Turkey and the EU

connacht100

i was just wondering why are so many EU countries opposed to Turkey joining the EU? is it connected to Islam or the Ottoman Empire?

r14

connacht100 wrote: »

i was just wondering why are so many EU countries opposed to Turkey joining the EU? is it connected to Islam or the Ottoman Empire?

I'm not an expert but I think it is largely to do with the large Islamic population and the fact that the enlargement would give the EU a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran. That would be a bit of a headache.

Also there's a large Turkish minority in Germany so they're not too keen on them getting all the free movement rights.

I think it's a bit hypocritical to refuse them entry if they meet the entry conditions, though the official explanation for the constant delay is the fact that Turkey has not yet reached a sufficient level of protection of human rights to join the EU.

BlitzKrieg

doesnt it also have to do with Turkey's size? If it was accepted as a member with full rank and privilige its sizeable population etc would put it up there in the top 5 of the EU since its population outnumbers France by about 6 million.

democrates

I think Obama knew he'd ruffle EU feathers in expressing support for Turkish membership, but that was outweighed by his priority to extend a hand of friendship to the muslim world. Maybe Sarkozy should visit Mexico and express support for them becoming the 51st state of the union

If Turkey is to join there has to be substantive change in European perceptions of the muslim world, particularly the risks posed by the militant fringe. The taliban are resurgent in Afghanistan and expanding in Pakistan, but now that a major part of their recruitment division (the bush administration) are gone the long term prospects may have somewhat improved.
On the other hand it may get worse. The US may be planning to 'support' Pakistan in retrieving that territory not just to 'defeat' the Taliban but to avoid nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands. Moderates will support this of course but it's the extremists who are the problem.

Besides that, Israels zionist fundamentalists have proven tenacious in pursuit of dominion over 'the holy land', they're quite adept at stimulating conflict with Hamas, in terms of self promotion these two groups have a symbiotic relationship. How Obama handles that situation will be interesting.

For the foreseeable I don't see their being much of an appetite in EU nations (not just those who have suffered terrorist bombings and assasinations) for opening their borders to a predominantly muslim country. Sad but there it is.

cozmik

Ignorance and fear of the unfamiliar. I would suspect ignorance forming the greater part.

humanji

Isn't there also the fact that Turkey refuses to acknowledge the existence of one of the EU memberstates? That might go against them.

Scofflaw

humanji wrote: »

Isn't there also the fact that Turkey refuses to acknowledge the existence of one of the EU memberstates? That might go against them.

Isn't it slightly more complicated? Nobody recognises the existence of Turkish Cyprus, but Turkey, afaik, recognises the existence of 'Greek' Cyprus.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nody

connacht100 wrote: »

i was just wondering why are so many EU countries opposed to Turkey joining the EU? is it connected to Islam or the Ottoman Empire?

Where to start; here's a pick for starters though:

• Military threatening to overthrow (and has overthrown) the government if it does not do what it want
• PkK
• Government death squads
• Legal system (writing anything bad about the founder gives you serious prison time; even things that you'd have to squint to construe as slander, Islamicphobic(sp) courts)
• Human rights or rather the lack there of
• Economy and location
• Islam (though this one I got least problem seeing in practice considering the military's strong arm but hey)
• Lack of things in common with most of Europe
• Attitude to two close by states (Greece and Cyprus); including hostile actions
• Geographical location
• Cost (makes the subsidies to Ireland look cheap)
• Size

List can go on though; in short simply because something is in Europe does not mean it is good addition to EU; something the politicans appear to have forgotten.

cabinteelytom

The admission of Turkey is the biggest mistake, of many, being considered by the current EU. An aggressive nationalist state which has sought to shed it's Kurdish minority in the direction of the EU,which is in occupation of Cyprus, and has had, recently, conflicts with Iraq and Syria? Turkey will obstruct/ignore/delay the recourse of it's citizens to the ECJ and ECHR, while it's leadership demands their full entitlement as a large state to Qualified Majority Voting.
Controlling Turkey within the EU will be an enormous challenge.
Recent EU reports on corruption and organised crime in Bulgaria and Romania and in appllicant state Croatia indicate there is plenty for the EU to tackle before seeking the next expansion eastwards.

