Turkey and the E.U.?

Freiheit

Kevin Myers painted a fairly grim view of the migratory effects of such a move. That it would largely be the peasant rather than the cosmopolitan Turks who would migrate, with largely peasant and religous driven values. Nobody wants to say that there isn't forward thinking Turks, but his vision did scare me and of Turkey's possible entry. Is he right? It's in todays Indo.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-for-250-years-turkeys-presence-in-europe-was-invariably-as-an-armed-invader-in-christian-lands-2118175.html

AARRRGH

I don't know if he is right, but I can't see how Ireland would benefit from Turkey joining the EU.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

r14

How is full Turkish membership of the EU in our interests, when the emigrants from both countries will be competing for jobs in mainland Europe?

Myers is just being a bit of a tool as usual. Turks already have a right to come and work in Ireland and the rest of the EU under the Ankara Agreement and it's associated protocols and Decisions of the Association Council. Member States are constrained in how they deal with Turks by virtue of equal treatment provisions in the Agreement - I believe they have a right to reside for work after 1 year continuous employment (open to correction)

This right has existed since before Ireland joined the EU, yet we haven't been swamped by millions of fundamentalist immigrant peasants.

I wouldn't worry too much about Myers' concerns.

Freiheit

thanks, so could Turkeys entry lead to an Islamicicisation of Europe with a crude form of Islam as practiced in rural Turkey? Could it really happen? I fear religion as possibly acting against universal human rights......I hope that common human values will eventually prove stronger......but I wouldn't like a mass immigration here....so Myers apocalyptic vision you feel is unlikely?

BetterLisbon

Turkeys land access to the middle east and it powerful military mean it will be admitted. Anyone who says no...we know what happens if a small country says no.

97i9y3941

from what i read and heard,turkey joining the e.u would give e.u bit of a tighter control on security since its used as a passage for drug trafficking and a haven for extremist terrorists,i think from a business view it could cause alot of shift of factories to turkey since its known that its extremely cheap to goods like steel over there,if it did join apparently would have the biggest population of europe.

sirromo

r14 wrote:

This right has existed since before Ireland joined the EU

That's not true. They have the right to apply for a visa to work in EU countries but they don't have the same right of free movement that the citizens of EU states have.

The wikipedia entry on the Ankara Treaty lists their individual rights under the agreement

Under Article 6(1) of Association Council Decision 1/80, Turkish nationals legally employed in an EEC Member State for certain periods gain rights to remain or switch employment in that state:[5]

- a Turkish national legally employed by the same employer for one year has the right to permission from the Member State to remain in that employment;

- a Turkish national legally employed for three years in a particular area of work has the right to permission from the Member State to take employment with any employer in that area;

- a Turkish national legally employed for four years has the right to permission from the Member State to take employment with any employer.

A Turkish national who works legally as an au pair or while a student can count as a worker.[6]

Granting the Turks the right to free movement in the EU would result in hundreds of thousands of low-wage Turkish workers moving to western Europe, the same as happened when we granted the right of free movement to the east Europeans.

r14 wrote:

I wouldn't worry too much about Myers' concerns.

I think we should treat his concerns the same way we should have treated the concerns of those people who predicted a massive increase in immigration following the accession of the eastern European states a few years ago.

RandomName2

BetterLisbon wrote: »

Turkeys land access to the middle east and it powerful military mean it will be admitted. Anyone who says no...we know what happens if a small country says no.

Mary McAleese informed the Turkish government the other week that Turkish accession had Ireland's full support.

RandomName2

sirromo wrote: »

I think we should treat his concerns the same way we should have treated the concerns of those people who predicted a massive increase in immigration following the accession of the eastern European states a few years ago.

There was a massive increase in immigration following the accession of the eastern European states. Are there more polish speakers than gaelic speakers in Ireland now? (Would be a bit ironic ) However, it is true that some of them have moved back since the recession.

r14

sirromo wrote: »

That's not true. They have the right to apply for a visa to work in EU countries but they don't have the same right of free movement that the citizens of EU states have.

I never said they had a right of free movement. I said they had a right to come and work in Ireland and we are constrained in how we deal with them - ie we do not decide the requirements they must fulfill for residence, it is set at a European level. As you have said, after 1 years continuous employement they get the same rights as an EU worker (excluding a right of free movement but including a right of equal treatment).

Granting the Turks the right to free movement in the EU would result in hundreds of thousands of low-wage Turkish workers moving to western Europe, the same as happened when we granted the right of free movement to the east Europeans.

