Eu Expansion -other former USSR States

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

I see no reason why it can't or shouldn't, so long as those countries attain the required milestones to be eligible for EU membership. The only former USSR country which would pose a serious problem after the milestones had been attained would be Russia, owing to its size.

Iwasfrozen

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I see no reason why it can't or shouldn't, so long as those countries attain the required milestones to be eligible for EU membership. The only former USSR country which would pose a serious problem after the milestones had been attained would be Russia, owing to its size.

Yeah, Russia can never join the E.U, If it did it would usurp Germany as the unoffical "Big Boy" in the club.

Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah, Russia can never join the E.U, If it did it would usurp Germany as the unoffical "Big Boy" in the club.

It would take the borders of the EU all the way to the Pacific, which seems somehow silly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kepti

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I see no reason why it can't or shouldn't, so long as those countries attain the required milestones to be eligible for EU membership. The only former USSR country which would pose a serious problem after the milestones had been attained would be Russia, owing to its size.

Russia is too fiercely independent to even consider joining the EU. They are not comfortable at all with us gobbling up the former satellite states and encroaching on their territory. If the EU continues creeping eastward, I can see them becoming increasingly obstructionist. We all know the kinds of things Russia is capable of when it comes to geopolitics.

Iwasfrozen

Kepti wrote: »

Russia is too fiercely independent to even consider joining the EU. They are not comfortable at all with us gobbling up the former satellite states and encroaching on their territory. If the EU continues creeping eastward, I can see them becoming increasingly obstructionist. We all know the kinds of things Russia is capable of when it comes to geopolitics.

Can you blame them tough ? How do you think Lenister would feel if Munster decided to join Britain ?

Iwasfrozen

Scofflaw wrote: »

It would take the borders of the EU all the way to the Pacific, which seems somehow silly.

But extremely popular with German gas suppliers I would imagine.

ei.sdraob

hmm lets see:

* NO, Belarus, currently a basket case ruled by a neo communist dictator

* NO, Russia, with its form of "sovereign democracy" (translation: strongman rule) and emergent nationalism and xenophobia

* MAYBE, Ukraine, about to collapse again and default, economic basket case

* MAYBE, Georgia, would drive Russia away, the president dude is no saint either


how many of these countries actually want to join?

ei.sdraob

Iolar wrote: »

Would you like to see EU expansion to former USSR states like Ukraine,Belarus,Georgia etc?

would the people of these countries like that? might be a better question

Iolar wrote: »

or in your opinion would it be possible for such to occur?

yes at some stage EU would grow into a union that would have to drop "European" from its title

but I wouldn't bet on any major expansion in next few decades, maybe Iceland and Turkey and few Balkan states joining in next decade and half but thats about it

Iwasfrozen

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes at some stage EU would grow into a union that would have to drop "European" from its title

but I wouldn't bet on any major expansion in next few decades, maybe Iceland and Turkey and few Balkan states joining in next decade and half but thats about it

Whatever about the Balkan states, Turkey will never join the European Union. The cultural differences are simply too severe.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

It would take the borders of the EU all the way to the Pacific, which seems somehow silly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, but don't forget about the Bilderberg's plot for world government. Or was it some other group's plot?

View

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hmm lets see:

* NO, Belarus, currently a basket case ruled by a neo communist dictator

* NO, Russia, with its form of "sovereign democracy" (translation: strongman rule) and emergent nationalism and xenophobia

* MAYBE, Ukraine, about to collapse again and default, economic basket case

* MAYBE, Georgia, would drive Russia away, the president dude is no saint either


how many of these countries actually want to join?

A good chunk of Kazakstan is also in Europe. Mustn't forget them...

thebman

View wrote: »

A good chunk of Kazakstan is also in Europe. Mustn't forget them...

And Israel, no wait, wrong thread

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Whatever about the Balkan states, Turkey will never join the European Union. The cultural differences are simply too severe.

Given that much of South-Eastern Europe was a constituent part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, I fail to see how Turkey could be considered all that 'culturally different' to (whisper it now) Greece, for example.

Iwasfrozen

djpbarry wrote: »

Given that much of South-Eastern Europe was a constituent part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, I fail to see how Turkey could be considered all that 'culturally different' to (whisper it now) Greece, for example.

Turkey's ability to "Turkifiy" the Balkan states was mostly a failure, these states have been far more influenced by Greece and Russia then Turkey.

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Turkey's ability to "Turkifiy" the Balkan states was mostly a failure, these states have been far more influenced by Greece and Russia then Turkey.

But Greece was also part of the Ottoman Empire for several hundred years? Prior to that, both Turkey and Greece (or elements of them) were constituents of the Byzantine Empire. Prior to that, they were both within the Roman Empire. Prior to that... well, you get the idea. Then of course there’s the fact that they’re right beside each other...

Given this close history, (together with my several visits to Istanbul) I find it very hard to believe that Turkey and Greece (or Cyprus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc.) could be all that dissimilar on a ‘cultural’ level. This notion that South-Eastern Europe and Turkey are separated by some imaginary ‘continental, cultural divide’ seems to be a rather recently-developed (Islamophobically-inspired?) concept that has little basis in reality.

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

But Greece was also part of the Ottoman Empire for several hundred years? Prior to that, both Turkey and Greece (or elements of them) were constituents of the Byzantine Empire. Prior to that, they were both within the Roman Empire. Prior to that... well, you get the idea. Then of course there’s the fact that they’re right beside each other...

