EU Turkish Issue?

AngryHippie

Has the issue over Turkey joining the EU been dropped or where abouts on the back burner is it, and more importantly where can someone vehemently object to their accession until the Armenian Holocaust has been acknowledged ?

constellation

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

bill_ashmount

Turkey shouldn't be in the EU, fullstop. How far east do they intend on going, India, China, Japan????

Tea drinker

Well shouldn't they start with Turkeys neighbours? e.g. Iraq, Iran, Syria.
Sure to bring a stabilising influence to the EU!
What do we need or want Turkey in the EU for? Why is the UK always (publicly anyway) pushing the entry of turkey?
Didn't they in the last few months have a little problem where the army had to step in to preserve the secular nature of the country? don't they have huge problems with their own demographics, the kurds? What lunatic would bring this to a stable EU?

I really don't see how their joining EU would benefit us.

Carpenter

3% of Turkey is in Europe so why not

jonny72

I'm all for understanding and modern day principles, but to let the Turks into the EU at this moment would be pretty crazy. I think the vast majority of Europeans are against it.

leninbenjamin

the biggest problem i see within the EU is that it's expanded too fast. regardless of whether or not Turkey would make a good member or not until the current plethora settle in and the balance of power (as well as the economic redistribution it brings) settles. it'd be 10 years before i think they should consider any other country for accession.

wes

If they meet the conditions, I see no reason why they shouldn't be let in.

Munya

I'm against it. I was against the last large expansion though to, but this is ott.

extragon

They'll never meet the normal conditions, so a special set of conditions is to be created.
Turks would be permanently denied the right of free movement, thus weakening the legal principle of EU citizenship. The notion of a Europe we can identify with would be stamped out, with the eventual aim of reducing the EU to the status of a free trade zone, with no political identity - the Turks, as super nationalists, would lead the way forward here - or ability to independently regulate international capitalism.
Oh, and the US wants them in. So that settles it.

djpbarry

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Turkey shouldn't be in the EU, fullstop. How far east do they intend on going, India, China, Japan????

You're opposed to their geographical location? That's it?

Tea drinker wrote: »

What do we need or want Turkey in the EU for?

First of all, it is one of the biggest economies in the world. Secondly, the average age in Turkey is much lower than the EU average - plenty of workers to support us in our old age!

Tea drinker wrote: »

don't they have huge problems with their own demographics, the kurds? What lunatic would bring this to a stable EU?

There is a bit of social unrest so they should be excluded? If you were to apply that criteria to all member states, then you wouldn't have much of an EU left, would you?

wes wrote: »

If they meet the conditions, I see no reason why they shouldn't be let in.

Here, here. The biggest obstacle to their joining is their refusal to recognise Cyprus. If they get around that, then I see no reason why they should not be admitted.

As Kostas Karamanlis says, "Full compliance, full accession".

extragon wrote: »

They'll never meet the normal conditions, so a special set of conditions is to be created.

Well that's the problem; there are special conditions being thrown at them that other applicants do not have to meet.

jonny72 wrote: »

I'm all for understanding and modern day principles, but to let the Turks into the EU at this moment would be pretty crazy.

Munya wrote: »

I'm against it. I was against the last large expansion though to, but this is ott.

Why? Have we not benefited from EU expansion?

bill_ashmount

djpbarry wrote: »

You're opposed to their geographical location? That's it?

I'm opposed to the name, European Union. Call it what it is a World Union or European/Asian union.

brianthebard

Agree with the OP's holocaust point, Turkey should have to acknowledge the holocaust and make suitable retribution among a whole host of other issues that need to be fixed before they could join the Union.

SeanW

There's also the issue of the primarily Islamic population - this could be trouble because by extension, it means that the people could abandon secular governace at any time.

IIRC they came very close to it in the last year.

There's the whole business with the Kurds, Cyprus, the alleged Armenian atrocities, and the fact that its (and therefore the EU's) borders are with political sh1tholes like Iraq and Iran among others. Good look patrolling THAT, or having Turkey in the Schengen Zone.

Then there's the most striking point - 97% of Turkey's landmass is in Asia.

wes

SeanW wrote: »

There's also the issue of the primarily Islamic population - this could be trouble because by extension, it means that the people could abandon secular governace at any time.

IIRC they came very close to it in the last year.

I don't follow what your saying. There Muslim and therefore they must be on the teetering edge of dumping secularism?

Also, when did Turkey come close to abandoning the secular system in the last year? That is a gross misrepresentation of what happened in Turkey over the last year.

Morlar

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Turkey shouldn't be in the EU, fullstop. How far east do they intend on going, India, China, Japan????