This is unlikely. As I said the turks already can come here and get a right to work yet the vast majority choose to go to Germany instead.

Denerick

I hope Turkey do join the EU some day. Not only would it give political liberals like me a warm cushy feeling inside (As well as an overdose in self righteousness tolerance disorder) but it'll also cure many of the European economic ills, within a couple of years. European demographics require a large scale injection of youthful workers in order to pay for an ageing population. Without them, retirement is going to be pretty ****ty for all of us, particularly people in our generation. Although there would be social turmoil in assimilating 10+ million Muslims, Turkey is probably the best Muslim influx we could hope for. It has a strong secularist tradition in a huge part of its country and if Europe absorbed the bulk of that population, we might even see the dawn of a new era in Christian-Muslim relations.

Its probably all a wishy washy pipe dream, unfortunately.

southsiderosie

For all of the hoo-hah about a Muslim Turkey joining the EU, I actually think the more serious issue would be the shift of political balance within the EU via :

1) the redistribution of voting rights within the EU parliament, which would immediately make them the second-largest voting bloc (by population...and they would probably become the largest within the next 20 years, given population projections). This would totally disrupt the Franco-German axis of control over EU policy.

2) shift in ideological balance: Ankara is far more pro-business than most of continental Europe

Honestly, this just seems like good old fashioned European Great Power politics: it's no great surprise that Britain supports Turkish membership, which would ostensibly balance against France and Germany.

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

For all of the hoo-hah about a Muslim Turkey joining the EU, I actually think the more serious issue would be the shift of political balance within the EU via :

1) the redistribution of voting rights within the EU parliament, which would immediately make them the second-largest voting bloc (by population...and they would probably become the largest within the next 20 years, given population projections). This would totally disrupt the Franco-German axis of control over EU policy.

2) shift in ideological balance: Ankara is far more pro-business than most of continental Europe

Honestly, this just seems like good old fashioned European Great Power politics: it's no great surprise that Britain supports Turkish membership, which would ostensibly balance against France and Germany.

Except over a coffee table rather than through Belgium.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Freiheit wrote: »

Kevin Myers painted a fairly grim view of the migratory effects of such a move. That it would largely be the peasant rather than the cosmopolitan Turks who would migrate, with largely peasant and religous driven values.

Of course he does, because it suits his xenophobic agenda to do so. However, I fail to see why the demographics of Turkish emigrants would be so radically different to those from other nations.

Freiheit wrote: »

thanks, so could Turkeys entry lead to an Islamicicisation of Europe with a crude form of Islam as practiced in rural Turkey? Could it really happen?

Considering that Turkey itself has not yet been “Islamicised” a full 83 years since its foundation (although I suppose that depends on what one considers to be ‘Islamicised’), I find it hard to believe that the whole of Europe would instantly cave in the event that Turkey joined the EU.

sirromo wrote: »

Granting the Turks the right to free movement in the EU would result in hundreds of thousands of low-wage Turkish workers moving to western Europe, the same as happened when we granted the right of free movement to the east Europeans.

Which turned out to be a bad thing because?

southsiderosie

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except over a coffee table rather than through Belgium.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes but from their perspective that coffee table is essentially what matters, take it or leave it. And, unfortunately in the next few years, we may see a great deal of "leave it", so the whole Turkey argument may be moot anyway.

Dr_Phil

RandomName2 wrote: »

Are there more polish speakers than gaelic speakers in Ireland now?

My son is Polish and speaks excellent gaelic.. How would you classify that?

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except over a coffee table rather than through Belgium.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes its all well and good that there isnt WW3 but how does this contribute to a discussion on the merits of turkish membership.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course he does, because it suits his xenophobic agenda to do so.

Granting the Turks the right to free movement in the EU would result in hundreds of thousands of low-wage Turkish workers moving to western Europe, the same as happened when we granted the right of free movement to the east Europeans.

Which turned out to be a bad thing because?

See point 1.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

Which turned out to be a bad thing because?

Because the unplanned-for increase in our population following the lifting of restrictions added fuel to an already overheated economy and made the hard-landing much harder than it would otherwise have been. If you read the book Banana Republic by Anthony Sweeney, he shows how the massive over-investment in housing post-2004 was largely based on expectations of continued immigration-driven increases in the population.

The increase in our population also put pressure on our infrastructure and our public services and helped justify the increased public spending.