Given this close history, (together with my several visits to Istanbul) I find it very hard to believe that Turkey and Greece (or Cyprus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc.) could be all that dissimilar on a ‘cultural’ level. This notion that South-Eastern Europe and Turkey are separated by some imaginary ‘continental, cultural divide’ seems to be a rather recently-developed (Islamophobically-inspired?) concept that has little basis in reality.

Many people fear that admitting Turkey into the EU will accelerate the Islamisation of Europe. I find it hard not to agree with them.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

Many people fear that admitting Turkey into the EU will accelerate the Islamisation of Europe. I find it hard not to agree with them.

Ah, thank you for illustrating my point beautifully.

Moriarty

sirromo wrote: »

Many people fear that admitting Turkey into the EU will accelerate the Islamisation of Europe. I find it hard not to agree with them.

I think we might just be able to win that fight with a 7:1 population advantage. Granted, that may only be as long as they don't use their evil spooky magic against us..

edit: Isn't it highly ironic that a lot of people oppose Turkish membership of the EU - presumably down to a view that a majority-muslim country is never suitable to mix with in polite company - when the very joining of Turkey to the EU would go further than possibly any other moment in the past century to demonstrate that the way forward for the muslim world is political and societal advancement and enlightenment? It would be the single largest blow to ever be made against the radical islamist agenda.

Iwasfrozen

djpbarry wrote: »

But Greece was also part of the Ottoman Empire for several hundred years? Prior to that, both Turkey and Greece (or elements of them) were constituents of the Byzantine Empire. Prior to that, they were both within the Roman Empire. Prior to that... well, you get the idea. Then of course there’s the fact that they’re right beside each other...

As I said, despite having a close relationships for many years, Turkey and Greece are very dissimilar.

Greece has maintained it orthodox religion and has been influenced more by the Balkan states and Russia.

Turkey on the other had, despite also being Byzantine has been more influenced by the Arabian/Islamic culture aswell as it's own Sultanate system.

And these are only the Cultural reasons, Turkey still illegally occupies Cyprus. Despite International condemnation.

Then of course we have Turkeys size, at 72 million its population is bigger then Britain and France and if it joins it risks joining the Big three and becoming an influentional policy maker in the EU.

Now I do like that Turkey is one of the more moderate Islamic states, if such can be said of an Islamic state. But I don't want them in the EU, ever. And I'm not alone in that opinion.

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As I said, despite having a close relationships for many years, Turkey and Greece are very dissimilar.

Are they indeed? So what are these great dissimilarities that one should expect to see when travelling across the Greco-Turkish border? A sharp transition from civilisation to the sights and sounds of the Neolithic, presumably?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now I do like that Turkey is one of the more moderate Islamic states, if such can be said of an Islamic state.

Given that Turkey is a secular republic, I don’t think the “Islamic state” label is terribly apt.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But I don't want them in the EU, ever. And I'm not alone in that opinion.

No you’re not - it is a disappointingly popular irrational viewpoint.

sirromo

Moriarty wrote:

I think we might just be able to win that fight with a 7:1 population advantage.

Europe's muslim population is growing at a faster rate than the native christian population due to the differences in birth-rate between the christians and the muslims. Islam is already the fastest growing religion throughout much of Europe and countries like the Netherlands are expected to have a muslim majority within the next few decades. This is all happening without Turkey being in the EU. Admitting Turkey into the EU and granting the right of free-movement to tens of millions of muslims will contribute to the trend towards an islam-dominated Europe.

djpbarry wrote:

Given that Turkey is a secular republic, I don’t think the “Islamic state” label is terribly apt.

Turkey is a country with a secular constitution but with a population whose respect for the secular ideals of that constitution is questionable. Just as America is a country with a secular constitution but a religious population, I think the same is probably true of Turkey.

djpbarry wrote:

No you’re not - it is a disappointingly popular irrational viewpoint.

It's not irrational, it's arrational.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

Europe's muslim population is growing at a faster rate than the native christian population due to the differences in birth-rate between the christians and the muslims.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not terribly concerned about one wacky set of myth-based beliefs being replaced by another. Personally, I’d rather both disappeared, but hey, religion is here to stay so we might as well get used to it.

sirromo wrote: »

Islam is already the fastest growing religion throughout much of Europe and countries like the Netherlands are expected to have a muslim majority within the next few decades.

I find that incredibly hard to believe, given that about 95% of the Dutch population is non-Muslim and most Dutch Muslims are of non-EU origin.

sirromo wrote: »

Turkey is a country with a secular constitution but with a population whose respect for the secular ideals of that constitution is questionable.

Well, that’ll be why they keep electing Islamic extremists intent on putting as much distance as possible between Turkey and the EU, right? Oh wait now, I forgot; Turkey’s bid to join the EU is merely a cunning plot to contribute to the Islamification of Europe, right? Once they get in, the veil of secularism will be discarded and then BAM – we’ll all be stoning our Burqa-clad wimmens for fantasising about American Infidel movie stars. Am I right?

View

sirromo wrote: »

countries like the Netherlands are expected to have a muslim majority within the next few decades.

Statistics Netherlands shows the muslim population there as being 5% of the population. It is a very long way from 5% to 50%+.

