should turkey be allowed join the EU

tobias_wolf

Recently i heard Wallstrom the vice president of the commission talk about her opinions on turkey Joining the EU in which she voiced her support for their application,she went on to say that the fear is on both sides of the fence, and maybe even more so for them as they would be the minority, she also went on to say that it would send out a great message to the world if they joined,i believe they should be allowed join as long as they meet the requirements on human rights ect...

Is racism involved in Austria's firm no to turkey joiny the EU?.

If they meet the criteria and want to join , which they defentley do(want to join), i cant think of one good reason why they shouldnt be allowed.

Esel

Maybe, after they conform to human rights requirements, apologise and make reparations to the Kurds, apologise for the Armenian genocide and repeal the law that forbids mention of same, etc etc. That's going to be a long time coming, imo.

tobias_wolf

esel wrote: »

Maybe, after they conform to human rights requirements, apologise and make reparations to the Kurds, apologise for the Armenian genocide and repeal the law that forbids mention of same, etc etc. That's going to be a long time coming, imo.

yes i do think they should recognise the Armenian genocide and sort out the kurdish situation,

the armenian genocide was a along time ago and it was the ottoman empire back then and not the republic of turkey is this why they wont apolagize?

i dont understand why they havent sorted that out already they have had long enough.

i do think they will sort out all these soon enough as they surely know they wont have a chance in hell of becoming a member state till they do

WoollyRedHat

esel wrote: »

Maybe, after they conform to human rights requirements, apologise and make reparations to the Kurds, apologise for the Armenian genocide and repeal the law that forbids mention of same, etc etc. That's going to be a long time coming, imo.

Hey, Bulgaria was let in, there was no major problem with there not so good human rights there...

evercloserunion

They should not be kept out because they are Muslim. They should be let in after they meet the human rights requirements, which would include allowing recognition of the Armenian genocide. Just because Bulgaria was let in with a less than pristine human rights record does not mean we should be letting them all in.

I would not force them to make reparations to the Kurds or apologize for the Armenian genocide.

ixoy

Yes, because turkeys clear need EU assistance after the massacre theu suffered yesterday.

lostexpectation

what other alliances are they in?

sink

lostexpectation wrote: »

what other alliances are they in?

NATO

lostexpectation

yeas but i mean economic ones etc like the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Cooperation_Organization
The Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) is an intergovernmental international organization involving ten Asian nations. It provides a platform to discuss ways to improve development and promote trade, and investment opportunities. The nations involved are Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The common objective is to establish a single market for goods and services, much like the European Union.

so why does it need to be in the EU?

evercloserunion

No one "needs" to be in the EU, that would imply some over-arching objective definition of necessity wich binds unwitting states and peoples. Membership of the EU is generally a product of mutual desire to join, so the question should be "why would they want to join the EU". And that's fairly obvious, being a member of ECO does not overrule the clear economic benefits that EU membership brings with it. The EU is a much, much bigger market than the ECO.

Though Turkey's membership of ECO does raise worrying questions about its bid to join the EU. Would allowing Turkey access to the single market indeirectly allow 9 other nations in as well?

lostexpectation

yeah but in eco its get to be big boy, not so much in the eu

lostexpectation

hmm maybe they shouldn't Capture of Baltimore, County Cork, in Ireland (1631)

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

hmm maybe they shouldn't Capture of Baltimore, County Cork, in Ireland (1631)

That was Barbary pirates, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zebra3

I always thought the E in EU stood for European, so why is a country that is 98% in Asia being considered?

For the same reason the EU country that is 100% in Asia should not have been allowed join.

psicic

I have had the pleasure of talking to politicians and senior Civil Servants in Europe and at home about the issue of Turkey several times over the past three years.

The summary of the attitudes were as follows:

In 2006 the issue was dead, no way would Turkey ever get in as they simply didn't 'fit' the EU quite right. The date would keep on getting pushed back, there'd always be a reason to extend negotiations. You would never end negotiations - to prevent Turkey joining someone else or doing anything anti-EU, but, in time, it was envisaged that Turkey might find itself the senior member in some type of Middle-East Union. Essentially, a conservative, consolidation approach where things were kept as-they-were as long as possible.
In 2007 it was that Turkey's not going to get in, at least not before something is worked out on Albania(on what/how fast their membership application will be - which was one of the hot topics of stablising the Balkans), Croatia's membership was finalised and we got a better idea of what was happening in the Ukraine. Still, it would be 50-80 years before this could happen. In effect, a careful, conservative approach.
In 2008 it was that there are some cultural issues to overcome, that an awful lot of domestic law revision needed to be done, that we had learned a lot from the Bulgarian experience, we'd need to get Cyprus sorted in some sort of manner and there'd need to be a long period of second-tier membership, but that the idea of Turkey as a 'closer partner' of the EU and eventual member was not a question of 'if' but of 'when'. This seems like a huge jump from 2007 and best categorised as an open but cautious approach.

