Austrians say: either Croatia is in or we block Turkey

[VetLegion]

I don't think it is only my impression - in the good cop / bad cop game EU is playing with Turkey - there are very few candidates for the good cop role, while the bad cop role is heavily contested

[klinastrom]

I think Turkey will get a special relationship with the EU but not full membership. In the off chance the latter happens Turks will never be allowed to have free passage in any EU country untill each country decides so in its own terms. Since Greece lifted its veto against Turkey, to get Cyprus in, the rest of the EU had to, at last say what it thought about it.

[kronic]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
You mean, they should have. By all established European regulations, traditions, procedures and practice with regard to new memberships, Turkey earned the right to start negotiations with the EU. Even the EU Commission accepted that much.

I'm not against starting the negotiations, but I don't see how Turkey fits into the EU at all. They are economically weak (even compared to most of the new EU members), corrupt and have interests in a region where I don't want to see EU engagements. Also their judicial system is far away from meeting EU standards.
I also don't see the EU as a project to bring prosperity to the whole world. Let's better have a smaller working EU than a large meaningless union

And whether people are uninformed are not, it's wrong to ignore the people's will, because it might end up in a rise of racism and all that crap.
We're currently having a huge debate in Germany how good our integration concepts were. And the experts come to the conclusion that we didn't even manage to successfully integrate those people and their children that came to Germany in the 60's. They're outsiders, mainly live in modern ghettos and have a lot of disadvantages. They seem to lack the will for integration in the same time.
All parties, left or right, liberal or conservative share the opinion that we have to change our concepts, because we utterly failed. In a recent poll, 80 % of the Germans thought that foreigners should have more will to integrate.

I'm sure that the populations of most other European countries share the same fear and the same sentiments (again: whether that's right or wrong, they just DO have these feelings).
It's better to articulate that it might have been a mistake to promise the Turks something that nobody took seriously.

And where does Turkey stand today? There's surely still a long distance to EU standards, so I see no problem in rejecting them. They can have a partnership, but to develop a true democracy is their business, not that of the EU. I'm not willing to take the responsibility for the development of the Turkish democracy.

So I say stop playing with the Turks, confront them with the European reality.

[VetLegion]

kronic, could you present your argument about why Turkey shouldn't become a member of EU as a bulleted list of reasons?

[Gangerolf]

or as a powerpoint presentation?

[VetLegion]

I say because most of that is/was/usually is an emotional argument which can't be discussed properly.

If you try to structure it a bit you see it is not very easy.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Carinthia is a stinking biotope of the most reactionary, most German-nationalist elements in Austria. It's where they all go. Compared to other Austrian regions, Carinthia felt most German and had most Nazi members (and activists). One of the worst was Odilo Globotschnigg, figure the tragic irony and stupidity of the name.

The ironic part is that I believe Carinthia is the craddle of Slovenians that unfortunatelly got germanised...

I was not pleased with Polish membership either, but not out of general xenophoby but because of that backwards medieval kind of Catholicism that rules the country.

Oh? And that's not a biased post?
WHat do You mean by "medieval kind of Catholicism"?


------------------------

I believe Poland could do a similar thing with Ukraine and other eastern states.
Georgia, Armenia, Byelorus (someday oneday), Russia (uh, hate to say it), all the Balcanes and perhaps Lebanon and eventually Israel should once be in European Union.

One thing I'm afraid is that Turkey will block Armenian membership.

I've been invited by a Turkish friend to a "Turkish evening". First, there was a speach by the ambassador of Turkey and ex-Polish ambassador in Turkey, and later something to eat, and even later a Turkish film, "Uzak".
Sometimes it was interesting, sometimes it was silly, like when the ambassador suggested that de Gaulle's definition (or rather description) of Europe: "from the Atlantic to Ural mountains" contains Turkey.
I wanted to ask a question, but one of the guys organising the sessions was quicker: would Turkey block Armenian entrance?
The ambassador tried not to reply first, saying that no, no, during entire Turkish membership in NATO Turkey never opposed new members. When He was reminded by the guy that the question is about Armenia precisely,
He said that when Armenia will fulfill the criteria, yes, Turkey will be in favour of Armenian membership, but only if they accept the boarder, and back off from Azerbeycan.
I wondered if I shouldn't ask what's the difference between Turkish engagement in Cyprus and Armenian in Azerbeycan, but quitted.

(the Turkish evening was pretty nice, in general. I quite liked the film)

However, the problem remains:
I'm pretty sure Turkey will block Armenian membership.
And the question of Armenian boarder (Syria does not recognise the boarder in Hatay region too, at least on some maps) is a problem of both neighbours and perhaps Turkey should solve it before entering EU.
As well as Cyprus case perhaps, though if the Cypriote Greeks could join without it, perhaps the Turks should be able to do it as well.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Gangerolf

I don't think it will get to that. They'll have to sort it out before Turkey can join. Not having any border disputes etc is a membership criteria iirc.

Then why did Greece get in when it has an ongoing border dispute?

[VetLegion]

Or Cyprus for that matter, or Slovenia (has a disputed border with Croatia)?

[Heresson]

In the question of Slovenia, it's about inches. And it was quiet until recently.
What did Greece dispute over? northern Epirus?
sea?

[Gangerolf]

hmmmm. maybe it was about border disputes with non-EU members. Or maybe I'm just plain wrong. I'll look it up.

[VetLegion]

No, you're right. Theoretically, all disputes have to be solved prior to entry. Obviously, exceptions are made as needed.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Heresson
In the question of Slovenia, it's about inches.

More or less... also about sea border, but don't expect a war over the issue

What did Greece dispute over? northern Epirus?
sea?

I think Oerdin is referring to the sea border in the Aegean. Greeks and Turks regularly waste their respective taxpayers' money on "duels" in the sea and sky - usually a Turkish vessel or plane "enters" the Greek space and they send someone to chase them off. It doesn't involve shooting, but isn't without risk.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Heresson
In the question of Slovenia, it's about inches. And it was quiet until recently.
What did Greece dispute over? northern Epirus?
sea?

Sea boundries with Turkey also I believe there is disagreement about the land border between the two but I could be wrong about that one.

[Gangerolf]

Yeah, "good neighbourliness" is a condition. It can mean that a border dispute doesn't have to be permanently solved, it's enough that it is laid on ice.