Also, as you can see from the link below, if one measures "devoutness" by weekly attendance at a mosque or church, the muslim population is less devout than people who identify themselves as either "Protestant" or "Other", but more devout than those who identify themselves as "Roman Catholic".

http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/vrije-tijd-cultuur/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2008/2008-2476-wm.htm

Nody

If I remember correctly the Netherland majority claim comes from the right wing populist politican who made a movie to scare people two years ago. It spouted lots of "facts" with out having anything to back them up and when challenged on them he even admitted as much. Not that it matters once the flock is scared.

Any way I think the last expansion was going to far; I definitly don't want to see ANY more countries joining outside possibly of Iceland and Balkans is definitly a big no go. There is more then enough corruption in Europe as is and expanding further will only further increase it (Balkans is not exactly the most settled and law abiding place in Europe at the moment and we only need to look at Greece to see it).

As for Turkey; I don't want them to join along with Ukraine etc. for one very simple reason, economics and culture. It would simply cost far to much to try to bring them up to Western standards and the money dumps already done in Spain, Italy, Greece, Hungary etc. are more then enough for me to say no to more.

Then again I don't see EU as some peace project but a combination of countries in a deal to try to become more competative as a group vs. the world then anything else which means limited access only.

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

I don’t know about you, but I’m not terribly concerned about one wacky set of myth-based beliefs being replaced by another.

It's not the religious beliefs themselves that we should be concerned about, it's the moral values that result from the beliefs.

djpbarry wrote:

Personally, I’d rather both disappeared, but hey, religion is here to stay so we might as well get used to it.

Not all religions are the same though. The things that separate religions are far more important than the things that unite them.

djpbarry wrote:

I find that incredibly hard to believe, given that about 95% of the Dutch population is non-Muslim and most Dutch Muslims are of non-EU origin.

I was wrong when I said the Dutch are expected to become a minority. I've looked it up and I see that's it's just the Rotterdam Dutch who are set to be outnumbered by muslims
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/05/rotterdam-dutch-to-be-minority.html

djpbarry wrote:

Well, that’ll be why they keep electing Islamic extremists

The ruling AK party in Turkey is considered by some people to be an islamist party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak_Party

The AK Party has brought on many changes that are interpreted as being non-secular or rooted in Islam. In 2005, The AK Party banned the sale of alcoholic beverages in a section of Ankara which was mostly occupied by bars and restaurants. This ban was soon lifted due to the response from the area's business owners; however, a licensing requirement still remains for the establishments. The AK Party has also been accused of placing anti-secular individuals in government offices and giving out government contracts to parties with a reputation for being rooted in Islam. In 2007, the AKP passed a bill lifting the headscarf ban in all universities. This action was criticized by the secular parties, and led to the 2008 indictments calling for the Party to be outlawed.

Upon being indicted, the AK Party government has made multiple arrests in the secular population. This has been interpreted as the final attempt to rid the country of powerful secularists before the party's possible closure. On August 5, 2008, President Abdullah Gul assigned 21 new deans to all government universities, after the verdict of the party closure trials. The Turkish media revealed that all newly-installed deans supported the lifting of the headscarf ban. On August 9, 2008, Edibe Sozen, an AKP parliament member, proposed establishing a prayer section in all schools, and banning the sales of pornographic images to anyone under the age of 16. The proposed bill also meant that anyone over 16 purchasing the content would be logged, via Citizen Identification Number.[6] In 2004, Muammer Güler, the governor of Istanbul Province, passed a bill banning all publicly-displayed images, including advertisements, containing partial nudity, such as swim suit advertisements.[7]

djpbarry wrote:

intent on putting as much distance as possible between Turkey and the EU, right? Oh wait now, I forgot; Turkey’s bid to join the EU is merely a cunning plot to contribute to the Islamification of Europe, right?

I wouldn't say it was a "cunning plot" but I think there is definitely a realisation among the religious Turkish population that entry into the EU will provide an opportunity to extend both islamic and Turkish influence in Europe. I don't think it's their main motive in seeking to get into the EU but I think it's probably one of things that adds to the attraction of membership.

It doesn't make any difference anyway whether they want to contribute to the islamification of Europe or not. The fact that Turkey's population is so much poorer than the population of western Europe nearly guarantees a massive movement of population from Turkey to the rest of the EU.

djpbarry wrote:

Once they get in, the veil of secularism will be discarded and then BAM – we’ll all be stoning our Burqa-clad wimmens for fantasising about American Infidel movie stars. Am I right?

Why do you assume that it's only only the worst elements of islam that people have a problem with?

View wrote:

Also, as you can see from the link below, if one measures "devoutness" by weekly attendance at a mosque or church, the muslim population is less devout than people who identify themselves as either "Protestant" or "Other", but more devout than those who identify themselves as "Roman Catholic".

Devoutness in islam is not really based on mosque attendance. From what I understand, to be a devout muslim you need to pray five times a day, give a tenth of your income to the poor, fast durnig ramadan and make a pledge to visit Mecca at least once in your life. I don't think mosque attendance is obligatory for muslims.

View

sirromo wrote: »

Devoutness in islam is not really based on mosque attendance. From what I understand, to be a devout muslim you need to pray five times a day, give a tenth of your income to the poor, fast durnig ramadan and make a pledge to visit Mecca at least once in your life. I don't think mosque attendance is obligatory for muslims.