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nobody recognises the existence of Turkish Cyprus, but Turkey, afaik, recognises the existence of 'Greek' Cyprus.

No, they dont (according to wikipedia ),

Wikipedia Article (link below) wrote:

Turkey flatly refuses to recognize the government of the Republic of Cyprus, stating that the Republic - as established by the Constitution of 1960 - ceased to exist when the intercommunal violence that commenced in December 1963 ended Turkish Cypriot participation in the Cypriot government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Cyprus#Turkey

This would obviously be a major hurdle to cross.

I think the whole human rights/government/corruption thing is pretty bad in Turkey. This would have to be fully addressed before entry.

I think the argument that Turkey shouldn't join because only a small part is in Europe is just an excuse to dodge the issue. But the fact it will be one of the biggest, and not culturally the same as the rest, is a worry for a lot of people.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

No, they dont (according to wikipedia ),

Well, I live and learn, thanks! Makes sense - if the current Republic of Cyprus claims to be the original Republic, then of course Turkey wouldn't recognise it.

turgon wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Cyprus#Turkey

This would obviously be a major hurdle to cross.

I think the whole human rights/government/corruption thing is pretty bad in Turkey. This would have to be fully addressed before entry.

I think the argument that Turkey shouldn't join because only a small part is in Europe is just an excuse to dodge the issue. But the fact it will be one of the biggest, and not culturally the same as the rest, is a worry for a lot of people.

Also, if you think about it, while it seems extremely culturally alien to us, it's a lot more like the Greeks and the Romanians. We're more or less at one end of the spectrum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Denerick

At some stage in the future, when we are all on a better footing Turkey should be admitted to the EU without doubt. The only reason people oppose it, when we boil right down to the basics, is racism. The EU is a white, Christian (Nominal) club. We've no time for those Mohamadeans and their crazy Korans.

Turkey suffers from many of the internal problems other Eastern European countries suffered from before they joined the EU - and who still do, to a great extent. Granted there is the nationalist/military/Islamist conundrum but that can just as easily be construed as the signs of an advanced democratic nation. The tensions in that country are perfect for western Liberal democracy and Turkey is 90% there already anyway.

Turkey also has a rich cultural tradition, a fiercely and aggressively secular history and a host of artistic and cultural achievements well at comfert level with the rest of Europe. Orhan Pamuk is probably one of the best living authors (Thats a big claim, but he is up there). Their women wear miniskirts and dance to cheap and crap disco music is Istanbul town centre. Their young men go to football matches, riot, drink themselves silly and start brawling on Saturday nights. They aren't too different to ourselves or the Brits.

af_thefragile

Its gonna be best for Turkey to stay out of EU regardless of what its leaders think.
Turkey joining the EU is just another piece in the puzzle towards the globalisation of a socialist world state.
And as what's good for the people isn't always what's good for the global corporations, i'm pretty positive Turkey is gonna inevitably end up becoming a part of the EU!

Also what has Islam and the Ottoman empire got to do with Turkey joining the EU?
Don't tell me its some stupid Islamophobia creeping up and the Ottoman empire is long gone. Turkey is a secular democratic state now.

live2thewire

some don't think turks are european, others feel they are too nationalist and many fear islamification(never gonna happen in ireland but netherlands, uk and sweden) have this.

r0nanf

I think the issue of where Europe ends, i.e. where the natural border of the continent is, is the major stumbler beneath all the various arguements.

Where does Europe make the distinction of what is a European country, and is that based on cultural or geographical factors? Do we draw the line where we are now, or head toward the geopolitical UEFA model where Israel and Kazakhstan are considered European countries?

