Economist of being an anti-Turkey paper, especially since their editorial position is in favour of them being allowed to join eventually.

As for everyone stating the obvious that Turkey is not in Europe please stop most of the people that are making intelligent arguments for Turkey being admitted already know that. While yes Turkey is not in Europe it has been a major part of the region for since the beginning of the Western world. Whether that be as Competition between ancient countries of Greece and Persia or during the rule of Roman Nations Either by Rome itself or by Constantanople. It has also grown to be one of the largest Empires in the Mediterranean under the Turks holding territory in Spain and the Balkans. Also we shouldn't forget the participation during the World Wars. While they do not have most of their country in Europe their culture is intertwined with Western ideals more so than any middle eastern country and if you consider that technically Russia is more of an Asiatic based country geographically you could also claim that it is not part of Europe either. Russia is however a major Western power due to its ideals and population distribution, which like Turkey is much closer to European influences. We should not underestimate the tactically importance of this country in economic and military stand points. Even if they temporarily strain the EU it will more than make up for it. Opening a pipeline from the middle east through Turkey and into Europe would be a magnificent undertaking but the advantage of it would be enormous providing gas and oil quickly into the under developed regions in the Balkans that will later be part of the EU.

And you wouldn't accuse The Economist of being an anti-Turkey paper, especially since their editorial position is in favour of them being allowed to join eventually.
Which is, from what I can tell, what most people are arguing.

Which is, from what I can tell, what most people are arguing.
And which seems to me the only meaningful line of argument. I see that everyone ignored my question about whether there is a conceivable purpose to the EU that would necessitate keeping Turkey out, and that people keep talking about geography and culture.

It's the latter that have no bearing on the subject, but which must be the motivation for any stance saying that they should never be allowed to join.

They really aren't though.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10337900


It's not necessarily official government policy (the government is just finding it hard to change the status quo, seeing what a delicate issue religion is for the Islamist party), but it happens nonetheless. And you wouldn't accuse The Economist of being an anti-Turkey paper, especially since their editorial position is in favour of them being allowed to join eventually.

Aaaw, you weren't supposed to do the work for New Mitanni... It was kinda fun to see him struggle :p

Cyprus is already in the EU, so it's already outside of Europe. And Turkey is in both Europe and Asia, so it's not a hinderance anyway. But that's already been debated in the thread...

Yes, but Cyprus is full of Greeks, a European ethnicity. I assume French Guiana is part of the Union too, despite the fact that it's in the Western Hemisphere.

Yes, but Cyprus is full of Greeks, a European ethnicity. I assume French Guiana is part of the Union too, despite the fact that it's in the Western Hemisphere.

Funny. I thought Cyprus was full of Cypriots.

As for everyone stating the obvious that Turkey is not in Europe please stop most of the people that are making intelligent arguments for Turkey being admitted already know that. While yes Turkey is not in Europe it has been a major part of the region for since the beginning of the Western world. Whether that be as Competition between ancient countries of Greece and Persia or during the rule of Roman Nations Either by Rome itself or by Constantanople. It has also grown to be one of the largest Empires in the Mediterranean under the Turks holding territory in Spain and the Balkans. Also we shouldn't forget the participation during the World Wars. While they do not have most of their country in Europe their culture is intertwined with Western ideals more so than any middle eastern country and if you consider that technically Russia is more of an Asiatic based country geographically you could also claim that it is not part of Europe either. Russia is however a major Western power due to its ideals and population distribution, which like Turkey is much closer to European influences. We should not underestimate the tactically importance of this country in economic and military stand points. Even if they temporarily strain the EU it will more than make up for it. Opening a pipeline from the middle east through Turkey and into Europe would be a magnificent undertaking but the advantage of it would be enormous providing gas and oil quickly into the under developed regions in the Balkans that will later be part of the EU.

You are aware that Russia isn't applying as a member into the EU and not everyone considers it a "Western" nation. And Anatolia, historically, though vital to the commerce of the Western World, hasn't really ever been Western, except under the Roman years. Otherwise it has been held under the sway of non-Western powers like Persia, the Hittites, the Byzantines, and the Ottomans.

Cypriot is the name for people from the island, however, they are Greek. Not including the Turks on the northern half of the island. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html

Right. So not including the Turks on the island, you're correct.

Shame you can't just "forget" about a population when it deflates your point like a balloon.

Funny. I thought Cyprus was full of Cypriots.