I got to meet all these people from a mixture of work and courses I attended. Unfortunately, I probably won't get a chance to meet similar groups in 2009, and my 2008 experience may have been a aberration and did occur before the financial crisis.

However, I can say this: when talking about Turkey, there are a lot of different factions at play.

1. The people who make the economic argument: Simply put, Turkey are an economic threat to current EU member states. No, it's not that they are too poor, it's that their economy is so large that, if they pull an Ireland on it and get up to EU standard inside of twenty years, the traditional powerhouses of Europe might all find themselves in a far distant second to a revitalised Turkey. Hell, even if they joined 'as-is' and on an equal basis, the economies of the rest of old-Europe would take a huge hit. This is usually countered with the argument it's better to have them in the tent p*ssing out, then outside the tent p*ssing in.

2. Security: Turkey has the Kurdish problem, and that's big issue. For all the anti-Kurd sentiment in the EU (and there is quite a bit), Europe has, from its inception, paid a lot of lip-service to respecting the peoples of minority regions and beliefs. Additionally, Turkey shares a border with(amongst others) Iraq, Syria, Iran and Georgia. This means that in addition to inheriting an additional regional conflict in the separatist 'Kurdish Nation' malarky, we gain a number of potential international flashpoints.

On the other hand, being a border nation serves as one of Turkey's main attractions as well - it's potential to act as a 'gatekeeper' along a defined border. Turkey is a security conscious nation that it's convenient to have on one's border. It will provide a single point of contact into which the EU can focus its border controls. There is wider-scope to introduce draconian measures into a 'reforming' Turkey than to impose unpopular restrictions across the EU. Coming from an Irish viewpoint, I found it hard to start thinking in terms of securing a land border, but it certainly seemed to make sense given certain facts, such as Turkey's large standing army and an ability to defend a large border.

3. Oil/Gas: Turkey provides (or will do) a viable alternative pipeline for importing gas and oil into the EU. Currently, all our imported gas/oil comes through Russia, who have not been afraid to turn this off to suit their own domestic needs/foreign policy objectives. It is a very attractive idea to have this pipeline running through an EU-member rather than an EU-friendly state.

4. Where ends Europe: There is a fear for some in Europe that the EU will continue to expand despite having left the confines of Europe. There has been constant rumblings for a long time from certain guilt-ridden countries that strongly favour bringing Israel into the fold in the mid- to long-term (25 years or more), some countries want to revisit the idea of former colonies in the North of Africa joining (not withstanding the Moroccan incident), and there's this bright idea that the best way to get what we want from Russia is to bring all the ex-Soviet Republics into the EU as fast as possible. I won't even dare mention the equally fantastic idea that the best way for the EU to compete on the world stage and bring a stability to the Middle East is to offer a special membership of a 2nd-division EU to certain conflict ridden Arab states. :eek:

A way to counter this 'seep' that seems to be happening is the 'sink-hole' excuse; some hope that by bringing in a slightly less-than-ready but traditionally European-orientated Turkey, the EU will be able to halt it's expansion for a long time by focusing on bringing Turkey up to full-member status and standard and, by this indefinite pause, reinforce Turkey as the traditional end to Europe and to the EU(i.e. still leave the path open for Ukraine, not for Georgia). Additionally, by making Turkey an internal member of the EU, EU foreign policy can once again take a back seat while Turkey becomes a priority. (It would be my suspicion that this is why Turkey's hope for membership is not quite as dashed as they seemed 3 years ago.)

5. The Muslim angle: it seems like a silly argument here in Ireland, but there is this undercurrent of the EU being based on 'Christian' values and that accepting a Muslim state into the fold does not sit right with the EU.

However, the biggest bible-thumpers are also the ones that want Albania (another Muslim nation) in and were big on the whole Kosovo thing.

