Printable View
We were down in Portoroz, so literally 5 mins from the Croatian border. Didn't really get talking to many of the locals compared to the Alps - more commercial so didn't find the hidden away bars etc were the locals went, and more of a language barrier as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
We have to allow Turkey entry - morally, economically, for security reasons, on humanitarian grounds, etc etc. Vincent Browne wrote a very good piece in the Business Post. It's no coincidence that it's the far right in France, Austria and Germany who are against Turkish entry.
KOH
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/s...499-qqqx=1.asp
Turkey must be allowed to enter Europe
02 October 2005 By Vincent Browne
As of now, the chances of success are slim. The consequences of failure are serious, serious for relations between the west and the Islamic world and serious for the European Union itself. The suggestion that Turkey is not really part of Europe is disingenuous. It has suited the west to regard Turkey as part of Europe until now, and it would be hypocritical to do an about face.
Turkey became a member of the North American-European military alliance, NATO, in 1952. It has been a member of the Council of Europe since its foundation in 1949. It has been an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992. In September 1963, an agreement was signed to take Turkey into a Customs Union with the EEC (as it was then), and eventual membership of the European Community. Turkey applied for full EU membership in 1987, and the European Commission endorsed its eligibility for membership in 1989. In December 1999, in Helsinki, the EU Council voted to accord Turkey candidate status with the EU.
Since then, Turkey has jumped through countless hoops constructed by the EU to qualify it for EU membership. In September 2001, the Turkish parliament a d o p t e d 3 0 amendments to the country's constitution to meet the criteria for membership. In August 2002, it passed sweeping reforms to meet the demands on human rights fronts. In January 2004, it banned the death penalty. On 1 July last a new penal code came into effect to enable Turkey to meet further EU demands.
So any claim now that Turkey is not really eligible for EU membership because it is not European and fails to meet human rights criteria won't wash. It was sufficiently European for it to be part of a European mi l itary al l iance, sufficiently European to be a member of the Council of Europe, sufficiently European to be required to meet the quite reasonable conditions for membership of the European Union.
The objections to Turkish membership are summed up in the racist slogan: “too big, too poor, too Muslim'‘. At present, Turkey has a population of around 72 million. Within the EU, only Germany has a larger population. But by the projected accession date for Turkey, 2015, its population is projected to be 82 million, while Germany's population will be around 80 million. On the poverty front, Turkey is racing ahead economically and while it is currently by far the poorest region in what would constitute a further enlarged Europe, its per capita income by 2015 is projected to equal what will be the average per capita income of the 10 most recent accession states.
As for the religion element, the argument is that the incorporation of a huge Muslim population into ‘Christian' Europe would change the ethos of the EU profoundly. But Europe already has a significant Muslim population, the claim that modern Europe is “profoundly'‘ Christian is farfetched - and anyway, so what? Islam was a hugely civilising force in Spain when the Moors dominated a large part of Spain from the 8th century to 1492.TheMuslim influence in Spain helped enlighten Europe and rescue it from the dark ages. It was a vibrant, culturally rich and tolerant civilisation, quite unlike the barbaric Christian “civilisations'‘ that followed.
Islam is nowadays regarded as violent, intolerant, and regressive. That is the manifestation of a sectarian element of the Islamic world but not at all representative of the core of Islam. An influence of Islamic culture into the heart of Europe again might perhaps civilize the crassness of much of the new Europe (by which I do not mean the Donald Rumsfeld-approved “new Europe'‘).
But there are problems, and they primarily centre around the bigotry, intolerance and racism of much of modern Europe.
The French, Danes, Dutch and Austrians have been promised referenda on the issue of Turkish accession to the European Union. Such promises were never made previously during the accession of any other states, and are a concession to fascist elements in those states. If even one of the states votes against Turkish entry, that is that.
