Should Turkey Join the EU?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Should Turkey enter the EU?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • No

    Votes: 10 43.5%
  • I don't really care

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Total voters
    23
first of all let me state that, as a 19 year old turkish national, i would like to see turkey in EU as well. i feel it is an important connection for my country, since we are not on very good terms with most of our neighbours in the area (iran, iraq, syria, armenia) Turkey needs good friends. imo, an alliance with any of those countries is out of the question, because of our past with them and the incompatibility of our understandings of freedom and democracy.

to me, our quest to join EU is the quest to achieve those values and ideas that were put forth in copenhagen criteria. and god knows, we will reach that point. still, i dont believe the decision to let turkey in depends on these criteria. as it is now, it is simply a political decision.

turkey is being treated differently from the other candidates (all the permanent derogations about restrictions on movement of labor), it does have a big problem like southern cyprus (they are simply against us, and that's that), it is a large country (turkey will be the biggest country in terms of population in the EU by the time it enters the union) which also means a very substantial number of seats in the Euro parliament.

now when i weigh all those and add the dislike of the french, austrian and greek cypriots to that, i dont think we willbe getting in. in that case, turkey will definitely refuse an offer of 'special partnership' and i believe we should get out of the customs union and from that point on, we should let the union worry about missing the boat .
 
So you don't think Turkey will be let into the EU as a full member, all_i_want? That's unfortunate. I would like to see Turkey get full membership in the EU.
 
Neither Turkey nor the EU can really afford to screw this up. I'm exceptionally disappointed in the EU for changing the rules in the middle of the game.
 
nope. i think EU is going to keep us going through 10 years of negotiations, then refuse to give full membership, theyll offer a special status, we will refuse and that'll be it.

i seriously think turkey should strenghten ties with russia and other asian countries ( middle asia, far east, india etc.) as well the US, which shouldnt be too hard because despite all its clumsiness in foreign affairs, even the current administration realizes why turkey is important for the US.
 
I am really impressed with the number of excellent points raised, and I find myself actually rethinking my position - but I remain unconvinced. :wink:

The best point I have seen raised here, which I can relate to very intensely, is the one concerning 'European Identity' and what we, as Europeans, deem 'French' or 'British', 'German' or 'Italian' - and how these concepts hinder the movement of the European Union.

The truth is, the EU is a myth when you talk about it as a social concept; the British culture doesn't feel any more unified to say, the French culture because it is part of the Union - not one bit. I do believe that identity is an issue that still is vital and one the politicians have never addressed, and that is because nations and cultures are, to some extent, disappointed with the way the Union has continued to grow. Many British people hate the way France seems to dominate everything, and how it always seems to be them that benefit from policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy. Spain too has beef with France. Germany resents the former communist bloc and their advancement. Italy is never happy in being sidelined next to Germany and France - nationalism is still to strong, and how can it not be when you do have some very strong cultures in the mix, rightfully proud of their culture, unwilling to even compromise over a great many differences. United economically we maybe, but socially we have a long way to go.

And that is why I do not support Turkey's joining the EU. Why should it? It seems to me that the main argument that shows how it helps Europe to take Turkey on is that its a way to show integration with a predominantly Muslim culture - and that is very pertinent.

However, consider the enourmous differences already within the EU, countries that are directly and immediately linked to one another in terms of culture, geography and society and yet are STILL inherently divided; how would a country like Turkey, clearly the odd one out for many reasons (starting with its geography and its culture) take to it? I think that its quite clear that there are many Turks who like Europe, the question is, does Europe like Turkey enough? Does it need to? A difficult question to answer, when you consider that 'Europeans' can't even agree on when to join a war, on what share of a subsidy the farmers of each country should take, on what standards are 'the' standards in terms of quality for various foods that so many Euopeans identify with culturally and will have to give up because of such a standard?

The EU as a society was built on noble politics and clearly good intentions, but integration is not achieved that easily.