Acc the british Foreign Secretary the intention (if you read between the lines) is to go as far as israel. You can bet the powers that be wont want iran or iraq/syria/lybia etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7095657.stm
~~~~~~~

There are obvious reasons why turkey should not be invited to join imo.

a)
The recent incidents of christians having their throats slit for publishing a bible in a majority muslim country would be one. And no, the turkish govt did not sanction that or other incidents - but it is an indicator of the amount of tolerance and moderation that you would be introducing to mainland europe.

b)
The reason for turkey remaining secular (no sharia law or no burkas to cover women like furniture) is down to the turkish military insisting that it stay out of the dark ages and remain forward looking. That balance of power can easily change and if the military were undermined sharia law (as many muslims want) could rapidly be introduced into turkey.

Can you imagine in 5 or 10 years time an EU country starts stoning adulterous women to death ? There is already one islamic moderator on boards who finds nothing wrong with that in principle. The antics of sudan (calls for death of the teddy teacher) or saudi (female rape victim gets 200 lashes) sharia courts mirrored in an eu country ? That would be anathema to the majority of liberal europeans and move to changing the character of europe in a negative direction.

c)
Free travel for all turks to move to any where in europe ? If you have seen the turkish ghettoes in germany you might think twice about that one - imo turks have not integrated well into countries they have large populations in. Refusing to learn the local language or to mix socially or to be involved in a positive manner economically. Their neighbourhoods in berlin for example are high crime and high unemployment/high social dependence. Free movement across Europe for a country with a population that size with borders on iraq would not necessarily be a good thing. At the least people should think about it.


d)
I think there should be a referendum on it (along with discusssion free from the usual pc ^^ nonsense) and if it goes ahead strict conditions of membership need to be imposed.

This is not like allowing any other predominantly white christian country into the EU - this would be a change with potentially serious consequences and people should at least be given a choice. How far toward the middles east should the EU be pushed ?


Personally I think Russia has a lot more in common with europe than turkey ever will and if we are to expand I think that is the direction we should be looking at.

SeanW

wes wrote: »

I don't follow what your saying. There Muslim and therefore they must be on the teetering edge of dumping secularism?

They may not be be teetering on the edge of it now but it's always a possibility.

Also, when did Turkey come close to abandoning the secular system in the last year? That is a gross misrepresentation of what happened in Turkey over the last year.

Didn't the Army get involved in some religious vs. seculuar party stuff not so long ago? I forget the exact details.

I also note that you didn't contest any of the other issues I raised.

Zambia

I just dont like them so no I dont want them in ? However we are basically expanded the the borders of europe I fail to see the burning desire to let more countries in.

Tea drinker

djpbarry wrote: »

First of all, it is one of the biggest economies in the world. Secondly, the average age in Turkey is much lower than the EU average - plenty of workers to support us in our old age!

Why? Have we not benefited from EU expansion?

Unsustainable to rely on foreign countries to prop us up in our old age, not to mention it's kind of New world order esque. We should structure our expenditure such that this is unnecessary.

If you want to have a decent old age save money and have a decent pension. If you want to lie up on someone, do it to your own family!

Yeah, I think we (Irish and immigrants and their home countries) benefitted from it in the short term, more than happy to see our resident (?) population of foreigners went from what? about .1% to 10% in a few short years, in fact per capita we have taken in more than Germany since WW2, at least so I heard.

I don't think I am discussing the BIG ISSUES. Turkish Human rights record, and instability deny them access, never mind the elephant in the corner: How are so many muslims going to participate and interact with us? I know we are not talking about Saudi type culture, but things change and we should be more than careful in this regard.
The good thing is we can survive without Turkey in EU and obviously they are doing well without us thank you. So what's the problem? Or what is the agenda of those pushing for their entry??

djpbarry

bill_ashmount wrote: »

I'm opposed to the name, European Union. Call it what it is a World Union or European/Asian union.

So let's say the name was changed to the Eurasian Union; presumably you'd be ok with Turkey joining then?

brianthebard wrote: »

Agree with the OP's holocaust point, Turkey should have to acknowledge the holocaust and make suitable retribution

Acknowledge, yes. Retribution, no. The Armenian genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire, not by Turkey. How much did other member states have to pay for their past?

SeanW wrote: »

the fact that its (and therefore the EU's) borders are with political sh1tholes like Iraq and Iran among others.

I think it's pretty unfair to hold their geographical position against them.

Morlar wrote: »

That balance of power can easily change and if the military were undermined sharia law (as many muslims want) could rapidly be introduced into turkey.

Yes, all Muslims support sharia law; it's just a matter of time before they take over the world :rolleyes:

Morlar wrote: »

Can you imagine in 5 or 10 years time an EU country starts stoning adulterous women to death ?

Capital punishment was outlawed in Turkey in 2004.

Morlar wrote: »

If you have seen the turkish ghettoes in germany you might think twice about that one - imo turks have not integrated well into countries they have large populations in. Refusing to learn the local language or to mix socially or to be involved in a positive manner economically. Their neighbourhoods in berlin for example are high crime and high unemployment/high social dependence.

Right, can we deal in facts rather than sweeping generalisations?

Morlar wrote: »

This is not like allowing any other predominantly white christian country into the EU

Your argument seems to be the basic "they're not white (as far as I know), they're not Christian and they don't speak the same language as me, so they must be evil".

Morlar wrote: »