Morocco applied in 1987 and was rejected - human rights and democratic issues of the time notwithstanding anybody asked would say that being part of the African land mass would denote it as "non European". If one is to use that as a prerequisite surely then Europe needs to draw a definitive continental border as there is no easily identifiable geographical border between the greater European landmass and the middle east.

BlitzKrieg

How would people feel if the ideals, policies and freedoms of the EU was something purposely aimed to be exported and expanded?

Like you said the borders of the Europe are not easily defined. During the Cold War it was sort of easy with the communist block, (go halfway through Germany get a plane to Berlin and stop when you reach a wall.) and in plain geography you could say the Uruls are the divider between europe and Asia, but admit to that and you are admiting to Russia being a possible member. Something that in todays climate some might even feel more favourable to then say anything that comes from south east of the european continent, but politically would be something everyone at the moment would be shaking their heads furiously at.

But back to the exporting the EU ideal. In niave hope would there be people out there who would like to see in twenty to thirty years time that the European Union changes again and becomes some sort Euro-Asia Union and so on and so on and in theory bring peace co-operation etc etc to the world and live happily ever after.

I mean if thats the case and if that is the goal of the EU in some really long term belief then sticking strictly to their admission requirements is really all we should require (democracy, human rights etc etc) and where it's from shouldnt matter.

thankfully though for people who dont want to export the EU system one tends to find that once you are outside the EU states anyone who wants to join us never stand up to the requirements and those that do dont want to join.

I guess in the end where the EU is going is subject to the same limitations as every attempt at a conspiracy theory involving secret organisations ruling the world for decades and centuries, people die, people retire and usually the son/heir/elected replacement/insurrector etc etc doesnt have the same goal/beliefs/moral code as the predesscor and things change.

democrates

Nice broad overview Blitzkrieg. I'd add that for Switzerland it is the EU that does not come up to par in terms of their system of direct democracy, hopefully we will eventually do so it's a work in progress.

When it comes to other posters points on corruption in applicant states, we should remember that Italy may well be far worse so infested are they with the mafia, an issue that is strangely starved of attention.

The G20 summit surprised me with the initiative to crack down on tax havens, clearly a lot of people managed to salt away billions for themselves while the rest of us are left carrying the can after the pump and dump of the global economy. Corruption is as globalised as the worlds financial system and needs these kind of international answers.

The good story here is that the political establishement have made those moves even though the main media focus of the summit was on a co-ordinated stimulus plan and reform of regulation. That implies that politicians aren't completely corrupt.

Given the wider context I wouldn't see corruption as being an insurmountable barrier to Turkey's membership. Some will look for every possible reason to convince people to object, but one by one their 'concerns' will be dealt with and we'll be down to the truth - islamophobia and fascism.

djpbarry

turgon wrote: »

I think the argument that Turkey shouldn't join because only a small part is in Europe is just an excuse to dodge the issue. But the fact it will be one of the biggest, and not culturally the same as the rest, is a worry for a lot of people.

I don't really accept the "culture" argument; it's not like there is a sudden cultural shift when one crosses into Turkey from Bulgaria or Greece.

r0nanf

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

How would people feel if the ideals, policies and freedoms of the EU was something purposely aimed to be exported and expanded?

Unfortunately that was what George Bush was trying to do: "spread democracy". I don't think you were getting at this but it could be misinterpreted as a presumption of superiority.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

...sticking strictly to their admission requirements is really all we should require (democracy, human rights etc etc) and where it's from shouldnt matter.

Fact. I think you're onto the right path here but unfortunately with the Limbo treaty still undecided we can't even proclaim a decent pan-European human rights charter ourselves! I like your thinking though as the UN has devolved into nothing better than a John Bowman style conversational.

biko

I think it also has to do with how Turkey handles human rights. For instance Kurds.

From wiki
Human rights in Turkey are protected by a variety of international law treaties, which takes precedence over domestic legislation, according to the 1982 Constitution.

