Turkey got a date from the EU!

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Heck, I have a hard time coming to an explanation myself.

First, there are the people who simply dislike Muslims. When the far-right amounts to 20% here, this is not an insignificant minority. Besides, the adhesion of Turkey would mean many immigrants indeed, and thus many people who are not necessarily racists fear it, cause it threatens their job. The same people are against the last wave of enlargement, which is blamed for the departure of many factories.

Some say Turkish membership is seen as a real threat to "French Primacy" in Europe. How about all that talk about restrictions on movement of people from Turkey, doesn't this allay any fears in France?

Second, there are people who don't consider Turkey to be in Europe, geographically speaking. It may sound absurd, but all French people were taught since school how Europe looks like. And on the map, Asia pretty clearly begins at Istanbul. This geographic consideration also implies the "where will Europe stop?" question. Dracon in his first post has expressed the point clearly enough.

Just for curiosity, how about the the eastern end of Europe, how's it presented in those maps, the Urals? (that's where the widest definition of geographical Europe goes I guess). If so, theoretically, would people show less reaction at least on geographical grounds if Russia applied for membership?

Hey, rhetorical question but where would the eastern end of Europe be marked if there were no Ural mountains, if you think the wastness of greater Eurasia?

Then, there are the people who think the EU needs a common culture, which obviously stems from Christianty One could think this opinion is probably held not as strongly in France than in other EU countries (because we have an extreme relationship toward separation of Church and State), but the French public opinion is also one of the most enthusiastic for the creation of a EU "bloc", which would require a common culture

Actually, this is has a certain irony to it if you consider the fact that Europe is by now largely atheist or oblivious towards religion.

There are other factors which may weight, like the fear of Turkey's size, the fear that Turkey changes the EU, the opinion that Turkey cannot be ready before an extremely long time etc. But I think these factors don't affect the mass of people much.

Now, keep in mind this can be entirely false. As I said, I have trouble understanding the refusal of Turkey myself. But from the little I gathered, I think those are the main reasons. In France as in other countries.

The sadder part is, in Turkey France has for a long time been seen as the leader of the idea of Enlightenment, and it has been the source of inspiration for Turkey's historical modernisation as well. France was an inspiration also in literature, arts, philosophy, sciences etc, there are many very old French high-schools in Turkey, many laws were adopted from the French Code, so on so forth which all resulted in a good amount of Francophilism. So the disappointment in Turkey about France these days is multiplied by that background.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by klinastrom
The expected happened. Much to Turkey's sadness the negotiations are open ended. Meaning they could end in failure. I'm sure that's what the EU governments have in mind. A failure on behalf of Turkey so they can press ahead their special relationship idea with Turkey. I don't even think that they would even need to use the safety clause of 1/3 of EU members saying no which would cause the negotiations to stop.
I think Turkey will fail because its problems are endemic in contrast with the european countries problems. All its human abuses, genocides, invasion and occupation and its lack of freedom of speech are because of the military semi-junta. But if this is taken away Turkey will fall back on open islamism. It is a dead end, one that has probably already been identified by the EU which neverhteless wants Turkey to be closer to it and not to Asia hence the negotiations procedures.
I hope this will help Turkey to ameliorate itself but it would be fooling itself if it actually believes they will sometime enter.

I simply disagree with this grim outlook on and stereotypology (I made the word up ) about Turkey.

On the other hand, all negotiations with all previous new members were also open ended in their nature, none of such negotiations were started on the basis that it would be completed in any given X years. Besides, yesterday's decision at the EU summit clearly states the aim of the neogtiations is full membership.

While you have a point about nothing being guaranteed now about Turkish membership into the EU, the other side of the coin is that all those phraseology about "if negotiations fail" might as well be put in the decision to start negotiations with Turkey to soothe the fears of many ardent opposers of a Turkish membership.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by klinastrom
All its human abuses, genocides, invasion and occupation and its lack of freedom of speech are because of the military semi-junta.

I wasn't aware that they had invaded the Ivory Coast for chocolate or tortured people in Algeria. Or limited free speech by banning Muslim head scarves.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Or limited free speech by banning Muslim head scarves.

Strangely enough, they have done that a long time ago.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by alva
Wy doesn't Turkey join the US??? They are the biggest supporter of joining us afterall.

We would upset the electoral college with our huge population, we are culturally different and geographically not American (where does America end!), we would take too much federal development funds, cheap labour would flood the American market so restrictions might be required (wait, maybe not, the Mexicans are already there!), if Cyprus goes unsolved then the US would be "occupying" EU territory, etc etc. So maybe our negotiations for joining the US should be open ended and take many years

[Ted Striker]

I have been trying to get you guys in for the last 5 years.

My lobbying efforts are gaining steam.

[Namaste]

Originally posted by C0ckney


well both our governments allowed it for the last expansion so what's to say they wouldn't do it again?