Personally I think Russia has a lot more in common with europe than turkey ever will and if we are to expand I think that is the direction we should be looking at.

You think Russia has more to offer the EU than Turkey?!? Care to back that up with something?

Tea drinker wrote: »

more than happy to see our resident (?) population of foreigners went from what? about .1% to 10% in a few short years, in fact per capita we have taken in more than Germany since WW2

Your point being?

Tea drinker wrote: »

How are so many muslims going to participate and interact with us?

Ah yes, the old Islam = evil argument. Yawn...

Interesting fact: Turkey received over 24 million tourists in 2005; I would imagine a fairly substantial number were European.

Tea drinker

djpbarry wrote: »

Right, can we deal in facts rather than sweeping generalisations?

You think Russia has more to offer the EU than Turkey?!? Care to back that up with something?

Your point being?

Ah yes, the old Islam = evil argument. Yawn...

The guy mentioned the fact that turkish ghettoes formed in Germany. And in France and Sweden etc. How can we avoid the same in Ireland, or do you see this as a plus?

As for Russia they have huge reserves of gas and oil, and we are now quite dependant on them. A close working relationship is necessary here.
Maybe not a member of the Union, they have a long, long, long way to go before they should be allowed join

?What's the point in your condescension? I never said they were evil. How do you know I am not implying that we are evil?
If you are tired off to bed with ya!

AngryHippie

While very few of todays modern day Turkish population could even be associated in any way with their treatment (Not alleged, Witnessed and documented) treatment of the Armenians, They are however involved intricately in massive denial that it ever happened, and this veil of secrecy is completely against what most of the EU countries and the Union itself claim to stand for. It is an outrageous insult to the people and their descendants and the least any credible government could do would be to acknowledge it. The more worrying aspect is the connection of a US cabal in this cover-up and denial, with many Turkish students going to the US to study then arriving back as an "authority" on ottoman-turkish history and claiming that it never happened. From what I have read it was a rag-tag group of Kurdish and Turkish army units that committed the bulk of the atrocities, I do not see any sense or benefit in denying it. As Israel gets mentioned above as a limit for EU expansion, The alarm bells are really going now, as the Israelis are also Armenian Holocaust deniers which baffles belief. They should be chief among the symathisers considering many of the horrors their people suffered in Europe were born from the testing grounds of the Armenian Holocaust, But instead Israeli academics classify it as a minor genocide, not the mass murder of 1.5 million people, the rape and murder of an entire generation of women and children and the persecution of an ethnic people.

While modern day Turkey may or may not be held responsible or subject to retribution is another days argument, but before they are even acknowledged as a nation fit to maintain diplomatic relations with, they should and must at least admit to their history, bloody and shameful though it is.

Tea drinker

AngryHippie wrote: »

While very few of todays modern day Turkish population could even be associated in any way with their treatment (Not alleged, Witnessed and documented) treatment of the Armenians, They are however involved intricately in massive denial that it ever happened, and this veil of secrecy is completely against what most of the EU countries and the Union itself claim to stand for. It is an outrageous insult to the people and their descendants and the least any credible government could do would be to acknowledge it. The more worrying aspect is the connection of a US cabal in this cover-up and denial, with many Turkish students going to the US to study then arriving back as an "authority" on ottoman-turkish history and claiming that it never happened. From what I have read it was a rag-tag group of Kurdish and Turkish army units that committed the bulk of the atrocities, I do not see any sense or benefit in denying it. As Israel gets mentioned above as a limit for EU expansion, The alarm bells are really going now, as the Israelis are also Armenian Holocaust deniers which baffles belief. They should be chief among the symathisers considering many of the horrors their people suffered in Europe were born from the testing grounds of the Armenian Holocaust, But instead Israeli academics classify it as a minor genocide, not the mass murder of 1.5 million people, the rape and murder of an entire generation of women and children and the persecution of an ethnic people.

While modern day Turkey may or may not be held responsible or subject to retribution is another days argument, but before they are even acknowledged as a nation fit to maintain diplomatic relations with, they should and must at least admit to their history, bloody and shameful though it is.

Well U.S. is relying heavily on turkey for supply functions to Iraq. They couldn't do it without them. (well they can't do it with them either!) Maybe usual foreign policy of ignoring the dog**** all over your new pals lawn.

Your point about Irsrael is interesting, and ironic... holocaust denial laws anyone?

djpbarry

Tea drinker wrote: »

The guy mentioned the fact that turkish ghettoes formed in Germany. And in France and Sweden etc.

First of all, "ghettos" (a word that is thrown around far too much) are formed all over the world by various different ethnic groups; it is not a phenomenon that is unique to Turks in Germany. Secondly, the assumption is being made that Turkish "ghettos" will form in Ireland and hence Turkish immigration would be inherently bad.

Tea drinker wrote: »

How can we avoid the same in Ireland, or do you see this as a plus?

You cannot dictate where people live - it is entirely up to the individual (and the property market, I suppose).

Tea drinker wrote: »

As for Russia they have huge reserves of gas and oil, and we are now quite dependant on them.

I could say the same of Saudi Arabia.

Tea drinker wrote: »

Maybe not a member of the Union, they have a long, long, long way to go before they should be allowed join

And yet you think they should be given preference over Turkey?

Tea drinker wrote: »

What's the point in your condescension? I never said they were evil.

You implied that "so many Muslims" would have difficulty "interacting" with us (by "us", I assume you mean non-Muslims). You're main objection to Turkish EU membership would appear to be the fact that the majority of the population is Muslim.

wes

SeanW wrote: »

They may not be be teetering on the edge of it now but it's always a possibility.