The issue of human rights is of high importance for the negotiations with the European Union (EU). A large part of the legislation criticized by human rights organizations are included in the 1982 Constitution or other laws passed following the 1980 military coup. On re-election in July 2007, the AKP (religious conservative) government pledged to rewrite the 1982 constitution, but after months of discussion it has failed to make public a draft constitution,[1] due to severe opposition[2] stemming from the belief that it may contain hidden clauses aimed towards eroding the foundations of the Republic.

Acute human rights issues include in particular the Kurdish matter, as the state of emergency declared between 1987 and 2002 in the Southeastern Anatolia Region due to the conflict with the PKK, a militant secessionist Kurdish group, has caused numerous human rights violations over the years. Censorship and military intervention in politics are also common human rights issues.

gurramok

Yes, about 12million kurds with next to no rights. They were forbidden from even speaking their own language until recently and suffer a brutal occupation.

And look at the denial of the Armenian genocide. We don't want a country like that in the EU that denies and persecutes its own people.

Denerick

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, about 12million kurds with next to no rights. They were forbidden from even speaking their own language until recently and suffer a brutal occupation.

And look at the denial of the Armenian genocide. We don't want a country like that in the EU that denies and persecutes its own people.

I don't see many complaints about the likes of Serbia potentially joining the EU. Fact is, we don't want them because they are brown.

gurramok

Denerick wrote: »

I don't see many complaints about the likes of Serbia potentially joining the EU. Fact is, we don't want them because they are brown.

What are you on about?

Serbia does not have a vocal minority pushing for autonomy/basic human rights. They only had Kosovo which has been declared outside their scope and due to be settled.

You say they are brown as the reason, i say they have to respect the huge Kurdish minority in the country who have sufferely immensely in recent years and still do.

Give the Kurds democracy before the EU can let them in.

And then we havent even thought of Islamic fundmenatlists active in the country and the denial of the Armenian genocide by its govt!

djpbarry

gurramok wrote: »

You say they are brown as the reason, i say they have to respect the huge Kurdish minority in the country who have sufferely immensely in recent years and still do.

That's a little one-sided. I agree that Turkey's responses to terrorist attacks from Kurdish separatists have been heavy-handed at times, but that doesn't condone the actions of the terrorists.

gurramok wrote: »

Give the Kurds democracy before the EU can let them in.

It's not really that simple, is it? Even the Kurds themselves cannot decide on what exactly it is that they want.

gurramok

djpbarry wrote: »

That's a little one-sided. I agree that Turkey's responses to terrorist attacks from Kurdish separatists have been heavy-handed at times, but that doesn't condone the actions of the terrorists.

Turkish security forces have brutalised the civilian population when they started to protest peacefully for their rights in the 70's. No wonder the PKK sprung up.

djpbarry wrote: »

It's not really that simple, is it? Even the Kurds themselves cannot decide on what exactly it is that they want.

Thats for them to decide for when they get the right to do so. They cannot even have a party name in parliament with 'Kurd/Kurdish' in its name.

Mass graves and stuff, that is not the workings of a country that embraces human rights and democracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7934097.stm

Denerick

The Turkey of the 70s was vastly different from the Turkey of today. They didn't even resemble a democracy then. And really, is the Islamic fundamentalism, genocide denial really enough reason to forbid them entry. Considering Austria's history and the sucess of the far right in that country I'm surprised your not calling for them to be expelled from the EU.

Nody

Denerick wrote: »

The Turkey of the 70s was vastly different from the Turkey of today. They didn't even resemble a democracy then. And really, is the Islamic fundamentalism, genocide denial really enough reason to forbid them entry. Considering Austria's history and the sucess of the far right in that country I'm surprised your not calling for them to be expelled from the EU.

And the military throwing them over in the 80s was what? Or how about the fact the military threatens to overthrow the current government if they are considered to go to far; that is not exactly the definition of a working democracy now is it?