Cypriot is the name for people from the island, however, they are Greek. Not including the Turks on the northern half of the island. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html

Yes, but Cyprus is full of Greeks, a European ethnicity.
So? It still kills the geography argument...

And it seems a bit too convenient to just forget all of the Turks, Africans and other ethnicities that inhabit the island...

Right. So not including the Turks on the island, you're correct.

Shame you can't just "forget" about a population when it deflates your point like a balloon.

Not quite. The Turkish part of the island is not controlled by the Cyprus government and is not being admitted into the EU unless the Cyprus government has control over it (which it does not).

So? It still kills the geography argument...
How is geography an argument at all?

How is geography an argument at all?

Some people have tried to make it thus (it is one of the few reasons one could possibly give for a permanent exlusion of Turkey from the union).

How is geography an argument at all?

Because it's about the "natural boundries of the Union", and the "union was never intended to expand over the area of geographical Europe."

That's what I've been told :)

Correct I know Russia isn't but someone was commenting that Russia was part of Europe geographically. And yes while they aren't as close as most countries in the EU already they are the most Western Middle Eastern country which, if Turkey could join, would be a help for future economic and political ties in the region with the EU.

Why would that suit the UK more than the current set-up?
Because the UK has stronger and closer linguistic, ethnic, historical, legal and cultural ties to the Anglo-countries...and I'd argued that except for very very recent times...political as well. An Anglo-economic alliance would be a boon for all those countries, offering them free-trade zone and better access to resources that would be available with the joining of some of those countries (Canada, America and Australia, for instance), but would also give everyone their political soveriegnty that many feel the EU does not offer.
They're more than entitled to return to Turkey then, aren't they?

Hurrah for Sarkozy!!:)
Indeed. Sarkozy's actions in France concerning paying immigrants to return home should be a model for other countries to follow.
I sincerely doubt it... they would probably get along with New Zealnd and Canada, but with the USA... I don't see that happening.
That's because you are anti-American and I don't mean that as a high school flame, but rather from viewing your posting history. I beleive you're the one who said you don't like America and when multiple posters came up and said this is ridiculous because America is so diverse and vast, that it offers something for everyone and is just as stupid as saying "I don't like Europe"....You also said you loveeee Canada. Assuming we are not talking SIMPLY about French-Canada, most of Canada and the Pacific Northwest and/or northern Mid-West are extremely similar. Thus, to say you looooovvee Canada but don't like America can be assumed to be a gross generalization and ignorance due to hate.

Anyway...America and the UK have always had a special alliance..and it's been the same with America and Canada and America and Australia. Though recent political events have worked to hurt those bonds, there is no reason why they can't be repaired and the global Anglo relationship cannot be improved upon, to the point of an Anglo alliance.

Remember we are also talking about an economic alliance, not a political alliance like people are calling for with the integration of Mexico and Canada to America....that's not what I'm talking about at all.

That's because you are anti-American and I don't mean that as a high school flame, but rather from viewing your posting history. I beleive you're the one who said you don't like America and when multiple posters came up and said this is ridiculous because America is so diverse and vast, that it offers something for everyone and is just as stupid as saying "I don't like Europe"....You also said you loveeee Canada. Assuming we are not talking SIMPLY about French-Canada, most of Canada and the Pacific Northwest and/or northern Mid-West are extremely similar. Thus, to say you looooovvee Canada but don't like America can be assumed to be a gross generalization and ignorance due to hate.

Anyway...America and the UK have always had a special alliance..and it's been the same with America and Canada and America and Australia. Though recent political events have worked to hurt those bonds, there is no reason why they can't be repaired and the global Anglo relationship cannot be improved upon, to the point of an Anglo alliance.

Remember we are also talking about an economic alliance, not a political alliance like people are calling for with the integration of Mexico and Canada to America....that's not what I'm talking about at all.

I have to say, I really don't think NAFTA will work, ever. The Pan-Anglo economic trading zone is a much better idea. At least from the American point of view...

I have to say, I really don't think NAFTA will work, ever. The Pan-Anglo economic trading zone is a much better idea. At least from the American point of view...
It's a better idea all around..not just from an American point of view..it's just that alot of people have a negative view of America from our recent politics...but that will change eventually. The Anglo countries have a connection with each other...we are all like children and cousins...and the UK is the daddy that was overshadowed by his oldest son America. Regardless, we're all still family.:p

Yes, but Cyprus is full of Greeks, a European ethnicity. I assume French Guiana is part of the Union too, despite the fact that it's in the Western Hemisphere.
It's a part of the Union due to being one of the overseas départements of France, aye. It also uses the Euro, and is a good place to launch satellites from.