Didn't the Army get involved in some religious vs. seculuar party stuff not so long ago? I forget the exact details.

I also note that you didn't contest any of the other issues I raised.

The army didn't get involved at all. There were protests from the oppositions parties. The army made a few statements, thats about it.

Free and fair elections were held recently. The opposition lost.

You are right anything is possible. The British may decide to dump democracy and let the royal family rule. It could happen!!!

As for your other points, I do consider them serious issues. I only took issue with I taught was a misrepresentation of the situation in Turkey.

The Kurds and the Cyprus are both serious issues and you made a fair point about them. The other stuff not so much.

AngryHippie

Tea drinker wrote: »

... holocaust denial laws anyone?

A la France,
Check it out, it is actually a crime, if there is any evidence of a Holocaust, to deny it.

Pity bout Algeria though:eek:

eoin5

djpbarry wrote: »

The Armenian genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire, not by Turkey.

It was also commited by Eurasia, and humankind. A certain level of guilt is affordable to all denominations in events.

If a doctor perscribes a drug incorrectly and the person dies is the doc responsible? Of course, but its (legally) 25%. The pharmacist who hands out the drug is (again legally) 75% responsible.

In that event the Turks of the time obviously take most of the blame, and the Kurds of the time share plenty of the blame too. What they did was act on local hatred in an unforgivable way. Turkey committed the Armenian genocide: fact. So did the Ottoman empire: fact.

Lets not let the Turks get away with it by denying it or passing it off as some dead empires fault. History deserves better.

Dont be at yourself

I don't think it's racist, prejudiced, or a sweeping generalisation to say that - in the current global political climate - that allowing a country so removed both geographically and, more importantly, culturally from current member states is going to lead to integration problems.

Considering that many of the world's hot-button topics are as a result of Islamic-Christian culture clashes, you have to wonder if it's more trouble than it's worth.

Comparatively youthful population aside, what else do Turkey bring to the table?

djpbarry

eoin5 wrote: »

If a doctor perscribes a drug incorrectly and the person dies is the doc responsible? Of course, but its (legally) 25%. The pharmacist who hands out the drug is (again legally) 75% responsible.

That's totally different man - the doctor is directly involved. A better analogy would be to ask if the doctor's kids should have to pay for (or even just apologise for) their father's mistake - I would say no.

eoin5 wrote: »

Lets not let the Turks get away with it by denying it or passing it off as some dead empires fault.

I never said that the event should not be acknowledged by Turkey; it should. What I am saying is that Turks in the present day should not have to pay for, or apologise for, something that happened long before they were born.

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Considering that many of the world's hot-button topics are as a result of Islamic-Christian culture clashes, you have to wonder if it's more trouble than it's worth.

It could also be viewed as a tremendous opportunity to bridge the divide?

Do people really think that Turkish culture is all that different to say, (whisper it now) Greece? Let's not forget that the influence of the Ottoman Empire spread far beyond the borders of present-day Turkey; much of south-Eastern Europe would have cultural similarities with the Turks. Many languages in this region, for example, have similarities with Turkish.

wes

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Comparatively youthful population aside, what else do Turkey bring to the table?

Big army for one.

Bridging the divide between the "West" and "Muslim World". Basically showing people there that when you play ball, that good things happen. A successful Turkey in the EU with a nicely integrated Muslim population would be a nice example to the rest of the Muslim world.

There is a lot of potential in my mind for having Turkey in the EU. There are also risks that people have pointed out as well. Turkey should be judged on the criteria that the EU has set out, there are major outstanding issue that could keep Turkey outside the EU. If they don't shape up and meet them, they shouldn't be allowed in. If they do shape up, I see no reason they should not be allowed in.

silverharp

djpbarry wrote: »

Do people really think that Turkish culture is all that different to say, (whisper it now) Greece? Let's not forget that the influence of the Ottoman Empire spread far beyond the borders of present-day Turkey; much of south-Eastern Europe would have cultural similarities with the Turks. Many languages in this region, for example, have similarities with Turkish.

this makes sense, the western part of Turkey is in reality part of a greater med. culture so to isolate them from Europe is small minded. The country has great econimic potenial in the future and given the tensions in the mid east one would have though that it would be better to have them as friends then to treat them like a bad smell. You only have to look at Ireland to see that that the EEC put he final nail in the coffin of extremist Catholicism here so one would expect that Turkish membership would cap the power of the religious types there. Plus I don't want to become a citizen of the United States of Europe so the bigger the club the less chance there is of a formal political union.

Morlar

From everyones friend wikipedia :

Upon joining the EU, Turkey's almost 70 million inhabitants would bestow it the second largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament.[10] Demographic projections indicate Turkey would surpass Germany in the number of seats by 2020

No thanks we have enough islamists in europe already without importing 70 million more overnight. I just dont see the positive contribution that would come out of this. I can see how it would benefit islamists looking to expand their religon into and across europe - but from a european point of view its not in our interests in my view.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

No thanks we have enough islamists in europe already without importing 70 million more overnight. I just dont see the positive contribution that would come out of this. I can see how it would benefit islamists looking to expand their religon into and across europe - but from a european point of view its not in our interests in my view.

So you have proof that every single Turk is an Islamist? If they are, they are the worse Islamist ever, what with the secular democracy in there country.