I used church or mosque attendance as a proxy for "devoutness". It certainly isn't an ideal one but as a rough assumption, I'd (personally) guess that a devout person is more likely to attend church/mosque than someone for whom their religion plays only a nominal role.

That assumption may be going a bit too far, however it is no worse an assumption than the idea that someone who is a muslim automatically favours replacing existing social structures with some sort of muslim theocracy.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

I've looked it up and I see that's it's just the Rotterdam Dutch who are set to be outnumbered by muslims
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/05/rotterdam-dutch-to-be-minority.html

Where in that article does it say that Dutch people in Rotterdam are set to be outnumbered by Muslims? Furthermore, why are you making the distinction between “Dutch” and “Muslim”? The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I understand that the majority of Muslims in The Netherlands are Dutch citizens.

sirromo wrote: »

The ruling AK party in Turkey is considered by some people to be an islamist party

So what? They’re hardly going to transform Turkey into an Islamic State whilst advocating membership of the EU, are they? It is however worth pointing out that the party’s popularity has plummeted since the 2005 general election.

sirromo wrote: »

It doesn't make any difference anyway whether they want to contribute to the islamification of Europe or not. The fact that Turkey's population is so much poorer than the population of western Europe nearly guarantees a massive movement of population from Turkey to the rest of the EU.

How massive? 1% of the population? 2%? 5%? Is Turkey really all that ‘poor’ anyway? I’m guessing it’s comparable to most countries in South-Eastern Europe?

Iwasfrozen

djpbarry wrote: »

Are they indeed? So what are these great dissimilarities that one should expect to see when travelling across the Greco-Turkish border? A sharp transition from civilisation to the sights and sounds of the Neolithic, presumably?

You haven't adressed my points. It seems that your more interested in ranting then discussing, which strangely, is the line taken by most of those on the pro-Turkey accession side.

djpbarry wrote: »

Given that Turkey is a secular republic, I don’t think the “Islamic state” label is terribly apt.

You're right, Turkey is Secular, in name. But it features the Islamic Star and Crescent on its flag as a clear sign as to where its loyalties lie.

djpbarry wrote: »

No you’re not - it is a disappointingly popular irrational viewpoint.

Disappointing to you but certainly not irrational.

Now let me put a question to you. Putting aside all other factors, such as cultural, religious, political etc. Why should any non-european country be entitled to join the European Union ?

I find it funny that I've never gotten a straight answer to that question.

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You haven't adressed my points.

What points? You stated that Greece and Turkey are very dissimilar while making a vague reference to respective Russian and Arab influences. I simply asked you clarify what these great dissimilarities are.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right, Turkey is Secular, in name. But it features the Islamic Star and Crescent on its flag...

The emblem of Drogheda Utd FC also features a star and crescent moon – what does that tell us about football fans in Drogheda?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Disappointing to you but certainly not irrational.

You stated that you do not want to see Turkey in the EU ever, regardless of how Turkish society evolves in the future. That, to me, is a wholly irrational position.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now let me put a question to you. Putting aside all other factors, such as cultural, religious, political etc. Why should any non-european country be entitled to join the European Union ?

Because precluding membership of a political/economic organisation based on geography is ridiculous? But if you want to be pedantic, North-Western Turkey is recognised as being part of Europe, as is Northern Georgia, Northern Azerbaijan and Western Kazakhstan.

Iwasfrozen

djpbarry wrote: »

What points? You stated that Greece and Turkey are very dissimilar while making a vague reference to respective Russian and Arab influences. I simply asked you clarify what these great dissimilarities are.

Actually I stated that:
1)

Iwasfrozen wrote:

As I said, despite having a close relationships for many years, Turkey and Greece are very dissimilar.

Greece has maintained it orthodox religion and has been influenced more by the Balkan states and Russia.

Turkey on the other had, despite also being Byzantine has been more influenced by the Arabian/Islamic culture aswell as it's own Sultanate system.

2)

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Turkey still illegally occupies Cyprus. Despite International condemnation.

3)

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Then of course we have Turkeys size, at 72 million its population is bigger then Britain and France and if it joins it risks joining the Big three and becoming an influentional policy maker in the EU.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

The emblem of Drogheda Utd FC also features a star and crescent moon – what does that tell us about football fans in Drogheda?

I don't know but why don't we ask our old pal wikipedia ?

wikipedia wrote:

The crest of Drogheda United is an adaptation of the crest of Drogheda town's coat of arms, which feature the heraldic symbols of a star and crescent over a shield depicting St. Lawrence's Gate, three lions and a ship. The three lions passant represent England - as Drogheda lay within the Pale and was a garrison town - and the ship represents the town's port.

The star and Cresent on the other hand:

wikipedia wrote:

The crescent moon and star were holy symbols for pre-Islamic Turkish tribes, while red was the cardinal colour for west in ancient Turkic culture. In Turkish tradition, red also represents hegemony, while white represents power, justice, exaltation and purity. Göktürks, a pre-Islamic Turkic people who lived in Central Asia, used crescent and star on their coins. A 1500 years old Göktürk coin includes three figures of a crescent moon and a star around the possible figure of a leader.

No mention of Greece or the Balkans there.

Iwasfrozen wrote:

You stated that you do not want to see Turkey in the EU ever, regardless of how Turkish society evolves in the future. That, to me, is a wholly irrational position.