Indeed. Sarkozy's actions in France concerning paying immigrants to return home should be a model for other countries to follow.

Sarcasm?


Anyway...America and the UK have always had a special alliance
Recently. Yes. "Always". No.

Though recent political events have worked to hurt those bonds, there is no reason why they can't be repaired and the global Anglo relationship cannot be improved upon, to the point of an Anglo alliance.
Sure there's a reason. The sun is setting on American dominance. That's not intended as a flame, a petty point, or some trollish comment. Turning back East is more is the in the UK's long term interests. They like being the melodramatic queen of Europe (it's a secret pleasure they get I think :) ), but they're finally realising that being part of the EU trading bloc is more beneficial for longer term interests.

Remember we are also talking about an economic alliance, not a political alliance like people are calling for with the integration of Mexico and Canada to America....that's not what I'm talking about at all.
Ah the auld "Amero" conspiracy line. Yes, I don't forsee the Canadians or Mexicans really being happy with US dominance over them in any union.

but they're finally realising that being part of the EU trading bloc is more beneficial for longer term interests.
I'm not saying we'd ever leave the EU, because no government would ever let that happen, but I don't really think most of us think the EU beneficial. Most people are pretty damn ignorant when it comes to the EU, either swallowing the anti-EU rhetoric which fills almost all our newspapers, or not really caring at all. If we were to have a referendum on EU membership, the 'get out' side would do pretty well if it didn't win, I think.

Why does it matter if theyre european? correct me if im wrong, but isnt the EU and economic and political set of treaties existing to benefit member nations economically, keep them secure, and further human rights and democracy? what's the point of keeping all the people european? if it benefits the EU and humanity, why not do it? why are people so hung up on the name?

the name 'The United Nations' originates from the nations united to fight the axis in world war two, yet since all 6 member nations (yeah..... im not counting yugoslavia) have joined. The US, France, and Brittain are not, nor ever have been, in southeast asia, yet were members of SEATO. Brittain was a member of CENTO despite being in europe. Mozambique is in the brittish commonwealth despite never being a colony of brittain.

Geography is not a valid argument!!! it does not inhibit human rights, it does not inhibit trade! turkeys trade partners are:

Exports - partners:
Germany 11.3%, UK 8%, Italy 7.9%, US 6%, France 5.4%, Spain 4.4% (2006)
Imports - partners:
Russia 12.8%, Germany 10.6%, China 6.9%, Italy 6.2%, France 5.2%, US 4.5%, Iran 4% (2006)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html#Econ

does that seem like its kept from trading with europe by geography?

tell me how geography keeps it seperate from europe in anything but geography and race/religion! i honestly cant see it, i must be stupid!

you want to say they should be kept out because they are of a different race and/or religion? sweet, that's between you and your conscience. you want to debate economics? sweet. same with talking bout basic realpolitik options that the EU states dont want affairs controlled by another nation. hell, lets talk about the Armenian genocide! but geography does not make sense!!!!!!

Sarkozy's actions in France concerning paying immigrants to return home should be a model for other countries to follow.
Kohl tried that and failed. And those guys actually were immigrants, unlike a lot of the French whose parents were.

Think: if you earn $8,100 a year (GDP per capita) in Algeria, and $33,800 in France, and you expect to live another...say 60 years in France, then (assuming a discount rate of, say, 4% - standard Euro interest rate) the French government would have to pay you $581,423.69 for it to be worth it to go back.

You can play around with the figures a bit, but you get the idea. Now if we say there are 6.7 million French with immigrant backgrounds, then the cost of this policy to the French taxpayer is a cool $3.9 trillion. Or more than double France's GDP, or three times its government spending.

Spend any less than that, and you won't get the results you are looking for.

Sarcasm?
You wish.

Recently. Yes. "Always". No.
Well..of course we had our wars in the beginning, but we fought together during the wars, were strongest allies during the cold war, and remain allies even though our unpopular and your unpopular government are/were pissing off alot of our people. Remember, America is alot younger than the UK...those times make up alot of our history...