But lets skip that; lets talk about the kurds then instead. Do you want to discuss the latest government death squads or the secret police? The kurds called to the police stations and never seen again afterwards with the police denying they where there even though eye witnesses point them out as walking in? No you know what, lets skip that one as well and move to...

Free speach; did you know that it is illegal to insult the founder of Turkey with the punishment of jail? The definition of insulting the founder is also very broad and wide flung and includes even writing historical descriptions of the time that are not glorifying him.

Yea, that is a good western style democracy right there!

gurramok

Denerick wrote: »

The Turkey of the 70s was vastly different from the Turkey of today. They didn't even resemble a democracy then. And really, is the Islamic fundamentalism, genocide denial really enough reason to forbid them entry. Considering Austria's history and the sucess of the far right in that country I'm surprised your not calling for them to be expelled from the EU.

Austrians did not massacre people in the 90's, nevermind the 70's. Shouldn't the Kurdish question be settled amically between both sides before EU entry is allowed?

So you beleive the Armenian genocide did not happen?

r14

Nody wrote: »

Free speach; did you know that it is illegal to insult the founder of Turkey with the punishment of jail? The definition of insulting the founder is also very broad and wide flung and includes even writing historical descriptions of the time that are not glorifying him.

Yea, that is a good western style democracy right there!

gurramok wrote: »

Austrians did not massacre people in the 90's, nevermind the 70's. Shouldn't the Kurdish question be settled amically between both sides before EU entry is allowed?

In Austria it's an offence to deny the holocaust. Is that free speech?

The EU is not the noble beacon of human rights for the world that some seem to believe. Turkey has come on greatly in terms of human rights because of its negotiations for EU candidature. Bear in mind France and the UK are frequently in front of the ECHR for torture. You just look at the police (over)reaction at the G 20 a few weeks ago to realise the EU countries aren't faultless. Bringing Turkey closer to the EU would allow more pressure be placed on them to improve human rights and address many issues that other States aren't happy with.

I think the best reason for delaying Turkey's entry (not excluding them altogether) is that the EU needs to strengthen itself with a new institutional framework and bed in the newer eastern countries. I see no reason why negotiations shouldn't continue with Turkey with an eye to bringing them in later.

Denerick

gurramok wrote: »

Austrians did not massacre people in the 90's, nevermind the 70's. Shouldn't the Kurdish question be settled amically between both sides before EU entry is allowed?

So you beleive the Armenian genocide did not happen?

I agree, the Kurdish question needs to be resolved. But there are several examples across the EU where minorities who want independence are not getting it - The Basques, Catalans, Flemings, even our own people north of the border. The Kurds openly use terrorist tactics to persue their ends. Not all obviously, but some.

To be fair, the british adopted similar policies in dealing with the IRA. Would the British government have been allowed entry to the EU during the Troubles?

And thanks for proving you've no interest in reasonable discussion by trying to assert that I deny the Armenian genocide. Its a wonder how you can ask that question with a straight face.

Many of Turkey's problems mirror the problems of other countries that have been admitted to the EU in the past. The two major differences are that 1) Turkey is big and 2) Turkey is Muslim.

Scofflaw

Denerick wrote: »

I agree, the Kurdish question needs to be resolved. But there are several examples across the EU where minorities who want independence are not getting it - The Basques, Catalans, Flemings, even our own people north of the border. The Kurds openly use terrorist tactics to persue their ends. Not all obviously, but some.

To be fair, the british adopted similar policies in dealing with the IRA. Would the British government have been allowed entry to the EU during the Troubles?

Er, the UK joined in January 1973? A year after Bloody Sunday.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gurramok

r14 wrote: »

In Austria it's an offence to deny the holocaust. Is that free speech?