Honestly such an assertion is complete rubbish.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

So you have proof that every single Turk is an Islamist? If they are, they are the worse Islamist ever, what with the secular democracy in there country.

So your saying we should run background checks on 70,000,000 people or just take your word for it that this would not be introducing large numbers of islamic fundamentalists into the eu ?

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

we have enough islamists in europe already without importing 70 million more overnight.

You've just lost all credibility as far as this argument is concerned.

Morlar wrote: »

So your saying we should run background checks on 70,000,000 people or just take your word for it that this would not be introducing large numbers of islamic fundamentalists into the eu ?

If Turkey is so chocked full of Fundamentalists, then how has secularism been maintained for over 80 years? Surely if the majority of the population want an Islamic state it would have happened by now? It is a democracy, after all.

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

You've just lost all credibility as far as this argument is concerned.

I should just take your word for that then shall I ? You are assuming that you had any to begin with btw.

djpbarry wrote: »

If Turkey is so chocked full of Fundamentalists, then how has secularism been maintained for over 80 years? Surely if the majority of the population want an Islamic state it would have happened by now? It is a democracy, after all.

There is nothing to say that it wont happen 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road which is the point.

Things change & just because turkey has held onto secularism thus far doesnt mean that that is a permanent situation.

It has a 99% islamic population - there are already internal tensions and calls for sharia law to be introduced - not to mention border disputes and extremist nationalism in a region which is no stranger to conflct. To assume the country is a stable secular democracy is a bit of a leap imo.

It is not moderate or tolerant of minorities which is another significant problem. I dont believe we can magically solve that by inviting them to be the country with the most power in the eu by 2020.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

So your saying we should run background checks on 70,000,000 people or just take your word for it that this would not be introducing large numbers of islamic fundamentalists into the eu ?

Your post was very clear. You accused the entire population of being Islamists. So are we suppose to take your word for it? As I said earlier your assertion is rubbish. Not all Turk are Islamists, in fact I would reckon not too many are. The fact they have been a secular democracy seems to be a major point against your ridiculous assertion.

You seem to have backed down a bit from your original post, but your first post on the matter is pretty telling.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

Not all Turk are Islamists, in fact I would reckon not too many are.

So - in other words yes we should just take your word for it and hope that none of them are. Fine glad to see you cleared that up for us.

70,000,000 is a lot of people - even 5 or 10% of that many being politicised or even potentially politicised islamists would be too many in my view. It's a lot of risk and not in the interests of european liberals in my view. Perhaps you can outline how it is in our interests for a change ?

What exactly are the benefits to europe of taking this risk ?

Considering it would mean permanently changing the demographic balance and power balance ? I cant believe that you are honestly saying there is no political islam factor here ? I believe that political islam across europe is paying very close attention to this issue.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

So - in other words yes we should just take your word for it and hope that none of them are. Fine glad to see you cleared that up for us.

You made the accusation not me. Why should I take you word for it either? You have provided not evidence to back up what your saying. Basically your point boils down to there Muslims, so there gonna be trouble. Its up to you to prove your point. I have already made my case, which is a lot more than taking me at my word.

I already said that Turkey is a secular democracy, to back up what I am saying. Basically, i already pointed out the fact Turkey = Secular democracy, hence the Islamist can't be all that powerful or numerous at all. You aren't taking my word for it at all, your taking the fact Turkey is a secular democracy.

I have already stated potential benefits for Turkey joining the EU earlier. Of course there will be risk, and at present Turkey has a long way to go before it can join.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

There is nothing to say that it wont happen 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road which is the point.

There is nothing to say that it will happen either.

Morlar wrote: »

Things change & just because turkey has held onto secularism thus far doesnt mean that that is a permanent situation.

You could apply that logic to just about anything. Of course things change, but things don't change overnight for no good reason.

Morlar wrote: »

It has a 99% islamic population - there are already internal tensions and calls for sharia law to be introduced

Calls from who? That statement really means nothing. There have been calls for sharia law to be introduced in Ireland - does that mean that the majority of people want it?

Morlar wrote: »

It is not moderate or tolerant of minorities which is another significant problem.

That's a bit general and not very specific now, is it? I could apply that statement to just about any country in the world.

If Turks are so intolerant, why is there tourist industry booming?

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

There is nothing to say that it will happen either.

You could apply that logic to just about anything. Of course things change, but things don't change overnight for no good reason.

No one mentioned overnight or 'for no good reason' - assuming that there is ever 'a good reason' for sharia law or islamic fundamentalism.

djpbarry wrote: »

There have been calls for sharia law to be introduced in Ireland - does that mean that the majority of people want it?

Not yet

djpbarry wrote: »

If Turks are so intolerant, why is there tourist industry booming?

Your confusing cheap package operators with tolerance and moderation - acceptance of minorities, homosexuals and so on - also womens rights and religious freedoms. Not exactly the same thing are they ? Cheap holidays = human rights ?