If you're still unconvinced, you might want to take a trip to the nearest dole queue. Ask yourself whether those queues would be longer or shorter today had the Fianna Fail government not decided to throw open our borders to the east Europeans back in 2004.

#15

sirromo wrote: »

Because the unplanned-for increase in our population following the lifting of restrictions added fuel to an already overheated economy and made the hard-landing much harder than it would otherwise have been. If you read the book Banana Republic by Anthony Sweeney, he shows how the massive over-investment in housing post-2004 was largely based on expectations of continued immigration-driven increases in the population.

So the increase in population caused developers to build more houses which cannot be filled because not enough people came......?

There's something not quite right about that point.

sirromo

#15 wrote:

So the increase in population caused developers to build more houses

Yes, I think the increase in the population, and the expectation of further increases, were major factors in the decision to build so many houses. The Irish economy was in the middle of a housing boom anyway and it would have crashed regardless, but the short-sighted decision of the Fianna Fail government back in 2004 to lift the restrictions on the east Europeans added fuel to an already overheated economy.

#15 wrote:

which cannot be filled because not enough people came......?

No, there were plenty of people in the country to fill the houses. And house prices started to fall before there was a major fall in immigration numbers.

I wasn't talking about the reasons for the crash. I was talking about the reason the developers built so many houses. They would have invested in housing even if we didn't have so much immigration. They probably wouldn't have built as many houses as they did though.

mike kelly

Freiheit wrote: »

Kevin Myers painted a fairly grim view of the migratory effects of such a move. That it would largely be the peasant rather than the cosmopolitan Turks who would migrate, with largely peasant and religous driven values. Nobody wants to say that there isn't forward thinking Turks, but his vision did scare me and of Turkey's possible entry. Is he right? It's in todays Indo.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-for-250-years-turkeys-presence-in-europe-was-invariably-as-an-armed-invader-in-christian-lands-2118175.html

yes he is. Germany is a good example of this, where third generation Turks are much more radical than Turks who live in Istanbul. Germanys Turkish immigrants are all from rural areas and are anchored in the past.

mike kelly

r14 wrote: »

Myers is just being a bit of a tool as usual. Turks already have a right to come and work in Ireland and the rest of the EU under the Ankara Agreement and it's associated protocols and Decisions of the Association Council.

complete nonsense

RandomName2

mike kelly wrote: »

yes he is. Germany is a good example of this, where third generation Turks are much more radical than Turks who live in Istanbul. Germanys Turkish immigrants are all from rural areas and are anchored in the past.

Radical turkish migrants are a good thing, surely?

Besides which, they are German European now, not Turkish.

I am all in support of the Turkish military (even if they deny the Armenian genocide - they are the descendants of the Young Turks, after all). But, unfortunately, the Turkish military is on its last legs in the Turkish Government.

I think the Middle East is the only place on Earth where Communistic secular military states are the better option. Maybe Iraq will buck the trend?

Talking of which: remember when Turkey told the world, in no uncertain terms, that they would crush any independent Kurdistan. Not that that was much to worry about - they only managed to conquer half of Cyprus.

I would be inclined to call Turkey a valuable military ally - but besides token forces, the only major use that they have played in the last 50 years was the deployment of US ICBMs.

Calling for Turkish membership of the EU is lunacy. But hey, the promises made about the membership of post-Communist flaky states Bulgaria and Romania were pretty loose.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except over a coffee table rather than through Belgium.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm sure there was a coffee table in Ferdinand Foch's railway carriage

BetterLisbon

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm sure there was a coffee table in Ferdinand Foch's railway carriage

Indeed before the two world wars the major european powers carved up the globe over a coffee table and a stiff whisky.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

Yes, I think the increase in the population, and the expectation of further increases, were major factors in the decision to build so many houses.

Undoubtedly – I’m not sure why that makes immigration bad though?

sirromo wrote: »

The Irish economy was in the middle of a housing boom anyway and it would have crashed regardless, but the short-sighted decision of the Fianna Fail government back in 2004 to lift the restrictions on the east Europeans added fuel to an already overheated economy.

I’m not so sure about that – immigrants increased competition in the labour market, introducing a degree of ‘control’ on wage increases. As high as the cost of living rose in this country, I’d hate to see how high it would have risen in the absence of immigration.

sirromo wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the reasons for the crash. I was talking about the reason the developers built so many houses. They would have invested in housing even if we didn't have so much immigration. They probably wouldn't have built as many houses as they did though.