Ant.
 
the simple answer that i've heard being batted around in DC is that common, popular European resentment towards a hyper-power like the US might prove to be enough to get Europeans to see more what specific values they have in common and settle on a unified vision. this, combined with the inevitable ascention to superpower status of India and China, and Europeans are going to need a united, focused EU in order to be able to compete on the world stage.

it's hard, though. even in the US, where we are one country and everyone watches "Friends" and the McDonald's hamburgers taste the same in Anchorage and Honolulu, there are *huge* regional differences. i've met australians with whom i have more in common with than many Texans i've met, and it seems odd to think that your average Californian is from the same planet as your average Mississippian. what makes the US work, i think, is that we have agreed upon a common set of symbols which represent ideas and ideals, combined with our common narrative as "a nation of immigrants" with no myth of origin. the reason Americans fly their flag and sing along loudly to their national anthem is because we *need* these overt displays of unity, whereas it's a working assumption in Denmark or Sweden.

what Europe can do, i think, is through the realization of her common ideals, create a set of symbols that all Europeans treasure. to us, the flag represents "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." such an ideal knows no race, creed, gender, ethnicity or orientation. (though, right now, i could argue that the flag currently represents a reprehensible administration, but i've already decided what the flag means to *me* and therefore when the country fucks up, i view it as a fall from an ideal). maybe it could be through cultural achievements -- Europe remains the birthplace of Western culture though it's a symbol of Paris, can't all Poles marvel at the Eiffel Tower? the Alps? Freud? Beethoven? the Beatles? U2? could a Scot take pride in Istanbul, and could a Turk find inspiration in the library of Trinity College Dublin? i guess what i'm saying is that all Americans feel ownership on the accomplishment of other Americans, can Europeans find pride in European accomplishments? is Beethoven less a German and more a European?

i hope that's not too rambling. and i apologize if i come across as too "USA vs. EU" -- but i do think it's a useful model.
 
I don't know enough about this to comment, but my first impression hearing about Turkey's potential membership is ....since when has anyone ever thought Turkey is IN Europe? At least I never have. Although I suppose the point is that the boundaries of "Europe" have never been defined.
 
That's right, Europe doesn't have clearly delineated borders. The official Istanbul site used to say "let's meet where the continents meet", a reference to Europe and Asia. This makes me confused as to what Europe really is. Is a continent? It can't be *a* culture, it could be described as a "group" of "cultures". Any thoughts about this?
 
my understaning is that Europe extends, basically, from Portugal in the West to the Ural Mountains of Russia in the East, and it's southern border is the Mediterranian Sea.
 
I love your paragraph on what European countries could do to 'unite', for lack of a better word, Irvine.

However, I do feel that the main problem is, despite the great differences between the states found in the US, the one true historical milestone that unites all Americans was the Revolution. The unification process, I believe, really began when America decided to get rid of the British, and so a unification of some sort was made possible.

Again, history is a problem for Europe. If we look at European history, all we see is great divisions, war, feuds, grudges and cultural differences. Yes, the British still bear a grudge against Germany (and I am talking in rash general cultural summaries, not academic detail), but Germany is still living in a perpetual state of guilt. Too many people are still upset at France and the way it has used the EU to its own, arguably selfish advantage, while many still find the process of forgetting history and moving on altogether impossible. This much is true, if we are to coexist as a Union, we must stop looking at each other as the competition - and there is nothing forcing us to do so. The Americans had the British to break free from, whereas we have a few disgruntled Europeans who want to challenge America as a superpower, and that is not a goal that unifies.

Ant.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
The unification process, I believe, really began when America decided to get rid of the British, and so a unification of some sort was made possible.

Are you suggesting we should decide to get rid of the British too? :wink:
 
Hahaha. I think everyone has a love/hate relationship when it comes to Britain and Europe, on both sides. However, who would you have to keep the evil French in check if we left? Germany? You must be joking. :wink:

Ant.
 
Last edited:
orginally posted by lauren430
I don't know enough about this to comment, but my first impression hearing about Turkey's potential membership is ....since when has anyone ever thought Turkey is IN Europe? At least I never have. Although I suppose the point is that the boundaries of "Europe" have never been defined.

That's what I've always thought. Only a small part of Turkey - half of Istanbul - is in Europe, while 90% of it is in the Middle East, or Asia. I don't think someone living in the most eastern part of Turkey would see themselves as European compared to someone in Istanbul.
But then again, do the people living in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan see themselves as Europeans? I guess what it means to be European does need a definition.

I'm concerned about Turkey's human rights record. I am also concerned about the current tensions between Europeans and Muslims, and I wonder if bringing Turkey into the EU would be a good idea. Is it possible tensions would ease or get worse? Polls and surveys (I know they aren't too reliable) show most Europeans don't want Turkey in the EU. So, it's hard to say if this would be good for Europe or not.
 