Perhaps, instead of cherrypicking other peoples points in order to try and undermine their overall argument, you could try putting forward your case and make a point or two of your own?

It would be good to see the substance of what you have to say about this (thats not in response to someone elses post I mean).

wes

Morlar wrote: »

No one mentioned overnight or 'for no good reason' - assuming that there is ever 'a good reason' for sharia law or islamic fundamentalism.

So, I take it you see some sort of thread toward an Islamic state in Turkey? What are these trends? Are there any at all?

Turkey doesn't look to be dumping there secular democracy any time soon. From what I can see it has passed quite a few hurdles recently, which has shown that there democracy is quite strong.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

70,000,000 is a lot of people - even 5 or 10% of that many being politicised or even potentially politicised islamists would be too many in my view.

Unlikely based on this year’s election results. The Felicity Party, the largest Islamist party in Turkey, received just 2.3% of the vote. To put that in perspective, Sinn Féin received 6.9% of the first-preference votes in the Irish general election this year. Does that mean that Ireland is teetering on the brink of a nationalist revolution?

Morlar wrote: »

Not yet

According to last year's census, there are about 32,500 Muslims in Ireland. Let's be ridiculously pessimistic and say that 25% of them are fundamentalists. You think that 8,000 people are going to form a majority government in a country of over 4.2 million?!?

Morlar wrote: »

Your confusing cheap package operators with tolerance and moderation - acceptance of minorities, homosexuals and so on - also womens rights and religious freedoms.

I don't really see what you're getting at here? My point was that if Turkey is as intolerant as you are claiming, then they wouldn't be receiving so many visitors.

Gay sex between consenting adults in private is not a crime in Turkey. Istanbul in particular has a very open gay scene. As for women's rights, Turkey was one of the first countries in the world to give full political rights to women. Turkey was one of the first countries to elect a female prime minister, something which has yet to happen in Ireland. Turkish women have the right to abortions in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and the right to contraceptive medicine (paid for by the state), rights which Irish women do not have. Turkish women have the right to initiate and obtain a divorce, a right still not recognized in Malta, an EU country.

Morlar wrote: »

Perhaps, instead of cherrypicking other peoples points in order to try and undermine their overall argument, you could try putting forward your case and make a point or two of your own?

It would be good to see the substance of what you have to say about this (thats not in response to someone elses post I mean).

I have already stated my beliefs on the subject:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54594184&postcount=11

You, on the other hand, have offered little more than an argument consisting of “they’re Muslim and therefore not to be trusted”.

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

Unlikely based on this year’s election results. The Felicity Party, the largest Islamist party in Turkey, received just 2.3% of the vote. To put that in perspective, Sinn Féin received 6.9% of the first-preference votes in the Irish general election this year. Does that mean that Ireland is teetering on the brink of a nationalist revolution?

2.3% of the vote in a country with a population of 70,000,000 represents a substantial number you will agree.

Its also a lot more than a party the size of Sinn Fein. Thats of course ignoring reality and assuming that the 2.3 % would be the total figure of those who would be in favour of, for example, sharia law. Or some other incompatible facet of islam like mandatory veiling of women. It is also assuming that this figure is locked in position and not likely to increase in reaction to world events.

djpbarry wrote: »

According to last year's census, there are about 32,500 Muslims in Ireland. Let's be ridiculously pessimistic and say that 25% of them are fundamentalists. You think that 8,000 people are going to form a majority government in a country of over 4.2 million?!?

I wouldnt agree that a figure of 25% is ridiculously pessimistic you really are trying to make it sound incredibly unlikely - yet as mentioned we already have a moderator on boards.ie who believes that even the most contemptible aspects of sharia law -ie stoning adulterous women to death is acceptable in principle. Not that ridiculously unlikely imo.

I dont know of anyone who accepts that a figure of 30k muslims in roi is an accurate figure. Not all muslims would have answered the census and the number today to when the census was taken are different. There would be no point dragging the discussion down this alleyway - lets agree not to agree on the precise number of mulsims in ireland for the moment as it is irrelevant to the current discussion. We are talking about Turkey in the eu not the most recent census figure for muslims in Ireland.

There are more dangers to introducing millions of fundamentalist muslims (or even potentially fundamentalist muslims) into europe and expecting a cohesive constructive integration than that 'they might form majority governments'.

Ask the people of london or madrid if they think the only dangers presented by islamic fundamentalism are that they 'might form majority governments'.

The danger of them forming majority government does not lie in the countries like Ireland where large numbers will settle it lies in their homecountry. You either deliberately or accidentally missed this point.

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't really see what you're getting at here? My point was that if Turkey is as intolerant as you are claiming, then they wouldn't be receiving so many visitors.

Cheap package holidays do not equal a tolerant country with an admirable human rights record. Ask the next egyptian person you meet if you dont believe me. You putting the turkish holiday business forward as a reason for why turkey should join the eu is not as impressive as you might think. imo.

djpbarry wrote: »

I have already stated my beliefs on the subject:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54594184&postcount=11

I said that so far you have cherry picked other peoples points to respond to as an attempt to undermine their argument without outlining your own position. In response to this - you posted a link to your post where you cherry picked other peoples points to respond to.

djpbarry wrote: »

You, on the other hand, have offered little more than an argument consisting of “they’re Muslim and therefore not to be trusted”.