You’re basically arguing that immigration from Eastern Europe was a bad thing because property developers lost their collective bet that high levels of immigration would continue indefinitely – that doesn’t make any sense. That’s like me arguing that the number ‘23’ (for example) is bad because it didn’t come out of the lotto draw drum, causing me to lose my ‘bet’.

Immigrants came to this country because there were jobs to be filled. The fact that a very large percentage of those jobs were in construction and associated industries was our own collective doing, as the whole country went gaga for property. We could just as easily have created those jobs in high-value, home-grown industries had we invested our earnings more wisely, but we didn’t. Now, many of us have lost a fortune as the unsustainable ‘property economy’ blew up in our faces and we’re all looking for someone to blame besides ourselves for being stupid enough to pay €350k for a 2-bed semi-d in Ballygobackwards. Cue scapegoating.

Anyhow, this is getting off-topic. I’m not sure how the property boom relates to Turkey’s potential accession to the EU? Are we planning on having another property-fuelled Celtic Tiger in the event that Turkey becomes an EU member state?

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

We could just as easily have created those jobs in high-value, home-grown industries had we invested our earnings more wisely, but we didn’t.

Really? You think we could have easily created tens of thousands of jobs in high-value, home-grown industries within the same space of time that it took us to inflate a massive housing bubble?

djpbarry wrote:

Anyhow, this is getting off-topic. I’m not sure how the property boom relates to Turkey’s potential accession to the EU? Are we planning on having another property-fuelled Celtic Tiger in the event that Turkey becomes an EU member state?

My objection to Turkey's entry into the EU is cultural rather than economic. For me, preserving our European culture and identity is as important as preserving our European standard of living. I just don't believe that we'll be able to admit tens of thousands of non-European muslims into our population and still expect to be as as culturally European in a hundred years from now. It won't be a once-off or short-term process either, granting the Turks the right to free-movement throughout the EU will result in a continuous yearly immigration of impoverished Turks to western Europe.

You just have to look at the problems the Germans have had in assimilating the Turks into their population to get an idea of what we can expect.

Scofflaw

sirromo wrote: »

Really? You think we could have easily created tens of thousands of jobs in high-value, home-grown industries within the same space of time that it took us to inflate a massive housing bubble?

I'm sure it would have taken rather more effort, but we could just as easily have chosen to go that route.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sure it would have taken rather more effort, but we could just as easily have chosen to go that route.

...with no guarantee of success.

One can choose to attempt to create high-value industry, but as with any industrial endeavour, there is no guaranteed recipe for success.

mike kelly

sirromo wrote: »

You just have to look at the problems the Germans have had in assimilating the Turks into their population to get an idea of what we can expect.

they do have decent Kebab shops though

dRNk SAnTA

sirromo wrote: »

You just have to look at the problems the Germans have had in assimilating the Turks into their population to get an idea of what we can expect.

This isn't fair, the Germans didn't even try to assimilate the Turks into their country.

Germany gave the Turk guest workers no citizenship rights and put the children in seperate schools (where the kids weren't even taught German). The Germans did not expect the Turks to stay and they made no efforts to help them settle.

Max Frisch famously said "We wanted workers, we got people". This is what has led to the social problems that exist with Turks in Berlin.

unlike Britain and France, Germany has never considered itself a country of immigration. They have had a pretty horrible (semi-racist) view of Turks as outsiders who don't belong in the country, and they did not begin to deal with the issue until the 1990s!

mike kelly

There is a lot of truth in what you say. However many German Turks just do not want to integrate and continue with traditions such as arranged marriages and honour killings.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

My objection to Turkey's entry into the EU is cultural rather than economic.

But you earlier made reference to “hundreds of thousands of low-wage Turkish workers moving to western Europe, the same as happened when we granted the right of free movement to the east Europeans.” That looks like an economic ‘objection’ to me – you’re now abandoning that line of argument?

sirromo wrote: »

For me, preserving our European culture and identity is as important as preserving our European standard of living.

And what exactly is our “European culture and identity”? Something that has been conveniently defined to exclude Turkish culture and identity, no doubt.

sirromo wrote: »

I just don't believe that we'll be able to admit tens of thousands of non-European muslims into our population and still expect to be as as culturally European in a hundred years from now.

Considering there are already an estimated 13 million Muslims in the EU, I don’t think another few tens of thousands on top of that is going to have a significant “cultural” influence overall.

sirromo wrote: »

It won't be a once-off or short-term process either, granting the Turks the right to free-movement throughout the EU will result in a continuous yearly immigration of impoverished Turks to western Europe.