EU means European Union, Turkey is in Europe. Simple.

Also at 72 million, Turkeys population is far to big.

djpbarry wrote: »

Because precluding membership of a political/economic organisation based on geography is ridiculous? But if you want to be pedantic, North-Western Turkey is recognised as being part of Europe, as is Northern Georgia, Northern Azerbaijan and Western Kazakhstan.

No, the precluding membership of the European Union is to be European. But if North-Western Turkey wants to join I'll be fine with that.

Adhamh

This is interesting:

When polled on the question of whether Islam does play a significant role in political affairs in their country, 62% of Turks said that it does, a jump of 16% since the poll was last conducted in 2002.

When asked if Islam should have a greater role in political affairs, 47% of Turks said it should have a greater role and 32% said that it shouldn't, with the remainder being the 'don't knows'.

When asked if they primarily consider themselves to be a Muslim or a Turk, 43% responed as 'Muslim', 29% as 'Turk', the remainder being undecided.

Also, when asked to choose between two options that in their view best described Islamic fundamentalism ( first choice: 'the violent removal of non-Muslim influences', second choice 'the advocacy of strict sharia law on Muslims'), the majority supported the second definition (48%) with 16% endorsing the second, the rest being undecided.

Link:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=813

Does this sound secular enough to be European (I couldn't find any comparable statistics for European citizens, so we'll just have to argue)?

Observations?

Iwasfrozen

Adhamh wrote: »

Link:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=813

Does this sound secular enough to be European (I couldn't find any comparable statistics for European citizens, so we'll just have to argue)?

Observations?

Well now, that is interesting.

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually I stated that:
1)

Iwasfrozen wrote:

As I said, despite having a close relationships for many years, Turkey and Greece are very dissimilar.

Greece has maintained it orthodox religion and has been influenced more by the Balkan states and Russia.

Turkey on the other had, despite also being Byzantine has been more influenced by the Arabian/Islamic culture aswell as it's own Sultanate system.

Eh, yeah, I know. Like I said, you stated that Greece and Turkey are very dissimilar while making a vague reference to respective Russian and Arab influences. But you still have not explained what these big dissimilarities are. If I’m travelling across the Greco-Turkish border, what big changes should I expect to see as I leave Greece and enter Turkey?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

2)

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Turkey still illegally occupies Cyprus. Despite International condemnation.

3)

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Then of course we have Turkeys size, at 72 million its population is bigger then Britain and France and if it joins it risks joining the Big three and becoming an influentional policy maker in the EU.

Ok – how exactly do these represent dissimilarities between Greece and Turkey?

Iwasfrozen wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

The crescent moon and star were holy symbols for pre-Islamic Turkish tribes, while red was the cardinal colour for west in ancient Turkic culture. In Turkish tradition, red also represents hegemony, while white represents power, justice, exaltation and purity. Göktürks, a pre-Islamic Turkic people who lived in Central Asia, used crescent and star on their coins. A 1500 years old Göktürk coin includes three figures of a crescent moon and a star around the possible figure of a leader.

No mention of Greece or the Balkans there.

Eh, didn’t you imply that the presence of the “Islamic” star and crescent moon on the Turkish flag was a clear indication of where Turkish loyalties lie? Now you're presenting evidence that suggests that these symbols are in fact not Islamic in nature?

Iwasfrozen wrote:

EU means European Union, Turkey is in Europe. Simple.

So now Turkey is in Europe? You just asked why a non-European country should be entitled to join the EU?

Iwasfrozen wrote:

Also at 72 million, Turkeys population is far to big.

Far too big for what? To join the EU? Germany’s population is 82 million – should they be expelled from the EU on the basis that they are too big?

Iwasfrozen wrote:

No, the precluding membership of the European Union is to be European. But if North-Western Turkey wants to join I'll be fine with that.

So now your argument is based entirely on Geography?!?

Iwasfrozen

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, yeah, I know. Like I said, you stated that Greece and Turkey are very dissimilar while making a vague reference to respective Russian and Arab influences. But you still have not explained what these big dissimilarities are. If I’m travelling across the Greco-Turkish border, what big changes should I expect to see as I leave Greece and enter Turkey?

You claimed that Greece and Turkey were very similar and and almost identical. I showed you that Greece and Turkey have been influenced by very different cultures.

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok – how exactly do these represent dissimilarities between Greece and Turkey?

They don't, they are two reasons why Turkey should not join the EU.

djpbarry wrote: »

Eh, didn’t you imply that the presence of the “Islamic” star and crescent moon on the Turkish flag was a clear indication of where Turkish loyalties lie? Now you're presenting evidence that suggests that these symbols are in fact not Islamic in nature?

The Star and Cresent is a symbol of Islam, and has been so for many hundreds of years.

djpbarry wrote: »

So now Turkey is in Europe? You just asked why a non-European country should be entitled to join the EU?

No, Turkey is not in Europe, why are you asking silly questions ?

djpbarry wrote: »

Far too big for what? To join the EU? Germany’s population is 82 million – should they be expelled from the EU on the basis that they are too big?
So now your argument is based entirely on Geography?!?