Although any such referenda may be years away, the drift of sentiment in Europe is such as to suggest that there is little hope that Turkey can join. At present, three-quarters of the French are against Turkish entry, 53 per cent of the Dutch are also against it, and 80 per cent of the Austrians oppose it.
The worst of all possible outcomes - and the outcome now most probable - is that negotiations will be successful, Turkey will meet all the criteria for entry, including resolution of the Cyprus problem, full compliance with human rights and democratic demands, agreement on transition arrangements for the free movement of Turks throughout the EU and all that, to be followed by rejection in one or more of the four referenda.
What message will that send to the Islamic world generally? What message will it give to the Islamic populations within the European Union already, in Britain, France, Germany a n d Au s t r i a i n particular? And do the bigots in Europe care a jot? You've guessed it.
And for the European Union itself, what will be the consequences? A major breach on the most crucial issue to come before it in its history. So tomorrow there begins perhaps the most critical phase not just in the EU's lifetime, but in modern Western Islamic relations. We have the means of realising the clash of civilisations, or the means of defusing it - and the signs, for now, are that we will ignite it.
If Austria is against Turkey gaining entry then we should be doing everything possible to allow them in. Germany may have rejected the far right btu Austria seems to revel in it.
The Ottoman Empire laid seige to Vienna. Never underestimate the latent collective trauma caused by historical events. The two countries in the form of their empires were enemies for centuries until recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
France & Germany had so many wars they probablt lost count. Now they basically best buddies as countries go. What opercentage of Austrian voted for Hader a few years ago? I've never been to Austria but they come across as old germans in hiding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
No, I dont think it should be in the EU, I think in terms of geography its hard to describe Turkey as being in Europe.
Yes.
Subject to fulfilling the entry criteria (which is what accession negotiations are all about) there is no reason Turkey should not join. To say Turkey is not European is to have your head in the sand. What is now Turkey has been playing its part in European culture and civilisation for millenia, ever since the period of Ancient Greece, Turks have been engaged in Europe. The Ottoman Empire was one of the 'great' European empires. There are two million Turks in Germany alone.
To say that the Turks should not be allowed in to the EU because they laid siege to Vienna is farcical (particularly on the part of the Austrians and French). One of the raisons d'etre of the EU is to make friends out of historical enemies. It started with Germany and France (well Germany and everyone else, really) but it has worked as well for the UK and Ireland, Germany and Denmark, Germany and Poland, Spain and Portugal, Austria and Italy, and should be for Greece and Turkey.
Greece is in favour of Turkish membership. They still don't see eye-to-eye on some things, but both governments realise that is better for them to have amicable relations that to be in constant conflict. A word on Cyprus. In the 70s the Greek Cypriot government attempted to integrate Cyprus into not-so-democratic Greece in a coup. The Turkish government sent troops over to protect the ethnic Turks living in Cyprus from being subsumed into Greece. Now the Turks aren't completely blameless, and the invasion wasn't legal, but it was understandable on some level. In any case, to blame the Turks 100% for the Cyprus problem is wrong. I think that Cyprus shouldn't have been allowed into the EU until it sorted out its partition somehow.
Vincent Browne is on the ball on the strategic reasons for letting Turkey in, but for me the the most important reason is moral. The main reason many Europeans object to Turkey joining is not economic or political (which will be scrutinised by the accession process), but religious sectarianism, which is in essence a form of racism. If the worst case scenario plays out (i.e. Turkey makes all the reforms and successfully negotiates membership, but is denied by a plebiscite in France, Autria or wherever) it will be a dark day for Europe. If Europe is anything it is enlightened and fair, but to reject a country simply because its people are Muslim would mean Europe is no better than Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe or apartheid South Africa.
Ok the Austrians have withdrawn their opposition to talk about membership with Turkey. Many reckon that it will be 10 years at least before the Turks join. People speak about the Ottoman Empire and historical reasons.
Well Austria started the First World War and an Austrian started the Second World War and the majority of them as a people sided with the Nazi's during the 1938-1945 period and we let them in to the EU so fair is fair.