Whereas the more affluent Turks will stay put?

sirromo wrote: »

You just have to look at the problems the Germans have had in assimilating the Turks into their population to get an idea of what we can expect.

As has already been pointed out, Germany is not exactly an example to be followed when it comes to integrating immigrants.

mike kelly wrote: »

However many German Turks just do not want to integrate and continue with traditions such as arranged marriages and honour killings.

Define “many”.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

...with no guarantee of success.

One can choose to attempt to create high-value industry, but as with any industrial endeavour, there is no guaranteed recipe for success.

Absolutely - indeed, that seems to have been the problem. Trying something like that compares poorly with the, er, guaranteed returns from property development.

The Irish, as investors, seem to be extremely risk-averse. I suspect that if you look at the structure of the country's personal investments (in 2006-7 say), you'll find that property was, for us, just as for the banks, the overwhelmingly dominant investment.

However, what I'm really pointing up here is that the government made no real effort to encourage business investment as opposed to property investment - there seem to be a lot of tax breaks for property development, and many new ones were added during the boom, whereas the number of business development tax breaks seems not only smaller, but I find it hard to think of any innovations in that area during the boom.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sirromo

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

This isn't fair, the Germans didn't even try to assimilate the Turks into their country.

Germany gave the Turk guest workers no citizenship rights and put the children in seperate schools (where the kids weren't even taught German). The Germans did not expect the Turks to stay and they made no efforts to help them settle.

Why should the Germans have made any effort to help them settle? It wasn't their responsibility. The Germans didn't need or want non-Germans to settle permanently in their country. They needed and wanted workers at a time when they had a serious labour shortage. They wanted them to come to do a job and then return home when their labour was no longer needed.

If the Turks wanted to move to Germany with the goal of settling there permanently then it was up to them to learn the language and make an effort to fit in. If you move to someone else's country then the onus is on you to make the effort to settle and assimilate into the country.

dRNk SAnTA wrote:

Max Frisch famously said "We wanted workers, we got people".

Very honest and very true. The same could be said of our own immigrants.

djpbarry wrote:

But you earlier made reference to “hundreds of thousands of low-wage Turkish workers moving to western Europe, the same as happened when we granted the right of free movement to the east Europeans.” That looks like an economic ‘objection’ to me – you’re now abandoning that line of argument?

I'm not abandoning it, I'm just saying that, from my point of view, the long-term cultural impact of mass immigration from Turkey concerns me more than the short to medium-term economic impact.

djpbarry wrote:

And what exactly is our “European culture and identity”?

As Hilaire Belloc once said, Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe. Europeans no longer have the faith, but they do have a christian heritage and it is from that that their shared European culture and identity springs. If a country was catholic in the century before the reformation then it can be said to have a European culture and identity.

djpbarry wrote:

Something that has been conveniently defined to exclude Turkish culture and identity, no doubt.

Even if Turkish accession to the EU was not an issue, and even there was no prospect of it ever happening, it would still not enter my mind to include Turkish culture and identity as part of European culture and identity.

djpbarry wrote:

Considering there are already an estimated 13 million Muslims in the EU, I don’t think another few tens of thousands on top of that is going to have a significant “cultural” influence overall.

I wasn't talking about tens of thousands being added to Europe's population, I was talking about tens of thousands being added to Ireland's population. It would probably be a few tens of thousands a year as well.

djpbarry wrote:

Whereas the more affluent Turks will stay put?

The more affluent Turks will have less incentive to move.

djpbarry wrote:

As has already been pointed out, Germany is not exactly an example to be followed when it comes to integrating immigrants.

So which country would be an example that we should follow then? Britain, France, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands? From what I understand all of these countries are experiencing problems assimilating their muslim populations.

anglo_celt

sirromo wrote: »

Why should the Germans have made any effort to help them settle? It wasn't their responsibility. The Germans didn't need or want non-Germans to settle permanently in their country. They needed and wanted workers at a time when they had a serious labour shortage. They wanted them to come to do a job and then return home when their labour was no longer needed.

If the Turks wanted to move to Germany with the goal of settling there permanently then it was up to them to learn the language and make an effort to fit in. If you move to someone else's country then the onus is on you to make the effort to settle and assimilate into the country.




Very honest and very true. The same could be said of our own immigrants.