Yes, too big to join the EU.
As I've wrote before Turkeys accession to the EU would have the potential to join the "Big Boys" of Europe, they being the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

I would rather the rulers of the EU be western democracies then West Asian Islamic nutjobs. That's just my opinion tough.

djpbarry

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You claimed that Greece and Turkey were very similar and and almost identical.

No I didn’t.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I showed you that Greece and Turkey have been influenced by very different cultures.

You’ve shown nothing of the sort. As I have said twice already, you made a vague reference to “influences”, but you have not provided any specifics.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They don't, they are two reasons why Turkey should not join the EU.

Well, I don’t agree with regard to population. With regard to Cyprus, it’s hardly an insurmountable obstacle, is it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The Star and Cresent is a symbol of Islam, and has been so for many hundreds of years.

But, according to your source, in the case of Turkey, it appears this symbolism pre-dates Islam. Which begs the question of why you would claim that the Turkish flag illustrates Turkey’s ‘Islamic’ side, only to subsequently produce evidence which suggests that this is in fact not the case? Hmmm...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

EU means European Union, Turkey is in Europe.

So now Turkey is in Europe?

No, Turkey is not in Europe, why are you asking silly questions ?

Make up your mind.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I would rather the rulers of the EU be western democracies then West Asian Islamic nutjobs.

Ah, the mythical “rulers” of the EU – who might they be?

Adhamh

I understand what Iwasfrozen means when he talks about Turkey being in Europe. Presumably he means that 5% of Turkey's landmass lies across the Bosphorus, so geographically speaking at least, it straddles both the continents of Europe and Asia. Hence he said that he would have no problem if 'North-Westeren' Turkey were to join Europe.

In deciding which countries should or shouldn't join the European Union, decades ago W.R. Mead (or maybe Michael Heffernan, I can't remember exactly) proposed a simple 'entrance exam', as there is no distinct geographical division between Europe and Asia. The country in question had to satisify two of the following conditions:

1. The dominant language was of Indo-European descent

2. That it had a Christian tradition

3. The dominant ethnicity was Caucasian

Not entirely foolproof of course, but fairly thorough. Using this logic, I don't think that it would be too controversial to suggest that the Ukraine or Belarus could join (perhaps waiting until a fairer economic climate, that is).:cool:

Scofflaw

Adhamh wrote: »

I understand what Iwasfrozen means when he talks about Turkey being in Europe. Presumably he means that 5% of Turkey's landmass lies across the Bosphorus, so geographically speaking at least, it straddles both the continents of Europe and Asia. Hence he said that he would have no problem if 'North-Westeren' Turkey were to join Europe.

In deciding which countries should or shouldn't join the European Union, decades ago W.R. Mead (or maybe Michael Heffernan, I can't remember exactly) proposed a simple 'entrance exam', as there is no distinct geographical division between Europe and Asia. The country in question had to satisify two of the following conditions:

1. The dominant language was of Indo-European descent

2. That it had a Christian tradition

3. The dominant ethnicity was Caucasian

Not entirely foolproof of course, but fairly thorough. Using this logic, I don't think that it would be too controversial to suggest that the Ukraine or Belarus could join (perhaps waiting until a fairer economic climate, that is).:cool:

Those are the underlying criteria that make arguments over Turkish entry circular. As they stand, they're a bit too obviously racist and sectarian, so they need to be dressed up in other arguments - unfortunately, the other arguments aren't the real criteria. Someone in favour of Turkish entry can therefore argue all they like about geography, secularism, economics, social norms, etc, without ever persuading a majority whose opposition is really based on the list above.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mahatma coat

Those are 3 very valid Criteria for identifying a European Country, and it makes sense that Europe should define itself by its shared culture, heritage and Historic Borders.

however a concerted campaign by some wolly liberals is being waged against the MAjority of the population to convince them that their way of thinkin is WRONG, and that they should feel ashamed of themselves for even thinkin something as Base as

Europe for the Europeans.

ei.sdraob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Those are 3 very valid Criteria for identifying a European Country, and it makes sense that Europe should define itself by its shared culture, heritage and Historic Borders.

however a concerted campaign by some wolly liberals is being waged against the MAjority of the population to convince them that their way of thinkin is WRONG, and that they should feel ashamed of themselves for even thinkin something as Base as

Europe for the Europeans.

arent you the guy who bluntly said that only white people are worthy of staying in a country in a recent thread by you about the BNP
and didn't i point out the hypocrisy of your "tanned" rear emigrating to Australia and then starting thinly disguised threads showing your racism and xenophobia like above
Australia where the natives were displaced and murdered by Europeans of "shared culture", where these natives are prevented by living within their defined borders of "shared culture, heritage and History"

you inhabit forums like conspiracy theories and have shown in the past a highly hypocritical hate for other people, how dare those immigrants come and kill the natives, no?
people should read his past posts before listening to anything this guy posts

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

Where in that article does it say that Dutch people in Rotterdam are set to be outnumbered by Muslims?

It doesn't say it. I misread the article.

djpbarry wrote:

So what? They’re hardly going to transform Turkey into an Islamic State whilst advocating membership of the EU, are they?

That's not the point. The point is that the most popular party in Turkey is a party with a less than positive attitude towards the country's secularism. It demonstrates that the population of Turkey is far less secular than the supporters of Turkish membership would like us to believe.

Did you know that only 25% of Turkey's population believe that humans are descended from earlier species of animals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden.[118]

djpbarry wrote:

It is however worth pointing out that the party’s popularity has plummeted since the 2005 general election.