Sure there's a reason. The sun is setting on American dominance. That's not intended as a flame, a petty point, or some trollish comment. Turning back East is more is the in the UK's long term interests. They like being the melodramatic queen of Europe (it's a secret pleasure they get I think :) ), but they're finally realising that being part of the EU trading bloc is more beneficial for longer term interests.
But see, this is not about American dominance. (I know, sounds weird coming from me)...it's about building an economic alliance and trading zone on foundations that already exist based on our strong cultural, ethnic, historical, legal and political ties. It's an opportunity to share, to profit off each other. The UK is a world power. Canada, Australia and America are world powers rich in resources. New Zealand is...the little brother that doesn't really offer much but get's to join in the festivities anyway.

I think the most important step if anyone ever wanted to try to realize this, would be to (honestly) assure the other Anglos that this is not about American's dominance, but rather a bid to really create a legit, honest trading block and economic alliance that could REALLY profit all of us.


Ah the auld "Amero" conspiracy line. Yes, I don't forsee the Canadians or Mexicans really being happy with US dominance over them in any union.
I don't either nor was I advocating that...but it would make a few very powerful people very rich and it's not so much a conspiracy but rather something that is every once and a while talked about....not as one large leap to the union...but rather small, multiple steps at integration.

I'm not saying we'd ever leave the EU, because no government would ever let that happen, but I don't really think most of us think the EU beneficial. Most people are pretty damn ignorant when it comes to the EU, either swallowing the anti-EU rhetoric which fills almost all our newspapers, or not really caring at all. If we were to have a referendum on EU membership, the 'get out' side would do pretty well if it didn't win, I think.

I'm not necessarily talking bout "today, here and now the EU is beneficial to the UK". I mean in the broader term being part of a trading bloc - competing with China, India, Brazil (in the near-medium future), possible Middle East bloc - it would make sense for the UK not to stand alone on the periphery of a powerful bloc.

The US only cares about itself. The UK for itself. I wouldn't attach myself to a fading star in this climate.

As far as I know..it's already in play in France. Can you search around and tell me if it's failing?
Kohl tried that and failed. And those guys actually were immigrants, unlike a lot of the French whose parents were.

Think: if you earn $8,100 a year (GDP per capita) in Algeria, and $33,800 in France, and you expect to live another...say 60 years in France, then (assuming a discount rate of, say, 4% - standard Euro interest rate) the French government would have to pay you $581,423.69 for it to be worth it to go back.

You can play around with the figures a bit, but you get the idea. Now if we say there are 6.7 million French with immigrant backgrounds, then the cost of this policy to the French taxpayer is a cool $3.9 trillion. Or more than double France's GDP, or three times its government spending.

Spend any less than that, and you won't get the results you are looking for.

Sure there's a reason. The sun is setting on American dominance. That's not intended as a flame, a petty point, or some trollish comment. Turning back East is more is the in the UK's long term interests. They like being the melodramatic queen of Europe (it's a secret pleasure they get I think :) ), but they're finally realising that being part of the EU trading bloc is more beneficial for longer term interests.

It would probably be beneficial for the UK to turn back west. Not intended as either a flame or an insult but if Europe's population keeps declining the way it does, the Euro's new found strength will evaporate. How can you have a strong economy if there's no one there to run it? And, as was pointed out early, Sarkozy is sending the immigrants home.

It would probably be beneficial for the UK to turn back west. Not intended as either a flame or an insult but if Europe's population keeps declining the way it does, the Euro's new found strength will evaporate. How can you have a strong economy if there's no one there to run it?

Europe is growing geographically and as such population wise too. Plus, immigration is steady. High standard of living is attractive to immigrants - who work hard for the most part, add to the growth of individual countries, and by extension the collective.

The myth of "Europe getting old and dying out" is, well, that. A myth.

And, as was pointed out early, Sarkozy is sending the immigrants home.
And as Neu Leonstein has pointed out, it's not economically viable.

It would probably be beneficial for the UK to turn back west. Not intended as either a flame or an insult but if Europe's population keeps declining the way it does, the Euro's new found strength will evaporate. How can you have a strong economy if there's no one there to run it? And, as was pointed out early, Sarkozy is sending the immigrants home.
Increase immigration.:rolleyes::headbang:

You did see the sentence underneath it, right?
Sarkozy is trying to kick out illegal immigrants more than anything else. Also, the whole thing is being done extremely half-heartedly, as he knows that immigration is vital for the French economy.

Increase immigration.:rolleyes::headbang:

You did see the sentence underneath it, right?

You did see the sentence underneath it, right?
Yeah of course but that is just what Sarkozy is trying and who knows if it will work. Generally, the attitude in Europe is "We need a larger and larger flow of immigrants to come here because our native population is declining".