That would be your innacurate characterisation of the discussion so far.

mox54

I think we should allow Russia join the EU before Turkey and besides, they need to sort out Cyprus first because the Turks have a serious issue with a current EU member nation over the Island and we should not even begin to consider them until they make moves on this!!!!!!!!.

Basically, I say NO or NON!!

wes

mox54 wrote: »

I think we should allow Russia join the EU before Turkey and besides, they need to sort out Cyprus first because the Turks have a serious issue with a current EU member nation over the Island and we should not even begin to consider them until they make moves on this!!!!!!!!.

Basically, I say NO or NON!!

Sorting out Cyprus is already a condition on the Turks joining. So they can't join unless this is sorted out.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

2.3% of the vote in a country with a population of 70,000,000 represents a substantial number you will agree.

Its also a lot more than a party the size of Sinn Fein. Thats of course ignoring reality and assuming that the 2.3 % would be the total figure of those who would be in favour of, for example, sharia law. Or some other incompatible facet of islam like mandatory veiling of women. It is also assuming that this figure is locked in position and not likely to increase in reaction to world events.

Do you have evidence to suggest the number is bigger than that? Seems to me that election results would be the best indicator of support, as opposed to plucking numbers (or just saying theres bound to more) out of the air, or assuming things will get worse somehow in the future. Are there any trends to support this when the most recent election showing that the Islamist party took such a hammering.

Morlar wrote: »

Ask the people of london or madrid if they think the only dangers presented by islamic fundamentalism are that they 'might form majority governments'.

We could ask the people of Iraq the same question about US/UK aggression. Doesn't mean that people in the UK/US are all war mongers, waiting with baited breath to bomb another ME nation, in fact I would say most are decent people.

Morlar wrote: »

Cheap package holidays do not equal a tolerant country with an admirable human rights record. Ask the next egyptian person you meet if you dont believe me. You putting the turkish holiday business forward as a reason for why turkey should join the eu is not as impressive as you might think. imo.

What does Egypt have to do with Turkeys human rights record? Also, before joining the EU, Turkey would have to improve this greatly. They have a lot of laws to change before this happens. This is a pre-condition they have to meet before they join if I remember correctly.

Morlar wrote: »

That would be your innacurate characterisation of the discussion so far.

I would disagree.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

Thats of course ignoring reality and assuming that the 2.3 % would be the total figure of those who would be in favour of, for example, sharia law.

So you are assuming that a large number of islamists in Turkey feel strongly about implementing sharia law, yet they didn't even bother to vote?

Morlar wrote: »

It is also assuming that this figure is locked in position and not likely to increase in reaction to world events.

All we have to go on are facts. They got 2.48% of the vote in 2002 - that's a decline of 0.14%.

Morlar wrote: »

I wouldnt agree that a figure of 25% is ridiculously pessimistic you really are trying to make it sound incredibly unlikely

You think that a large number of Muslims in Ireland are fundamentalists? Based on what?

I have to ask; do you actually know anyone from a Muslim background? Have you ever been to a Muslim country? Based on your posts here, I have to assume the answer to both of these questions is no.

Morlar wrote: »

I dont know of anyone who accepts that a figure of 30k muslims in roi is an accurate figure.

Why doesn't that surprise me - you seem unwilling to accept any facts or figures from any source.

Morlar wrote: »

There are more dangers to introducing millions of fundamentalist muslims (or even potentially fundamentalist muslims) into europe and expecting a cohesive constructive integration than that 'they might form majority governments'.

Germany has already received more immigrants from Turkey than any other country. As a result, 4% of the German population claim to be Muslim. I don't recall Germany ever having problems with Islamic fundamentalists.

Morlar wrote: »

Ask the people of london or madrid if they think the only dangers presented by islamic fundamentalism are that they 'might form majority governments'.

I suggest you do the same. I spend a great deal of time in London - Islamic fundamentalism is something that rarely comes up in conversation. It is not something that people are unduly worried about.

Morlar wrote: »

You putting the turkish holiday business forward as a reason for why turkey should join the eu is not as impressive as you might think.

I did nothing of the sort.

Morlar wrote: »

I said that so far you have cherry picked other peoples points to respond to as an attempt to undermine their argument without outlining your own position. In response to this - you posted a link to your post where you cherry picked other peoples points to respond to.

I shall repeat myself, just for you :rolleyes:

The key issues, in my opinion, are:

1. the non-recognition of Cyprus as a state by the Turks
2. the closed border between Turkey and Armenia (although I would regard this as less of an issue)
3. Human rights abuses in south-eastern Turkey (in the context of conflict with the PKK). While the Turkish government has made great strides in recent years on this issue (a fact recognised by Amnesty International), there still remains much to be done in terms of implementation, although this has been hampered by the current military operation in the region.

I would hardly regard [1] and [2] as insurmountable. As for [3], progress is unlikely to be made until the conflict with the PKK is resolved.

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

So you are assuming that a large number of islamists in Turkey feel strongly about implementing sharia law, yet they didn't even bother to vote?

Well isnt that kind of like saying that the only republicans in ireland vote sinn fein ? People vote for strategic reasons too. To say
that the sinn fein vote represents all republican sentiment in the country is either being misleading or not very clever imo. This would be the equivalent of saying that only 2+ % of turks have islamist sympathies which would be a bit simplistic in my view.

djpbarry wrote: »

All we have to go on are facts. They got 2.48% of the vote in 2002 - that's a decline of 0.14%.