To me, the whole anti-Muslim agenda smacks too much of discrimination. However, this is the one aspect of the anti-Turkey movement I haven't got a sense of weakening. It does seem that a few of the more mainstream politicians have backed off their anti-Muslim sentiments... but that could just be a lack of reporting coupled with me not paying too much attention to what certain European politicians have to say in beerhalls and community centres across the continent of Europe.

(Apologies for rambling on. I'll cut this short and hope the final post makes sense)

Personally, I'm all for Turkey as a member of the EU - I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives and we do need a proper, reliable book-end to Europe. However, I have to admit, I believe an extended period of tier 2 membership should be one of the conditions of membership - i.e. no automatic right to freedom of movement across EU and so on.

Victor

Zebra3 wrote: »

I always thought the E in EU stood for European, so why is a country that is 98% in Asia being considered? For the same reason the EU country that is 100% in Asia should not have been allowed join.

So? All it is is a name.

The EU and its territories stretch across parts of both Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania? The only continents it isn't on are Antartica (claims made, but not recognised) and Australia. Why can't a bit next to Europe join?

I think Turkey is a bit big to 'digest' economically, politically, socially and populationwise. However, huge hoops were jumped through to joined the central and eastern European countries*, so I don't see what similar moves can't be made for Turkey.

I mention social issues - by this I mean this like blood feuds and honour killings - but is that any different to what has gone on in Northern Ireland or Southern Italy.


* Or was that because it would help Germany the most, as they have the best access

Zebra3

And does the European superstate project then end at Turkey's borders?

Or will Israel or Jordan or Iraq be allowed join?

97i9y3941

if they ever recognise cyprus and consider adultery not a sin,then the e.u will probably will let them in,although i heard another reason the e.u was eager to get turkey join was to police and control taliban factions,they have been known to gather safe havens by flying in the turkish part of cyprus then flying onto turkey itself then taking off again,if it was during the boom time,the irish would probably bought property there too

CDfm

Fred83 wrote: »

if they ever recognise cyprus and consider adultery not a sin,then the e.u will probably will let them in,although i heard another reason the e.u was eager to get turkey join was to police and control taliban factions,they have been known to gather safe havens by flying in the turkish part of cyprus then flying onto turkey itself then taking off again,if it was during the boom time,the irish would probably bought property there too

i Dont think they should be let in.

I think as a Muslim country they have allegiences other then Europe which makes it dificult for them to integrate,

A big no from me.

evercloserunion

CDfm wrote: »

i Dont think they should be let in.

I think as a Muslim country they have allegiences other then Europe which makes it dificult for them to integrate,

A big no from me.

It's not a case of EU vs Islam though, or at least it shouldn't be. Christian Europe has no future. While there are a few on the continent tat like to blather on about Europe's cultural and spiritual heritage, mainly as a response to immigration, Europe by and large is becoming increasingly secular and multi-faith. This is assisted by the influx of Muslim immigrants into countries like France, Britain and Ireland (though the ghettoization of these immigrants in some areas does more harm than good).

If anything, Turkey's accession would play a positive role in inter-ethnic relations as the existence of a large Muslim power in the EU would promote tolerance of Muslims in more traditionally Christian countries.

CDfm

evercloserunion wrote: »

It's not a case of EU vs Islam though, or at least it shouldn't be. Christian Europe has no future. While there are a few on the continent tat like to blather on about Europe's cultural and spiritual heritage, mainly as a response to immigration, Europe by and large is becoming increasingly secular and multi-faith. This is assisted by the influx of Muslim immigrants into countries like France, Britain and Ireland (though the ghettoization of these immigrants in some areas does more harm than good).

If anything, Turkey's accession would play a positive role in inter-ethnic relations as the existence of a large Muslim power in the EU would promote tolerance of Muslims in more traditionally Christian countries.

Unless you read your Treaty of Rome -the EU Countries are desirous of a closer union which doesnt exclude a military union.

I cant see how Turkey can sign up for that ATM. Its divided loyalties and the gulf is too great from a political and religious perspective.

evercloserunion

CDfm wrote: »

Unless you read your Treaty of Rome -the EU Countries are desirous of a closer union which doesnt exclude a military union.

I cant see how Turkey can sign up for that ATM. Its divided loyalties and the gulf is too great from a political and religious perspective.

As you can see from my username I have read the relevant article. That article doesn't expressly exclude a military union, but it doesn't include it either. In any case, the article itself refers to an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe which doesn't really lend itself to the idea of a military union. The military aspects of the current EU, and the EU after Lisbon, are generally for peacekeeping and, after Lisbon, defence purposes. The EU, unlike the US and to a lesser extent Russia, does not go to war to advance its own interests and there are no plans to start doing this any time soon.