They got 46% of the vote in the 2007 general election. The second most popular party got 20.85% of the vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_2007

djpbarry wrote:

Is Turkey really all that ‘poor’ anyway? I’m guessing it’s comparable to most countries in South-Eastern Europe?

You're right, it is comparable to eastern Europe. That's why we should expect the Turks to react in the same way that the eastern Europeans reacted when they became members of the EU. Hundreds of thousands of eastern Europeans moved west in search of better paying jobs once the restrictions were lifted on them back in 2004. I think we can expect the Turks to react in the same way once the restrictions are lifted on them.

djpbarry wrote:

Because precluding membership of a political/economic organisation based on geography is ridiculous?

An expansionist political entitity without a clearly defined geographical limit is called an empire.

Adhamh wrote:

Also, when asked to choose between two options that in their view best described Islamic fundamentalism ( first choice: 'the violent removal of non-Muslim influences', second choice 'the advocacy of strict sharia law on Muslims'), the majority supported the second definition (48%) with 16% endorsing the second, the rest being undecided.

Very interesting. I would imagine that a poll which found widespread support for the violent removal of non-Christian influences from an EU member state could very likely result in that state being deemed unfit for continued membership.

Amhran Nua

djpbarry wrote: »

Given that much of South-Eastern Europe was a constituent part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, I fail to see how Turkey could be considered all that 'culturally different' to (whisper it now) Greece, for example.

I would have thought that the EU, being mostly a beaurocratic administrative layer concerned primarily with legislation and international agreements wouldn't have a cultural agenda. It shouldn't matter about the religious beliefs of applicant countries.

This is a different question to social injustice and human rights abuses, to say nothing of economic issues, but opposition to a country joining based on its religion or spreading the majority faith in Europe isn't what the EU stands for.

I mean, do people think that Islam is contagious or something? I know many moderate muslims, who can drink and party with the best of us.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

That's not the point. The point is that the most popular party in Turkey is a party with a less than positive attitude towards the country's secularism. It demonstrates that the population of Turkey is far less secular than the supporters of Turkish membership would like us to believe.

I don’t recall anyone arguing that the population of Turkey is secular? I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that the majority of the Turkish population is Muslim.

sirromo wrote: »

They got 46% of the vote in the 2007 general election. The second most popular party got 20.85% of the vote.

But you are aware that the party has since lost a large chunk of it’s support? You’re also aware that the AK Party was found guilty of “becoming the focus of anti-secularist actions” by Turkey’s Constitutional Court, losing half their government funding as a result? In fact, they were just one single vote away from being completely disbanded.

sirromo wrote: »

You're right, it is comparable to eastern Europe. That's why we should expect the Turks to react in the same way that the eastern Europeans reacted when they became members of the EU. Hundreds of thousands of eastern Europeans moved west in search of better paying jobs once the restrictions were lifted on them back in 2004. I think we can expect the Turks to react in the same way once the restrictions are lifted on them.

And people seeking to better themselves is bad because?

sirromo wrote: »

An expansionist political entitity without a clearly defined geographical limit is called an empire.

Maybe, if the EU had a ruling monarchy or oligarchy.

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

I don’t recall anyone arguing that the population of Turkey is secular? I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that the majority of the Turkish population is Muslim.

The supporters of Turkish membership of the EU tend to overplay the country's secularism and ignore the evidence showing the persistence of anti-secular islamic attitudes and values in the general population.

djpbarry wrote:

But you are aware that the party has since lost a large chunk of it’s support?

Who did they lose the support to?

djpbarry wrote:

You’re also aware that the AK Party was found guilty of “becoming the focus of anti-secularist actions” by Turkey’s Constitutional Court, losing half their government funding as a result? In fact, they were just one single vote away from being completely disbanded.

And what does that tell you about the most popular political party in Turkey? What does it tell you about the Turkish people's committment to the secular ideals of their constitution?

djpbarry wrote:

And people seeking to better themselves is bad because?

I've never suggested it was bad. I just think it's very likely that we'll see large numbers of Turks moving to western Europe after they've been granted the right of free movement. Whether or not we think that's a good or a bad thing is a separate issue. We can at least agree on the probability of it happening.

ei.sdraob

sirromo wrote: »

The supporters of Turkish membership of the EU tend to overplay the country's secularism and ignore the evidence showing the persistence of anti-secular islamic attitudes and values in the general population.

i dont care much for whether Turkey joins or not

but i have a problem with the bit highlighted above

replace the word Islamic with Christian and you could very well be talking about Ireland, and if you dont believe me then take a read of our constitution or look-over the religion stats from previous census

like someone said earlier EU is mostly to do with economics and democratic freedom than religion or culture

Adhamh

Scofflaw,

I fully agree that these criteria probably underly the bulk of debate concerning EU expansion, however this actual method itself can be defended from accusations of racism as being of Caucasian heritage is not necessary if the other qualifications are met.

But has anyone ever heard of the EU Neighbourhood Policy? As far as I'm aware, it's essentially an embryonic trade partnership with countries geographically close to the EU from Mauritania to Syria. Countries participating must reform government etc. to European standards and then trade with the block with less restrictions. Considering that they must make substantial reforms in the first place, is this politically interventionist of the EU or is it not enough for countries that may plausibly enter the Union?