Also, there is still immigration coming into France..and Sarkozy is just offering, he's not forcing deportations....

Yeah of course but that is just what Sarkozy is trying and who knows if it will work. Generally, the attitude in Europe is "We need a larger and larger flow of immigrants to come here because our native population is declining".

Also, there is still immigration coming into France..and Sarkozy is just offering, he's not forcing deportations....

I dunno, the elections in Switzerland and the stances of the French and German governments seem to indicate a rather large antipathy against immigrants. Not to mention the immigrant riots themselves seem to indicate that the immigrants are less than happy.

Now, of course, this is coming from a guy who lives across the ocean from these issues... but what I'm getting over here is that immigration isn't working out too well (or at least as well as hoped for) in Europe.

As far as I know..it's already in play in France. Can you search around and tell me if it's failing?
Even if it has started already, it wouldn't be long enough yet to see whether it works or not. But I can't find anything about it either way.

Now, of course, this is coming from a guy who lives across the ocean from these issues... but what I'm getting over here is that immigration isn't working out too well (or at least as well as hoped for) in Europe.
This is a special The Economist ran a few weeks ago on migration. It covers pretty much all the bases.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286197
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286177
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286165
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286153
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286141
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286131
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286121
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286111

I dunno, the elections in Switzerland and the stances of the French and German governments seem to indicate a rather large antipathy against immigrants. Not to mention the immigrant riots themselves seem to indicate that the immigrants are less than happy.

Now, of course, this is coming from a guy who lives across the ocean from these issues... but what I'm getting over here is that immigration isn't working out too well (or at least as well as hoped for) in Europe.
It's more that Europe is having an economic downturn at the moment, after about a decade of pretty much solid growth - people have everything they could realistically want, but the cost of living is going up (rent, food etc.) more than wages and nobody is really doing much about that.

When things get boring and slightly crapper than usual, immigrants are an easy scapegoat. It used to be Jews, but the whole Holocaust thing kind of put paid to that particular method of redirecting anger away from the government.

I dunno, the elections in Switzerland and the stances of the French and German governments seem to indicate a rather large antipathy against immigrants. Not to mention the immigrant riots themselves seem to indicate that the immigrants are less than happy.
France..yeah things have changed but we'll see what the future has in store...Germany..nothing really changed. Switzerland...yeah but it still depends...immigration is looked upon much better in the French parts than the German parts, for instance..though that doesn't say much. But there 100% is a issue with immigration there and you can notice it because the kids, who go to school with immigrant kids and don't get along with them...always talk about it..and beleive the government is living in a fantasy world thinking that there are no problems with immigration. It was not a random occurance that the SVP got it's greatest victory ever last election, and it's campaign was the most anti-immigrant it's ever been....
Now, of course, this is coming from a guy who lives across the ocean from these issues... but what I'm getting over here is that immigration isn't working out too well (or at least as well as hoped for) in Europe.
In my opinion, certain kinds of immigration are not working...but it really depends on the country. For instance, Switzerland benefits and puts it's laws to encourage educated, high level immigrants. Ireland is another country that has benefited from immigration.....

Anyway the problem is that most of the governments are out of touch with the people and don't want to touch the immigration issue with a 10 foot pole...

It was not a random occurance that the SVP got it's greatest victory ever last election, and it's campaign was the most anti-immigrant it's ever been....
It depends to a huge extent on what the alternatives are. You'd be extremely dishonest if you chose to neglect the appeal of the SVP as an anti-establishment, "little guy" party when you talk about them and instead focus entirely on the immigration issue.

If a mainstream politician of a mainstream party starts raving against immigrants, then it's not at all clear which way things will go. Koch's CDU had mainstream alternatives, and he got beaten accordingly. And in opinion polls, his stance on immigrants was his most unpopular one.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,531486,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,531400,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,531422,00.html

Even if it has started already, it wouldn't be long enough yet to see whether it works or not. But I can't find anything about it either way.
I couldn't either. But we have a French exchange student now and we always discuss it. I'll see if he can find me some articles on it..hopefully he can find some in English or translate them though...

Because the UK has stronger and closer linguistic, ethnic, historical, legal and cultural ties to the Anglo-countries...
Which has very little to do with economic alliances.

Increase immigration.
Now you’re getting it!