I don't think Turkey will provide a problem for the rather unambitious military interests of the EU. If needs be, Turkey can be granted an opt-out from the military provisions of the Treaties though I doubt it would be necessary as these provisions are very minimalist.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

Unless you read your Treaty of Rome -the EU Countries are desirous of a closer union which doesnt exclude a military union.

I cant see how Turkey can sign up for that ATM. Its divided loyalties and the gulf is too great from a political and religious perspective.

I would imagine that would be the least of the issues. Turkey is a member of NATO - the only Islamic member, and apart from Canada and the US, the only one outside the EU/EEA.

As evercloserunion says, the EU's military ambitions are so limited that they are extremely unlikely to cause an issue to a NATO member.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would imagine that would be the least of the issues. Turkey is a member of NATO - the only Islamic member, and apart from Canada and the US, the only one outside the EU/EEA.

As evercloserunion says, the EU's military ambitions are so limited that they are extremely unlikely to cause an issue to a NATO member.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I cant see 70 million of them agreeing to baptism -can you?

Sangre

I can't see 5 million Irish people agreeing to baptism.

evercloserunion

CDfm wrote: »

I cant see 70 million of them agreeing to baptism -can you?

Baptism?

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

I cant see 70 million of them agreeing to baptism -can you?

I can't see anyone with an ounce of sense expecting them to.

sensibly,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can't see anyone with an ounce of sense expecting them to.

sensibly,
Scofflaw

By the same token by virtue of its history as the Ottoman Empire and its religion as a Muslim country it has a different culture than Europe.

Its religion and allegience looks towards Mecca as does its population " so its heart is islamic" and while it is a secular state -that is a key difference.

I think the gulf is to great and its nieve to think it can be bridged.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

By the same token by virtue of its history as the Ottoman Empire and its religion as a Muslim country it has a different culture than Europe.

Its religion and allegience looks towards Mecca as does its population " so its heart is islamic" and while it is a secular state -that is a key difference.

I think the gulf is to great and its nieve to think it can be bridged.

There's a thing, now - and on what would you base that view?

cordially,
Scofflaw

kevteljeur

I think the whole issue of Turkey joining exposes the 'Pyramid scheme' nature of part of the EU's growth strategy; they need a younger population with a growing market, and a cheaper labour force in the future. Turkey supplies that in a ready-made package, but they also know that themselves. It's not a good way to plan ahead for the future, however, to absorb states and cultures based on how they'll balance the books in the future.

At the end of the day, I believe the EU needs to draw a line somewhere, have a 'close affiliate' package for states like Turkey, and then sort it's current issues out internally. But that last bit's purely my personal opinion.

ionix5891

kevteljeur wrote: »

I think the whole issue of Turkey joining exposes the 'Pyramid scheme' nature of part of the EU's growth strategy; they need a younger population with a growing market, and a cheaper labour force in the future. Turkey supplies that in a ready-made package, but they also know that themselves. It's not a good way to plan ahead for the future, however, to absorb states and cultures based on how they'll balance the books in the future.

At the end of the day, I believe the EU needs to draw a line somewhere, have a 'close affiliate' package for states like Turkey, and then sort it's current issues out internally. But that last bit's purely my personal opinion.

You made a good few points that I would agree

Businesses need labor, and with the general population of EU aging fast things are gonna get funny

But youll never hear the "deeey toook ooouur jobs" pile admitting to the above,

and then theres the Islam card, its a religion, religion and politics dont mix, not to mention Jesus is one of the main prophets in Islam so you think that would keep the religious nutters here happy

Turkey joining the EU would be a big step, but think of the message it would sent to the rest of the middle east and hopefully stabilize that region

yes they need to do alot of work, i dont agree with religion (any religion) interfering so deeply with a nation, neither is beating women or prosecuting minorities (kurds) on

_Nuno_

ionix5891 wrote: »

yes they need to do alot of work, i dont agree with religion (any religion) interfering so deeply with a nation, neither is beating women or prosecuting minorities (kurds) on

I agree with this. They should be let in the EU, but only after they achieved a very defined separation between religion and politics. I don't think this will happen in the next few decades though.