I have a new book about the Ottoman Turkish military. The author, who is British, refers to this force as "European". I was a bit shocked. Apparently there's more than one school of thought on this matter.
 
one interesting thing about EU is that while it is a substantial economic power, it doesnt have that much of a role or influence in the world politics. one reason is that it is divided. the other is a lot simpler. with the possible exception of british, european countries dont have a formidable militaries.

i know a lot of you would say that military power doesnt count for much in the modern world. it does. US has that power so they can bully other countries around and get their way. (which i dont approve in any way)

turkey having the 2nd biggest army in NATO is one of the possible reasons EU was interested in the first place. frankly i think that is very annoying but it is the truth.

another reason lies in the demographics. turkey has a relatively large and quite a young (younger than china on average) population. that means cheap labor and lets face it, the population in EU countries isnt getting any younger. turkish population is bound to hit the 100 million mark by 2050, making it quite an important element in the area.

on the other hand, talking about cultural relevance and compatibility is a bit redundant, since there is a huge number of immigant muslims in pretty much every country in west europe. i know a lot of them (esp. britain) has a lot of problems with these minorities, but what do you think is the best way to deal with this? if turkey was a EU country with a great economy and a fully functioning democracy, do you think muslim immigrants would still strive to go to some west european country with rising employment and stagnant economy? (see: germany)

the dilemma of my country is that, we dont belong with the rest of the muslim world because none of them are secular, and most of them see us as blasphemers because we are secular. we dont belong with the europeans cause of all the reasons anthony has stated above. we are too leftist to follow US in everything they do. we have trust issues with russia because theyve tried to invade turkey for the same reason for centuries (i believe the austrians have the same issues with us)

i think it is fairly obvious by now that turkey is quite a wild card in this territory. years will show if we manage to get past the EU goal to pursue something more worthwhile. cause frankly i am sick of europeans bringing up all these issues (i.e cyprus) and making the rules as they go (permanent derogations about movement) if the people of these countries are going to ride the wave of loonie right wingers from austria and france, fine. it will be a missed opportunity for both parties, but its not like turkey is gonna die because of it.
 
financeguy said:


On this basis, Britain should be kicked out of the EU because of:-

(1) Illegal anti-terror legislation found to be unconstitutional by its own top judges

and

(2) The country's participation in an illegal war which is against the UN charter

Nearly half of the European Union is involved in some way in the "illegal war" which is not against the UN charter and was in fact authorized by the UN Security council in 3 different resolutions! 16 of the 26 NATO nations have been or were involved in the war in Iraq.
 
Rubbish, the war was in no way authorised by the UN Security Council. Check your facts my friend. In regard to your point about 16 of the 26 NATO nations being involved, most were small and probably afraid of being bullied by the US.
 
The resolutions that Sting is refering to are those regarding Iraq's failure to verifiably disarm its illegal weapons programs after the Gulf War and due to Iraqs non-compliance in verifiably disarming its WMD, technically it is a sound argument.
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:
Rubbish, the war was in no way authorised by the UN Security Council. Check your facts my friend. In regard to your point about 16 of the 26 NATO nations being involved, most were small and probably afraid of being bullied by the US.

UN Security Council Resolution 678, 687, and 1441 all authorize the use of military force against Saddam's Iraq if it is in material breech of its obligations which were laid down in the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire agreement and multiple UN resolutions since then.

In addition, since the war to remove Saddam's government ended in April 2003, the United Nations Security Council has signed 3 more resolutions approving the occupation of Iraq by the current coalition. If in fact the war was illegal as you claim, why would the UN security council approve the occupation of a country brought about through "illegal means"?

The UN clearly thought Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was illegal. Try comparing the United Nations reaction to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the UN's reaction to the Coalition of UN member states that removed Saddam's regime from power after failing to comply with multiple UN resolutions! There is a clear difference!

Can you name a single UN resolution that in any way condemns Operation Iraqi Freedom or calls for the withdrawal of the coalition from Iraq?



Turkey has been a member of NATO for nearly 50 years! I'm surprised everyone in here fails to mention this fact. Turkey was VITAL to Europe's security through out the Cold War and played a key role in detering Soviet Aggression against Europe during that time. Turkey has also helped many European countries in its dealings in many parts of the middle east. These are very good reasons why Turkey deserves to be apart of the European Union.