I'm not abandoning it, I'm just saying that, from my point of view, the long-term cultural impact of mass immigration from Turkey concerns me more than the short to medium-term economic impact.




As Hilaire Belloc once said, Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe. Europeans no longer have the faith, but they do have a christian heritage and it is from that that their shared European culture and identity springs. If a country was catholic in the century before the reformation then it can be said to have a European culture and identity.




Even if Turkish accession to the EU was not an issue, and even there was no prospect of it ever happening, it would still not enter my mind to include Turkish culture and identity as part of European culture and identity.




I wasn't talking about tens of thousands being added to Europe's population, I was talking about tens of thousands being added to Ireland's population. It would probably be a few tens of thousands a year as well.




The more affluent Turks will have less incentive to move.




So which country would be an example that we should follow then? Britain, France, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands? From what I understand all of these countries are experiencing problems assimilating their muslim populations.

Ireland is an open door to new European Union member states so we should welcome the people of Turkey to Ireland. Many of your fellow countymen have been here for years.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

Why should the Germans have made any effort to help them settle? It wasn't their responsibility. The Germans didn't need or want non-Germans to settle permanently in their country. They needed and wanted workers at a time when they had a serious labour shortage. They wanted them to come to do a job and then return home when their labour was no longer needed.

If the Turks wanted to move to Germany with the goal of settling there permanently then it was up to them to learn the language and make an effort to fit in. If you move to someone else's country then the onus is on you to make the effort to settle and assimilate into the country.

How does one integrate into a society in which one is not wanted? Furthermore, why are you focussing solely on the negative aspects of migration? You are quick to point out some societal problems that have resulted from Turkish migration to Germany, but would it not be fair to say that those same migrants made a significant contribution in establishing Germany as a modern economic powerhouse?

sirromo wrote: »

Europeans no longer have the faith, but they do have a christian heritage and it is from that that their shared European culture and identity springs. If a country was catholic in the century before the reformation then it can be said to have a European culture and identity.

Overlooking your completely arbitrary definition of what constitutes a European culture and identity, modern-day Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, FYR Macedonia, Romania and Serbia, as well as parts of Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia, were all under the rule of the Islamic Ottoman state prior to the Reformation; are they all non-European? Much of the Iberian Peninsula was under Muslim rule for several centuries during the Middle Ages (ever been to Córdoba?) – are Spain and Portugal non-European?

sirromo wrote: »

Even if Turkish accession to the EU was not an issue, and even there was no prospect of it ever happening, it would still not enter my mind to include Turkish culture and identity as part of European culture and identity.

That’s kind of my point – you have defined Turkish culture to be different to European culture. But of course, no concrete definition of “culture” exists – it is a highly subjective, ever-evolving concept.

sirromo wrote: »

The more affluent Turks will have less incentive to move.

So how come so many well-educated immigrants from various other nations have ended up in Ireland?

sirromo wrote: »

So which country would be an example that we should follow then? Britain, France, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands? From what I understand all of these countries are experiencing problems assimilating their muslim populations.

So we’ve shifted from ‘Turks’ to ‘Muslims’ now – needed a bigger brush for the tar, did we?

sirromo

anglo_celt wrote:

Ireland is an open door to new European Union member states so we should welcome the people of Turkey to Ireland.

I don't think so. We got badly stung the last time we opened our doors to new EU member states. We don't want it to happen again.

djpbarry wrote:

How does one integrate into a society in which one is not wanted?

You have to be like Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai. You have to try extra hard to fit in.

djpbarry wrote:

Furthermore, why are you focussing solely on the negative aspects of migration?

We're not discussing immigration and whether it is on balance a good or bad thing. We're discussing the likely consequences of lifting the restrictions on the Turks following their accession to the EU. I think it will result in a massive increase in Turkish immigration to western Europe and I think this will be bad for Ireland and bad for Europe. I think it will increase tensions that already exist between Europe's growing muslim population and it's declining christian population. I don't want the native European population to continue declining and I don't want muslim influence in Europe, along with their share of Europe's population, to continue growing.

djpbarry wrote:

You are quick to point out some societal problems that have resulted from Turkish migration to Germany, but would it not be fair to say that those same migrants made a significant contribution in establishing Germany as a modern economic powerhouse?