It took Europe a long time to put the Catholic church in their place (and Ireland even longer), and having Islam now interfere with law making in the EU would be a huge step back.

evercloserunion

kevteljeur wrote: »

I think the whole issue of Turkey joining exposes the 'Pyramid scheme' nature of part of the EU's growth strategy; they need a younger population with a growing market, and a cheaper labour force in the future. Turkey supplies that in a ready-made package, but they also know that themselves. It's not a good way to plan ahead for the future, however, to absorb states and cultures based on how they'll balance the books in the future.

At the end of the day, I believe the EU needs to draw a line somewhere, have a 'close affiliate' package for states like Turkey, and then sort it's current issues out internally. But that last bit's purely my personal opinion.

Well calling it a "pyramid scheme" makes it sound bad of course but every society would benefit from a younger workforce, it's nothing peculiar to the EU to want that.

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a thing, now - and on what would you base that view?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its a different culture and its not a pyramid scheme.

It regulates markets for our benefit - its not a charity -its for us to keep people out and exploit economic advantages.

Woohoo.

evercloserunion

CDfm wrote: »

Its a different culture and its not a pyramid scheme.

It regulates markets for our benefit - its not a charity -its for us to keep people out and exploit economic advantages.

Woohoo.

It's a different culture primarily because it's a different religion, but in an increasingly secular world that is getting less and less important.

There were significant culture differences within Europe when the EEC was founded, as is evident by the fact that the European countries had spent the last few centuries knocking the living sh!t out of each other. The beauty of the EU is that it can overcome those cultural differences.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

Its a different culture and its not a pyramid scheme.

It regulates markets for our benefit - its not a charity -its for us to keep people out and exploit economic advantages.

Woohoo.

As evercloserunion says, the EU already covers countries with deep cultural differences, who had been fighting and vilifying each other for centuries. The Ottoman Empire itself was part of the European political scene for many of those centuries. I don't think one can simply say "oh, it's a different culture, involvement would never work" without explaining why involvement would never work with the particular culture you're talking about.

The EU encompasses countries which were under church domination on entry (Ireland, for example), had just come out of being ruled by military juntas (Greece, Spain, Portugal), have just emerged from Communism and retain strong Communist traditions (all of Eastern Europe), are divided by foreign occupation (Ireland, Cyprus), or had just committed an unprecedented act of genocide on foot of their aggressive invasion of the rest of Europe under fascism (Germany). What exactly makes Turkey so impossible a candidate?

As to "it's not a charity" - well, yes, it often is, and a good thing too, because otherwise Ireland would never have been let in. 35 years we've been in the EU, and we're still not contributors, nor likely to be for another decade.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichMc70

No.

Turkey should never be allowed into the EU. I don't see how anyone could even class it as a european country bearing in mind approx. 95% of it's land is situated within the continent of asia.

Turkey has a population of over 70 million. IMO it's Brussels looking at Turkey as massive supply of cheap labour force.

ionix5891

RichMc70 wrote: »

No.

Turkey should never be allowed into the EU. I don't see how anyone could even class it as a european country bearing in mind approx. 95% of it's land is situated within the continent of asia.

Turkey has a population of over 70 million. IMO it's Brussels looking at Turkey as massive supply of cheap labour force.

thats quite weak argument

theres plenty of land outside European continent thats part of EU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union


look closely at a euro note see that place in south america (thats bigger than ireland)?

97i9y3941

RichMc70 wrote: »

No.

Turkey should never be allowed into the EU. I don't see how anyone could even class it as a european country bearing in mind approx. 95% of it's land is situated within the continent of asia.

Turkey has a population of over 70 million. IMO it's Brussels looking at Turkey as massive supply of cheap labour force.

unfortantly thats the downside of enlargeing the e.u aswell,its belived now that dell in limerick will close up and move to poland,its cost of business that drives companies out of here

CDfm

Fred83 wrote: »

unfortantly thats the downside of enlargeing the e.u aswell,its belived now that dell in limerick will close up and move to poland,its cost of business that drives companies out of here

Too true Fred.

Ireland has a comparative economic advantage for doing business in Europe that expansion erodes and it is not in our long term interests to see enlargement.

We adopt and enforce EU rules in all kinds of areas that others ignore- anyone seeing the markets outside Paris would know this.