So you now agree with the point that however reliable one parties voting record is as a guage of islamist sentiment in turkey that those numbers are subject to change.

djpbarry wrote: »

You think that a large number of Muslims in Ireland are fundamentalists? Based on what?

It would be my opinion that there are some who are yes. This would depend on how you classify 'fundamentalist' - agreeeing with the uglier aspects of sharia law would be enough to cause concern in my view. And in previous discussions on boards its clear that some are in that frame of mind.

djpbarry wrote: »

I have to ask; do you actually know anyone from a Muslim background? Have you ever been to a Muslim country? Based on your posts here, I have to assume the answer to both of these questions is no.

Not that its any of your business but yes and yes. Which would make you wrong on both assumptions - not that that has the remotest relevance to a discussion about the potential consequences of turkey joining the european union.

djpbarry wrote: »

Why doesn't that surprise me - you seem unwilling to accept any facts or figures from any source.

Ok so you realistically think that there are 30k muslims in roi - I told you we could agree to disagree on that rather than divert the conversation.

djpbarry wrote: »

Germany has already received more immigrants from Turkey than any other country. As a result, 4% of the German population claim to be Muslim. I don't recall Germany ever having problems with Islamic fundamentalists.

Yes there are approx 2 million turks in germany so you accept that this could also spell large scale immigration. As for germany not having problems with islamic fundamentalists the 9/11 hijackers were in part made up of islamists based in germany.

djpbarry wrote: »

I suggest you do the same. I spend a great deal of time in London - Islamic fundamentalism is something that rarely comes up in conversation. It is not something that people are unduly worried about.

I have also lived and worked in london and some people there would disagree with you on that but I take your word for it you have never met a londoner who is concerned about islamic fundamentalism.

djpbarry wrote: »

I did nothing of the sort.

That is precisely what you said. It was said in the thread that the levels of intolerance in turkey would be one reason for them not joining - you made the ridiculous point that if they were so intolerant they would not get so many holiday visitors.

Meaning that obviously they do get a lot of holiday visitors and so therefore are NOT intolerant and should be allowed to join.


It was pointed out to you that egypt also gets lots of visitors as a way of to show that there is not necessarily a link between a tourist industry and
human rights record or levels of tolerance.

djpbarry wrote: »

I shall repeat myself, just for you :rolleyes.

I think you have made yourself clear enough without the need to repeat yourself.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

Well isnt that kind of like saying that the only republicans in ireland vote sinn fein ?

You can second-guess election results until the cows come home - it's not going to get us anywhere. I think election results are a pretty good indicator of the population’s political allegiance.

Morlar wrote: »

So you now agree with the point that however reliable one parties voting record is as a guage of islamist sentiment in turkey that those numbers are subject to change.

Actually, I was making the point that this particular party's election performance in 2007 was even worse than it was in 2002 (and it was pretty dismal then).

Morlar wrote: »

It would be my opinion that there are some who are yes.

How many is some? And, again, what are you basing this on?

Here's a poll conducted by the Indo last year:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/its-home-away-from-home-but-were-glad-to-be-here-65197.html
It's not exactly comprehensive, but it gives you an idea at least.

A notable extract:
"There has been fierce debate in other EU countries over Muslim-only schools, but the Muslims surveyed strongly disapproved of solely Islamic education for their children. Just 13pc backed such a system."

Morlar wrote: »

Not that its any of your business but yes and yes. Which would make you wrong on both assumptions - not that that has the remotest relevance to a discussion about the potential consequences of turkey joining the european union.

Well, actually it is relevant, as your entire argument seems to be based on opinion rather than fact - I wanted to establish whether or not you had been exposed to Muslim culture.

Morlar wrote: »

Yes there are approx 2 million turks in germany so you accept that this could also spell large scale immigration.

I never said otherwise, although it should be noted that large-scale Turkish migration to Germany only began following a formal invitation from the German state. These Turks were invited to work in factories in urban regions, which lead to the formation of the Turkish communities you refer to as "Ghettos". Your claim that Turks have not integrated into German society is debatable; there have been many Turkish Germans of note (Mehmet Scholl comes to mind). Integration has been hampered by the Germans rather than the Turks, who have only recently agreed to citizenship for Turks born in Germany. Finally, given the large number of Turks in Germany, if religious extremism was such an issue, why are 90% of them consistently voting for the SDP?

Morlar wrote: »

It was said in the thread that the levels of intolerance in turkey would be one reason for them not joining - you made the ridiculous point that if they were so intolerant they would not get so many holiday visitors.

Turkey's supposed intolerance is an opinion of yours, an opinion that you have yet to back up with any facts. I have already pointed out the flaws in your claims that Turkish homosexuals and Turkish women are deprived of rights. In fact, it could be argued that Turkish women have more rights than Irish women do.

I am not denying that there have been, for example, religiously-motivated attacks in Turkey, although they are predominantly confined to the South-East of the country.

Taking the example you cited in Malatya, the perpetrators were arrested and sentenced for a range of crimes. I am trying to illustrate the point that the views held by these criminals are certainly not main-stream.

professore

extragon wrote: »

The notion of a Europe we can identify with would be stamped out, with the eventual aim of reducing the EU to the status of a free trade zone, with no political identity - the Turks, as super nationalists, would lead the way forward here - or ability to independently regulate international capitalism.

That in itself would be no bad thing. Better than it is now when the electorate says no and then have to vote again on the same thing until they say yes ????