If the Turks contributed to the post-war rebuilding of Germany they did so as temporary guest workers, not as permanent settled immigrants.

djpbarry wrote:

Overlooking your completely arbitrary definition of what constitutes a European culture and identity

How would you define European culture and identity?

djpbarry wrote:

modern-day Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, FYR Macedonia, Romania and Serbia, as well as parts of Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia, were all under the rule of the Islamic Ottoman state prior to the Reformation; are they all non-European? Much of the Iberian Peninsula was under Muslim rule for several centuries during the Middle Ages (ever been to Córdoba?) – are Spain and Portugal non-European?

With the exception of Albania and Bosnia, most of the populations of those countries remained either catholic or orthodox christians throughout the period of muslim rule.

Suppose that it could be established beyond doubt that Turkey really is a European country with a European culture, would you then be in favour of excluding those countries that are not European from EU membership? Suppose a country that was unquestionably non-European like Libya wanted to join the EU. Would you try to expand the definition of Europe to include North Africa or would you side with the people who say that non-European countries don't belong in the European Union?

djpbarry wrote:

That’s kind of my point – you have defined Turkish culture to be different to European culture.

It wouldn't have made any difference if I had emphasised the similarities with European culture. It still wouldn't have entered my mind to consider Turkey a part of Europe.

Japan has a western form of government and a western standard of living and has as much in common with Europe as Turkey has. It doesn't matter how similar either country is to the average European country though, neither one is part of Europe.

djpbarry wrote:

But of course, no concrete definition of “culture” exists – it is a highly subjective, ever-evolving concept.

That is correct, and in my subjective definition of culture, Europe, and its culture, does not include Turkey and its culture. I think my definition of European culture would be shared by most other people.

djpbarry wrote:

So we’ve shifted from ‘Turks’ to ‘Muslims’ now – needed a bigger brush for the tar, did we?

You're avoiding the question. Can you point to a single European country containing a sizable muslim population that hasn't experienced problems in trying to assimilate that population?

Scofflaw

You're avoiding the question. Can you point to a single European country containing a sizable muslim population that hasn't experienced problems in trying to assimilate that population?

I think that begs the question of what exactly constitutes 'problems', and which problems are particularly attributable to 'assimilation' issues. The UK has had a sizeable Muslim population for decades, and the vast majority of it is well integrated and causes no problems. Equally, there's a segment of the UK's white Anglo population that can't be described as integrated with the rest of UK society.

cordially,
Scofflaw

anglo_celt

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think that begs the question of what exactly constitutes 'problems', and which problems are particularly attributable to 'assimilation' issues. The UK has had a sizeable Muslim population for decades, and the vast majority of it is well integrated and causes no problems. Equally, there's a segment of the UK's white Anglo population that can't be described as integrated with the rest of UK society.

cordially,
Scofflaw

France.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

I don't think so. We got badly stung the last time we opened our doors to new EU member states.

Define “badly stung”.

sirromo wrote: »

You have to be like Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai. You have to try extra hard to fit in.

Suppose the host society try “extra hard” to exclude?

sirromo wrote: »

I don't want the native European population to continue declining...

Well, it’s gonna, Turkish accession or no Turkish accession. The only means of halting the decline is to force native Europeans (whoever they are) to have more children. Somehow, I don’t think such a scheme is going to meet with much success.

sirromo wrote: »

If the Turks contributed to the post-war rebuilding of Germany they did so as temporary guest workers, not as permanent settled immigrants.

What difference does it make? Turkish migration to Germany has had positive economic consequences, no?

sirromo wrote: »

How would you define European culture and identity?

European culture and identity: a wishy-washy, ambiguous concept that is often bandied about in discussions on immigration.

sirromo wrote: »

Suppose that it could be established beyond doubt that Turkey really is a European country with a European culture, would you then be in favour of excluding those countries that are not European from EU membership?

Nope.

sirromo wrote: »

Suppose a country that was unquestionably non-European like Libya wanted to join the EU. Would you try to expand the definition of Europe to include North Africa or would you side with the people who say that non-European countries don't belong in the European Union?

I would point to the fact that “Europe” is an entirely man-made concept with no solid definition and is ultimately meaningless. Or to put it another way, precluding a nation from an organisation devoted to economic and political co-operation, based purely on said nation’s geographic location, is completely ridiculous (in my opinion).

sirromo wrote: »

It wouldn't have made any difference if I had emphasised the similarities with European culture. It still wouldn't have entered my mind to consider Turkey a part of Europe.