The EU is not the noble beacon of human rights for the world that some seem to believe. Turkey has come on greatly in terms of human rights because of its negotiations for EU candidature. Bear in mind France and the UK are frequently in front of the ECHR for torture. You just look at the police (over)reaction at the G 20 a few weeks ago to realise the EU countries aren't faultless. Bringing Turkey closer to the EU would allow more pressure be placed on them to improve human rights and address many issues that other States aren't happy with.

I think the best reason for delaying Turkey's entry (not excluding them altogether) is that the EU needs to strengthen itself with a new institutional framework and bed in the newer eastern countries. I see no reason why negotiations shouldn't continue with Turkey with an eye to bringing them in later.

So Austria has a good law you about massacring a few million you do not like?

Where is the equivalent Turkish law about denying the Armenian genocide of 1.5m people?

Yes, i forgot about the recent massacre of the G20 protesters and that freedom of expression rally. A rally by Kurds for basic freedom of expression would not be allowed in Turkey.

Denerick wrote: »

I agree, the Kurdish question needs to be resolved. But there are several examples across the EU where minorities who want independence are not getting it - The Basques, Catalans, Flemings, even our own people north of the border. The Kurds openly use terrorist tactics to persue their ends. Not all obviously, but some.

To be fair, the british adopted similar policies in dealing with the IRA. Would the British government have been allowed entry to the EU during the Troubles?

And thanks for proving you've no interest in reasonable discussion by trying to assert that I deny the Armenian genocide. Its a wonder how you can ask that question with a straight face.

The Basques, Catalans, Flemings, even our own people north of the border have freedom of expression and can vote in the ballot box for a nationalist party they aspire to. The Kurds are not allowed to vote for a Kurdish party as all Kurdish parties are banned, have you not noticed that?

I don't remember those mass graves during the troubles and the denying of protesting, do you?

You said:

And really, is the Islamic fundamentalism, genocide denial really enough reason to forbid them entry

You brought up Austria, Austria does not deny genocide, Turkey does. A difference there.

Many of Turkey's problems mirror the problems of other countries that have been admitted to the EU in the past. The two major differences are that 1) Turkey is big and 2) Turkey is Muslim.

Which countries?

If you are referring to Belgium, there you have 2 people's living in peace for centuries.
If you are referring to Spain, you have democratically elected Basques and freedom of expression for Basques as well as Catalans for that matter.
If you are referring to Czechoslovakia, they spilt up amicably.

What could you be referring to?

Denerick

gurramok wrote: »

So Austria has a good law you about massacring a few million you do not like?

Shows how pure your respect for freedom of speech is.

The Basques, Catalans, Flemings, even our own people north of the border have freedom of expression and can vote in the ballot box for a nationalist party they aspire to. The Kurds are not allowed to vote for a Kurdish party as all Kurdish parties are banned, have you not noticed that?

Show me a Kurdish party which has never advocated terrorist tactics in some sense. Gerry Adams voice was banned her ffs.

I don't remember those mass graves during the troubles and the denying of protesting, do you?

Christ. The Armenian genocide happened almost a century ago. Huge difference there. Plenty of European countries committed huge offences back then and right through WWII. Yet they are now respectable EU partners. The genocide is hotley debated in Turkey and writers have went to jail over claiming it occurred. Sooner or later the public will own up to it. Lets not get so self righteous about it.

You brought up Austria, Austria does not deny genocide, Turkey does. A difference there.

Austria voted in large numbers for a far right political party. I'm talking about Austria's history - it seems that Austria is simply another country which hasn't come to terms with its past. Is that a bar of entry to the EU?

Which countries?

If you are referring to Belgium, there you have 2 people's living in peace for centuries.
If you are referring to Spain, you have democratically elected Basques and freedom of expression for Basques as well as Catalans for that matter.
If you are referring to Czechoslovakia, they spilt up amicably.

What could you be referring to?

Germany, Austria and many of the eastern bloc countries have a more than checquered past. Bulgaria is rampant with organised crime. As is Romania. Serbia launched an ethnic cleansing campaign not more than 10 years ago, yet will probably be a member of the EU before Turkey. Croatia was ruled by a tyrant for most of the 1990s, yet will soon be an EU member.