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

The supporters of Turkish membership of the EU tend to overplay the country's secularism and ignore the evidence showing the persistence of anti-secular islamic attitudes and values in the general population.

Like ei.sdraob, I neither support nor oppose Turkey’s application to join the EU – doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to me. However, I would argue that you are overlooking the support for secularism in Turkey – large-scale pro-secular demonstrations have been commonplace in recent years. It’s quite possible to be religious whilst simultaneously supporting a secular state.

sirromo wrote: »

And what does that tell you about the most popular political party in Turkey? What does it tell you about the Turkish people's committment to the secular ideals of their constitution?

It tells me that Turkey’s Constitutional Court are keeping a close eye on the country’s ruling party and that moves to diminish Turkey’s secular status are not proving terribly popular.

sirromo wrote: »

I've never suggested it was bad. I just think it's very likely that we'll see large numbers of Turks moving to western Europe after they've been granted the right of free movement.

You don’t think it’s a bad thing, you just thought you’d mention the obvious fact that Turks would be entitled to move freely within the EU, should Turkey obtain membership? Right...

Adhamh wrote: »

I fully agree that these criteria probably underly the bulk of debate concerning EU expansion, however this actual method itself can be defended from accusations of racism as being of Caucasian heritage is not necessary if the other qualifications are met.

How exactly do we define who is of Caucasian heritage? It’s an incredibly vague concept, is it not? It’s probably a moot point - given that Turkey is west of The Caucuses, I would have thought Turks fulfil that particular ‘ethnic’ requirement.

Scofflaw

Adhamh wrote: »

Scofflaw,

I fully agree that these criteria probably underly the bulk of debate concerning EU expansion, however this actual method itself can be defended from accusations of racism as being of Caucasian heritage is not necessary if the other qualifications are met.

The other qualifications being a language of Indo-European origin (who has those, I wonder?) and a Christian heritage.

Adhamh wrote: »

But has anyone ever heard of the EU Neighbourhood Policy? As far as I'm aware, it's essentially an embryonic trade partnership with countries geographically close to the EU from Mauritania to Syria. Countries participating must reform government etc. to European standards and then trade with the block with less restrictions. Considering that they must make substantial reforms in the first place, is this politically interventionist of the EU or is it not enough for countries that may plausibly enter the Union?

It's politically interventionist, but the reforms they're required to make aren't sufficient to allow them to enter the EU. Indeed, the specific point of the ENP is to ensure that there isn't a sharp contrast between the EU and its neighbours, as well as spreading EU values a little further afield.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Adhamh

The Turkish language, while using a modified form of the Latin alphabet, is not an Indo-European language but an Altaic one (neither are Finnish, Hungarian or the Basque language, by the way).

The issue of defining people into Caucasian/White and non-Caucasian/non- White sounds painfully familiar, and obviously not one that would enter into popular political circles anytime soon, and is probably something that is best not taken into account (and no, I'm not endorsing this 'three-point-system', I just wanted to highlight that it was a formula for answering questions of EU enlargement in decades past).

sirromo

ei.sdraob wrote:

replace the word Islamic with Christian and you could very well be talking about Ireland

I don't think so. Ireland is a secular, pluralist country with a population whose attitude towards the separation of religion and politics is in line with the attitudes of our European neighbours. The same could not be said of the Turks.

And even if it could be proven that Irish people are as religious as the Turks, Ireland has a population of only a few million while Turkey has a population of tens of millions of people.

ei.sdraob wrote:

and if you dont believe me then take a read of our constitution

Unlike the Turks, Irish people are less religious than their constitution would suggest. If the government was to call a referendum on the blasphemy law next week there's no doubt that the majority would vote to abolish it. It's doubtful if the Turks would vote the same way.

djpbarry wrote:

Like ei.sdraob, I neither support nor oppose Turkey’s application to join the EU – doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to me.

Not being opposed to Turkey's membership of the EU is the same thing as supporting it Turkish membership of the EU.

djpbarry wrote:

You don’t think it’s a bad thing, you just thought you’d mention the obvious fact that Turks would be entitled to move freely within the EU, should Turkey obtain membership? Right...

It's not just that they'll have the right to move freely within the EU. It's that large numbers of them will choose to exercise that right as soon as the restrictions are lifted.

Adhamh wrote:

The issue of defining people into Caucasian/White and non-Caucasian/non- White sounds painfully familiar, and obviously not one that would enter into popular political circles anytime soon, and is probably something that is best not taken into account (and no, I'm not endorsing this 'three-point-system', I just wanted to highlight that it was a formula for answering questions of EU enlargement in decades past).

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that the core population of the European heartland is of predominantly white christian stock of Germanic-Celtic descent. To determine whether a particular nationality or group of people can be called European we would need to compare them to those people are unquestionably European to see how closely they resemble them.

Scofflaw

Not being opposed to Turkey's membership of the EU is the same thing as supporting it Turkish membership of the EU

A silly and provocative statement. You might mean that the membership of Turkey is a foregone conclusion without opposition - but it has opposition. One might equally say that because there is opposition, the non-membership of Turkey is foregone conclusion without support, which would allow one to say that not supporting Turkey's entry is opposing it.

Either way, such statements serve only to mark their author as unlikely to be amenable to reason on the subject in question.

cordially,
Scofflaw