Once again, that is precisely my point; you have decided that Turkey is not part of Europe and then defined European traits accordingly:

sirromo wrote: »

...in my subjective definition of culture, Europe, and its culture, does not include Turkey and its culture. I think my definition of European culture would be shared by most other people.

Perhaps it is. However, I note that, like many others who consider Turkish culture to be radically different to European culture, you’ve yet to actually describe any of these differences. So, I’m off to Istanbul later this year – what are these vast cultural differences I should look out for while I’m there?

anglo_celt

djpbarry wrote: »

Define “badly stung”.
Suppose the host society try “extra hard” to exclude?
Well, it’s gonna, Turkish accession or no Turkish accession. The only means of halting the decline is to force native Europeans (whoever they are) to have more children. Somehow, I don’t think such a scheme is going to meet with much success.
What difference does it make? Turkish migration to Germany has had positive economic consequences, no?
European culture and identity: a wishy-washy, ambiguous concept that is often bandied about in discussions on immigration.
Nope.
I would point to the fact that “Europe” is an entirely man-made concept with no solid definition and is ultimately meaningless. Or to put it another way, precluding a nation from an organisation devoted to economic and political co-operation, based purely on said nation’s geographic location, is completely ridiculous (in my opinion).
Once again, that is precisely my point; you have decided that Turkey is not part of Europe and then defined European traits accordingly:
Perhaps it is. However, I note that, like many others who consider Turkish culture to be radically different to European culture, you’ve yet to actually describe any of these differences. So, I’m off to Istanbul later this year – what are these vast cultural differences I should look out for while I’m there?

Salam Alikum

Freiheit

To be honest I'd be worried about the Islamicisation of Europe and Ireland...I know that not all Muslims are religous or strict....most are decent people...But I'd be wary of the type of Muslim Myers describes, uncultivated and ignorant......As a gay person I don't feel our state promotes equality enough and I'm worried about the homophobia endemic in Islam.....are my worries legitimate?

irishconvert

Freiheit wrote: »

To be honest I'd be worried about the Islamicisation of Europe and Ireland...I know that not all Muslims are religous or strict....most are decent people...But I'd be wary of the type of Muslim Myers describes, uncultivated and ignorant......As a gay person I don't feel our state promotes equality enough and I'm worried about the homophobia endemic in Islam.....are my worries legitimate?

I'd be wary of any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant. Who does all the so-called "Gay bashing"? They are the people you need to be worried about, not Muslims.

anglo_celt

irishconvert wrote: »

I'd be wary of any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant. Who does all the so-called "Gay bashing"? They are the people you need to be worried about, not Muslims.

The Jews and the Catholics can and have for many years worked and lived in Ireland Europe as well untill the Great Evil came amongst us Muslims.

#15

anglo_celt wrote: »

The Jews and the Catholics can and have for many years worked and lived in Ireland Europe as well untill the Great Evil came amongst us Muslims.

That's absolute nonsense.

Scofflaw

anglo_celt wrote: »

The Jews and the Catholics can and have for many years worked and lived in Ireland Europe as well untill the Great Evil came amongst us Muslims.

And now you're permanently banned for racist trolling.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Peanut

Freiheit wrote: »

To be honest I'd be worried about the Islamicisation of Europe and Ireland...I know that not all Muslims are religous or strict....most are decent people...But I'd be wary of the type of Muslim Myers describes, uncultivated and ignorant......As a gay person I don't feel our state promotes equality enough and I'm worried about the homophobia endemic in Islam.....are my worries legitimate?

irishconvert wrote: »

I'd be wary of any person of any religion, or with no religion, who are uncultivated and ignorant. Who does all the so-called "Gay bashing"? They are the people you need to be worried about, not Muslims.

I witnessed a gay bashing incident on a busy Istanbul street last year.
The first thing that struck me about it was the demeanour of the two attackers - they could have easily been Irish, British... they were instantly recognisable as scumbags first, and (presumably) Turkish second.

Having said that, it would be naive not to think that conservative ideology played some role in legitimising this violence in the minds of these two.

But I feel that this fear of anything outside strict social norms comes more from traditionalist parts of Turkish society, rather than Islam itself.

ghost_ie

djpbarry wrote: »

I would point to the fact that “Europe” is an entirely man-made concept with no solid definition and is ultimately meaningless. Or to put it another way, precluding a nation from an organisation devoted to economic and political co-operation, based purely on said nation’s geographic location, is completely ridiculous (in my opinion).

So you would have no objection to inviting the USA, Canada, China or India to join the EU then?