Because the UK has stronger and closer linguistic, ethnic, historical, legal and cultural ties to the Anglo-countries...and I'd argued that except for very very recent times...political as well. An Anglo-economic alliance would be a boon for all those countries, offering them free-trade zone and better access to resources that would be available with the joining of some of those countries (Canada, America and Australia, for instance), but would also give everyone their political soveriegnty that many feel the EU does not offer.

By the same merit, it ought to be possible to form a confederacy of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Go and suggest that on the streets and see how popular it'll be...

That's because you are anti-American and I don't mean that as a high school flame, but rather from viewing your posting history. I beleive you're the one who said you don't like America and when multiple posters came up and said this is ridiculous because America is so diverse and vast, that it offers something for everyone and is just as stupid as saying "I don't like Europe"....You also said you loveeee Canada. Assuming we are not talking SIMPLY about French-Canada, most of Canada and the Pacific Northwest and/or northern Mid-West are extremely similar. Thus, to say you looooovvee Canada but don't like America can be assumed to be a gross generalization and ignorance due to hate.

Er... no, I don't believe I ever said that.
The only thing I can think of that could be misread in such a way was me saying that the USA is not on my list of countries I would like to move to, whereas Quebec is.
Way to go to overreact here...

turkey shouldnt join the EU, becuse its well known that they tried to take europe by force several times and failed and they were not tolerant with other cultures and still arent

turkey shouldnt join the EU, becuse its well known that they tried to take europe by force several times and failedSo have France, Germany, Italy, Spain...
and they were not tolerant with other cultures and still arentFirst part is irrelevant, the second part is the only meaningful thing you've posted so far.

turkey shouldnt join the EU, becuse its well known that they tried to take europe by force several times and failed and they were not tolerant with other cultures and still arent

So you are basing a decision on the past? In that case then Germany should not be in the EU because of all the trouble they have cost throughout the early portion of the 20th century. Not to mention the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. France should not be in it because of Napolean. Italy should not be in it because of their actions. Let us not forget Spain with the Inquisition, etc.

So you are basing a decision on the past? In that case then Germany should not be in the EU because of all the trouble they have cost throughout the early portion of the 20th century. Not to mention the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. France should not be in it because of Napolean. Italy should not be in it because of their actions. Let us not forget Spain with the Inquisition, etc.

That's right: So let's just scrap the whole arrangement. (Please?) ;)

So you are basing a decision on the past? In that case then Germany should not be in the EU because of all the trouble they have cost throughout the early portion of the 20th century. Not to mention the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. France should not be in it because of Napolean. Italy should not be in it because of their actions. Let us not forget Spain with the Inquisition, etc.
...and still arent

And really, Turkey is in no way culturally advanced enough to become a EU member. Folks in eastern Anatolia have yet to arrive in the 21st century out of medieval mindsets.

...and still arent

And really, Turkey is in no way culturally advanced enough to become a EU member. Folks in eastern Anatolia have yet to arrive in the 21st century out of medieval mindsets.

mmm....France seems to have forgotten about their immigrant friends who rioted a couple of years ago. Everyone still has biases against different cultures. Its not just Turkey.

...and still arent

And really, Turkey is in no way culturally advanced enough to become a EU member. Folks in eastern Anatolia have yet to arrive in the 21st century out of medieval mindsets.A pity that part of the message was drowned in the rest of the hateful drivvel, isn't it?

mmm....France seems to have forgotten about their immigrant friends who rioted a couple of years ago. Everyone still has biases against different cultures. Its not just Turkey.There is quite a difference between the rioters and Turks. The rioters are folks and descendants of folks from former French colonies across the Mediterranean: Moroccan, Tunisian, and of course Algerian.

There is quite a difference between the rioters and Turks.That's not relevant when comparing France to Turkey, though.

There is quite a difference between the rioters and Turks. The rioters are folks and descendants of folks from former French colonies across the Mediterranean: Moroccan, Tunisian, and of course Algerian.

Notice I said the word Immigrant. Meaning those who were not born in France. I see it is lost on you that France does not like anything that is not French.

Notice I said the word Immigrant. Meaning those who were not born in France. I see it is lost on you that France does not like anything that is not French.Algerians are seen as practically French.

That's not relevant when comparing France to Turkey, though.am I ?

Algerians are seen as practically French.

I do not see them as practically French at all considering the French Nation (also known as the Francs) conquered them. If we want to go that route then South Africa is practicly British. So by that nature then Algeria and South Africa should be allowed in the EU as they are both French and British respectively.

am I ?No, you're not. Corneliu was, though, in the point you were quoting.