When it comes to economics, its true Turkey's standard of living is worse than any European country coming in at #88 on the latest UN Human Development report. But Romania is not much higher at #69 and they are likely getting in, in 2007.

If the European Union can let Romania in, they must let Turkey in!

Before we start talking about Turkey messing up the identity of Europeans because their Muslim, lets remember that the largest ethnic/religion group in BOSNIA are Muslims. Does this mean Bosnia should not be allowed in the EU either?
 
Last edited:
Good point about Turkey and NATO Sting. It completely slipped my mind. DOH! :reject: And you're right about Bosnia, it's heavily Muslim also.
 
STING2 said:


UN Security Council Resolution 678, 687, and 1441 all authorize the use of military force against Saddam's Iraq if it is in material breech of its obligations which were laid down in the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire agreement and multiple UN resolutions since then.

In addition, since the war to remove Saddam's government ended in April 2003, the United Nations Security Council has signed 3 more resolutions approving the occupation of Iraq by the current coalition. If in fact the war was illegal as you claim, why would the UN security council approve the occupation of a country brought about through "illegal means"?

Please explain what "material breach" occured as no WMD were found. In order to legally justify an actual invasion you would have had to have a new resolution specifically authorising it - this never happened.

I agree with your points about Turkey.
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:


Please explain what "material breach" occured as no WMD were found. In order to legally justify an actual invasion you would have had to have a new resolution specifically authorising it - this never happened.

Resolution 678, 687 and resolution 1441 all authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM OF all WMD. To date, Saddam has yet to account for several thousand liters of anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, over 20,000 Bio Chem capable shells just to name a few things!

Whether or not WMD is found by the coalition is irrelevant to the legal justification for war. This was never required by any UN resolution in order to take military action. The only requirment in regards to WMD was Saddam's full and complete Verifiable disarmament of such materials. Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD.

Resolution 1441 that was passed in November 2002 was just as specific in authorizing military action as the resolution that authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam's military forces from Kuwait back in 1991! There was no need from a legal standpoint for another resolution. In fact, there was no need for resolution 1441 from a strict legal standpoint either because the ceacefire agreement and resolution 678 from 1990/1991 authorized military force to be used in the non-compliance of "subsequent resolutions".

Can you name a single UN resolution, or an attempt at one, that condemns or calls for the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq?
 
STING2 said:
Resolution 1441 that was passed in November 2002 was just as specific in authorizing military action as the resolution that authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam's military forces from Kuwait back in 1991! There was no need from a legal standpoint for another resolution. In fact, there was no need for resolution 1441 from a strict legal standpoint either because the ceacefire agreement and resolution 678 from 1990/1991 authorized military force to be used in the non-compliance of "subsequent resolutions".

Why then did has virtually every top legal expert, apart from those in the payroll of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair, said that in their judgement the war was illegal?

The main reason that there hasn't been a subsequent resolution calling for withdrawal is that there would be no point. They are in now, so they have to sort it out.
 
Last edited:
this is all very, very interesting. two things jump out at me:

1. if the EU really wishes to united and stand alongside the US, Russia, China and India, then it will need a bigger military -- Britian is not enough, but Britain combined with Turkey could make a big differences. i can't imagine Turkey's army will get any smaller, with all these young men running around and with Russia looking to flex some muscles now that her economy has stabilized and she becomes a key oil exporter.

2. history -- it's what Americans *love* about Europe (you can't go more than 100km and not find some treasure trove of culture anywhere on the Continent ... and the UK and Ireland) yet it can be a huge impediment in situations like these. while i can get frustrated at the short American attention span and our disregard for history, it is precisely these qualities that allow the US to constantly move forward and live in a continuously evolving present (which is why i think we can recover from all the damage the Bushies are doing right now). but it has a grasp on so many other people, and old hatreds die hard, apparently. it's probably not naturally for a continent that has suffered so much death and warfare in the 20th century alone to simply kiss and make up.

prediction: Turkey will join. it makes too much sense economically and militarily.
 
Last edited:
But will the ageing European European nations be able to maintain themselves with their cradle to grave welfare? You can only subsidise so much before your country gets tripped up.
 
Back
Top Bottom