Some people think the only good things to come out of Austria since 1945 were The Harry Lime Theme( theme music for the Movie The Third Man) and Arnold Schwarzenegger. :D I haven't forgiven them for inspiring the Sound of Music :D
crc is correct, Greece does in spite of historical difficulties with their neighbours, want Turkey inside the EU. And I also believe that all of ex-Yugoslavia should be admitted in time too. To quote a famous politician " It's better to have every one p****** inside the tent than outside it". Having all these protagonists in the EU is the best guarantee long term of peace in Europe, which is something all 400 million plus Europeans would probably want, apart from the Neo-nazis and I won't get into what should be done with them in this post! Or to put it another way, how can you go to war with someone who is in the same club as you?
Having Turkey inside the EU in time, will be a bridge between Europe and the Arab world( not exclusively Muslim I realise that) and the larger Islamic World. You could in time see a larger role for the EU (including Turkey) in brokering a long term Middle East peace deal for example.
It will be longer term I feel it will take until an equivalent population of mostly christians is absorbed into the EU is when it will happen something along these lines. Croatia 4-5 million, Serbia 8 million (christian population), Montenegro 1/2 million christians, Romania 20 million, Bulgaria 9 million and Ukraine 48 million will all be entering at the same time as Turkey 70 million mostly muslims.
Bosnia with a mixed Muslim Christian population ( 40% Muslim) of 4 million will probably come in as will FYR Macedonia ( 33% Muslim) of 2.5 million population, subject to the usual terms and conditions applying.
The Cyprus situation will be resolved by the Turks and Greek Cypriots prior to the Turks accession to EU membership. And as a side issue watch Cyprus go when they have access to Turkish minority soccer players as well as the Greek speaking population. They will be giant killing then on a huge scale. Remember where you read it first.
"its better to have them all inside ****ing out, than outside ****ing in";)Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie
I think they should be allowed join. Forget all the human rights for a moment, forget the Cyprus thing.
Someone made the very good point that if we don't let them join it could lead to a bigger divide in East and West or Christianity and Islam in Europe.
Actually, Turkey's human rights record is one reason why we should be letting them join. By offering them the carrot of membership, we can get the Turkish state to reform. And once they join the EU (in 10 or 15 years) we can monitor and control their performance in this issue (the way the EU did for Ireland's previously disasterous environmental policy). This 'soft power' is actually one of the most powerful tools at the EU's disposal, and it means we don't have to go to war to engender regime-change!Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
CTID, it will be a cold day in hell before Bosnia is fit to join the EU. Even Serbia is not very likely for well over a decade.
i have to agree they have poor human rights issues at the moment but what can be done about it nothing !,but when they join the eu they can be forced to improve them , also most of the rights being ignored stem from poverty something that being in the eu will start to address , just look at our own country and how far we have come since joining , where do we start about human rights in this country with magdinline laundries , industrial schools etc etc .
allthough i wont holiday there anymore for moral reasons ,any one that is travelling there on the holidays will loose out on the DUTY FREE that used to be available !!
The EU didn't solve Ireland's ailments. We worked within the opportunities provided by the EU. If a country does not seize the opportunity the EU will not bring the country up to standard by magic.
That just about sums it up. If you want an argument in favour of Turkish membership and for the existence of the EU itself, the above post has it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by crc
KOH
Theres no doubt the Balkan states will enter eventually. IMO objections to Turkey by existing members are due to race and/or religion. Just like Poland new members don't get the subsidises of previous entrants like Ireland so isn't a huge economic reason to stop Turkey entering.
Yes Serbia is about 10 years off, but then it is expected the negotiations with the Turks will take that long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student
Thanks for putting me straight but you get the point either way:pQuote:
Originally Posted by crc
10 years off being told they have 10 years you mean? You're an optimist.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie
I was there in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and the improvements even in those few years were quite something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Student