Spain has an ETA problem.

Plenty of rich examples which never barred these countries to applying or entering the EU.

As to the earlier poster, I'm well aware of the british acession date. I was asking the other guy what he thought.

gurramok

Denerick wrote: »

Shows how pure your respect for freedom of speech is.

Why should someone be allowed to insult teh deaths of millions at the hand of a butcher? Its a righteous law.

Denerick wrote: »

Show me a Kurdish party which has never advocated terrorist tactics in some sense. Gerry Adams voice was banned her ffs.

One mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist. You are moving the goalposts now onto terrorism from freedom of expression, where are the civil rights for Kurds?

Why can they not be allowed to have a Kurdish party of their own?

Denerick wrote: »

Christ. The Armenian genocide happened almost a century ago. Huge difference there. Plenty of European countries committed huge offences back then and right through WWII. Yet they are now respectable EU partners. The genocide is hotley debated in Turkey and writers have went to jail over claiming it occurred. Sooner or later the public will own up to it. Lets not get so self righteous about it.

In case you did not notice, all those countries(Germany etc) apologised unreservedly for their cruel actions then. Turkey has not apoligised for its cruel past and present ventures on its own people.

Yes, we know about the writers. Jailed for 'insulting Turkishness'. That to me is not a democratic country on that point.

Sooner or later has not translated into new laws and respect for that freedom of expression.

Denerick wrote: »

Austria voted in large numbers for a far right political party. I'm talking about Austria's history - it seems that Austria is simply another country which hasn't come to terms with its past. Is that a bar of entry to the EU?

Austria has acknowledged its bad past and does not persecute its citizens.

Denerick wrote: »

Germany, Austria and many of the eastern bloc countries have a more than checquered past. Bulgaria is rampant with organised crime. As is Romania. Serbia launched an ethnic cleansing campaign not more than 10 years ago, yet will probably be a member of the EU before Turkey. Croatia was ruled by a tyrant for most of the 1990s, yet will soon be an EU member.

So its now orgainised crime as a comparator to persecution!

Have you noticed Serbia has handed over war criminals as well as Croatia and acknowledged their wrongdoing?

Turkey denies it has done anything wrong present and past!

Denerick wrote: »

Spain has an ETA problem.

Plenty of rich examples which never barred these countries to applying or entering the EU.

Here we go, tiny groups do not affect the qualification status. If you had read, Basques have civil rights and freedom of movement, try that in Turkey if you are a Kurd.

Denerick

Yawn. Too early to continue this. Don't think I can cut out this quote malarky people go on with in the politics forum.

halkar

gurramok wrote: »

....

Why can they not be allowed to have a Kurdish party of their own?

DTP Democratic Society Party, a Kurdish party has recently (last month) won in 8 main municipalities. Democratic Society Party

fly_agaric

Denerick wrote:

Fact is, we don't want them because they are brown.

That's one reason.:p

And I've heard they are still quite religious despite Attaturk's efforts, and its also a different one to what we are used to.

They are poorer than us at the moment too. Turkey isn't a "small" country either...

I can't help laughing when I read talk of Turkey "joining" the EU at some point, subject to numerous conditions imposed, or maybe Russia may yet "join" the "EU" in the future subject to yet more strictures. Sure its just like Ireland really - they're gagging to "join" and we can easily bash them into shape so they'll fit better.

It could all be part of a Euro/Asia Union which will naturally involve the "Asia" bit becoming a lot more like the "Euro" bit.

Aren't those continents the wrong way round there?

When one discusses states with 70-120 million people joining the EU isn't the [expected/hoped for] result more of a merger, with all that may imply?

There's been a good bit of indigestion after the enlargement of the EU to the East and that involved far less people with more money who are not as different & who wanted to join alot more than the Turks do.