Its about time we really looked after our own interests,

ionix5891

Fred83 wrote: »

unfortantly thats the downside of enlargeing the e.u aswell,its belived now that dell in limerick will close up and move to poland,its cost of business that drives companies out of here

wait for another No result in next referendum and they all would go

hell my own business had to shed 2 employees since last referendum due to the crunch affecting our customers and all the uncertainty about irelands place in eu

i wont be sticking around if Ireland ends up not being a full EU member due to libertosers buying another vote

CDfm

ionix5891 wrote: »

wait for another No result in next referendum and they all would go

hell my own business had to shed 2 employees since last referendum due to the crunch affecting our customers and all the uncertainty about irelands place in eu

i wont be sticking around if Ireland ends up not being a full EU member due to libertosers buying another vote

I agree - but on matters of enlargement- it sucks,

I dont think Turkey should be allowed in until I can see an economic advantage for Ireland and I cant.

ionix5891

CDfm wrote: »

I agree - but on matters of enlargement- it sucks,

I dont think Turkey should be allowed in until I can see an economic advantage for Ireland and I cant.

an access to a new market of 72 million (yes they are poorer per gdp on average, but on positive side theres alot of people there) is an economic advantage (some might say an opportunity)

and a nice sunny cheap place to buy a holiday home

their economy grew by 5% this year while our shrunk by about as much

97i9y3941

CDfm wrote: »

Too true Fred.

Ireland has a comparative economic advantage for doing business in Europe that expansion erodes and it is not in our long term interests to see enlargement.

We adopt and enforce EU rules in all kinds of areas that others ignore- anyone seeing the markets outside Paris would know this.

Its about time we really looked after our own interests,

im sick of this bull**** too of people blaming goverment for the recession,why dont they think it was some of our own fault too,the second houses,the suv,the holidays,the restaurants,all bought on ****ing credit,the small people thaught they could come big and screw us all.

CDfm

Fred83 wrote: »

im sick of this bull**** too of people blaming goverment for the recession,why dont they think it was some of our own fault too,the second houses,the suv,the holidays,the restaurants,all bought on ****ing credit,the small people thaught they could come big and screw us all.

I agree with you Fred.

Its a world recession - ireland is just a small country and the government can do very little in the grand scheme of things.

Its a free market economy and the government can no longer use the Central Bank and monetary policy to regulate the economy, That part went when we joined the Euro,people borrowed and spent. If I dont have it I dont spend it.

When people took out credit thats what they did.Everyone went wacko.

Remember when Bertie Aherns car got roughed up in Waterford by hospital activists. Pure wacko.

Whenever I see or hear about people whinging about stuff like this they dont want to see stuff tackled like the public sector and every local issue hopitals and every interest group in every parish wants its own donkey cemetary paid for and it costs money,

Its central governments job to provide essential services and to keep the country robust enough to be competitive and lean and fit enough financially.

Lisbon I am for as its in our interest for Europe, as for Turkey -I cant see that its for our benefit.

Its time for reality to kick in.

97i9y3941

the HSE is an odd thing alright,people in vhi/bupa get paided less but run a better health service than people that run HSE

CDfm

The HSE and public service is very odd fred.

Just do the math. I saw it reported that our hospital doctors get paid E180,000 per annum vs E120,000 in the UK.

I saw it reported that junior public service employees get 30% more than private sector employees -excluding pensions and other benefits which would add on 25% to 50% depending on who you believe.

It looks like the public sector knows quite well how to pay itself.

Its a bit more then taking on the power of the unions and vested interests. To tackle it you would need cross party support and support from Enda Kenny and his mob.

They seem to put party politics and local politics ahead of the country.

Zebra3

ionix5891 wrote: »

wait for another No result in next referendum and they all would go

hell my own business had to shed 2 employees since last referendum due to the crunch affecting our customers and all the uncertainty about irelands place in eu

i wont be sticking around if Ireland ends up not being a full EU member due to libertosers buying another vote

There is no uncertainty in Ireland's place in the EU due to the way the people voted.

And a yes vote would have saved those jobs? :rolleyes:

CDfm

Would a yes vote havevsaved the jobs

How?

Can you back up your argument and cite sources.

evercloserunion

This thread is about Turkey, not Lisbon or the recession.

CDfm

evercloserunion wrote: »

This thread is about Turkey, not Lisbon or the recession.

Well thats a mods decision.

I would say their are 2 reasons it is relevant.

The first being EU enlargement changed Europe and a furter enlargement ATM would furter dilute our voting powers. This makes it relevant even in the hypothetical.

The thread has broad topical issues on the operation of the new EU decision making model upon enlargement as we are experiencing now. If we expand the EU into asia or the Middle East what are we saying. Do we invite Israel next?