Actually, they really didn't if I remember correctly. I believe there is a 6 year restriction on movement for citizens of the new central and eastern European member states. The EU would certainly be within its rights to impose a similar restriction on Turkish citizens once they enter the EU.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I have been trying to get you guys in for the last 5 years.

My lobbying efforts are gaining steam.

We need more Turkish ladies to aid you in your efforts!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by alva
Yeah, but tht proves that we've done the poor thing, maybe could try for something different ey.

Wy doesn't Turkey join the US??? They are the biggest supporter of joining us afterall.

We're bootstrapping Mexico, thank you very much. You have your hemisphere, we have ours. Ours as in not just Yanks.

Incidently, NAFTA introduced a larger portion of poorer people to the economic union. At the same time it created a North American regional interest with half a billion people. Some pain, some gain.

Can Europe have such vision?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Can Europe have such vision?

Considering that we integrated about 100 millions of poorer citizens this very year (the EU15 was about 350 mil), I'd say it looks like it.

And I don't think NAFTA operates a substantial wealth transfer, in the form of agricultural aid and structural funds. Besides, it doesn't look like the Mexicans can cross the American border however they wish. NAFTA is not quite the same form of commitment as the EU, because the EU is more than a free-trade area (as surprising as it may sound to an Anglo ear )

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Some say Turkish membership is seen as a real threat to "French Primacy" in Europe. How about all that talk about restrictions on movement of people from Turkey, doesn't this allay any fears in France?

I guess some people fear about it. But I don't think it weighs much. At least IMO, we'd have a much higher common understanding in geopolitical matters with the Turks than with the Brits / Poles.

Just for curiosity, how about the the eastern end of Europe, how's it presented in those maps, the Urals? (that's where the widest definition of geographical Europe goes I guess). If so, theoretically, would people show less reaction at least on geographical grounds if Russia applied for membership?

Actually, my belief is that if Russia only spanned to the Urals, a great many more people would accept the idea of their integration on principle. I may be wrong though, but the "look at the map of Europe" is probably the one I heard most often both for Turkey and Russia.

Hey, rhetorical question but where would the eastern end of Europe be marked if there were no Ural mountains, if you think the wastness of greater Eurasia?

Then the Eastern border of Europe would be at whatever place was the border of the Tsar's empire, when the Tsar wanted to show Russia was a "European" country some centuries ago I'm not condoning this (the very idea to separate Europe from the rest of Asia, geographically wise, is artificial - the very idea of separating Europe from the rest of the Mediterranean and the Middle East, culturally wise, is artificial as well)

Actually, this is has a certain irony to it if you consider the fact that Europe is by now largely atheist or oblivious towards religion.

Agreed. I wonder how much of the argument is a pretext to mask something else, and how much of it is an actual attempt to have a unified culture centered about what little we have in common, i.e. Christianty.
It is a dumb argument IMHO. If tomorrow the rising, threatening power is polytheistic India, I imagine we'd try to form a great "Monotheistic Alliance" with the Muslims to counter it. And all the people who explain today that we must make a Christian Europe, will tell us how much us all monotheists have in common

The sadder part is, in Turkey France has for a long time been seen as the leader of the idea of Enlightenment, and it has been the source of inspiration for Turkey's historical modernisation as well. France was an inspiration also in literature, arts, philosophy, sciences etc, there are many very old French high-schools in Turkey, many laws were adopted from the French Code, so on so forth which all resulted in a good amount of Francophilism. So the disappointment in Turkey about France these days is multiplied by that background.

This makes me sad as well. I had once the opportunity to talk with a Turk about it, when France officially acknowledged the existence of the Armenian genocide. His disappointment was very strong. I can only imagine how much stronger the disappointment is, even among the Francophiles now, given that the French public opinion as a whole doesn't merely reject what we percieve as a crime on the past, but reject the very Turkish country

[notyoueither]

I know that the EU is more integrated than NAFTA, but...

NAFTA transfers wealth by way of jobs. It is not a welfare program. Still, the jobs that moved to Mexico have the desired effect. Mexico gets more wealth, and they decide for themselves how to spend it, rather than being told from some centre what to do. It is very... 'American.'

The border is closed in theory, but in practice it is a sieve,and consecutive waves of migrants find tacit if not official recognition in the end. Eventually, the border will be as open to Mexico as it has been bewteen the US and Canada for 50 years (longer actually).

Different circumstances, yes. However, the US entered into an arrangement with a nation a full third their size where the gulf of wealth was vastly greater than that between 'Europe' and Turkey is. Canada tagged along because, well, we couldn't think of a good reason not to, and it dovetailed well with our ideas of actually doing something to help the rest of the world join the first.

[RGBVideo]

So what's the date? I didn't see it in either the original post of this thread or in the article which was cited.

[BeBMan]

October 3rd 2005 for opening the talks. It's on Germany's national holiday.....what does that mean

[kronic]

Originally posted by BeBro
October 3rd 2005 for opening the talks. It's on Germany's national holiday.....what does that mean

Looks like Schröder finally reached his goal - we now don't need to celebrate October 3rd anymore.