Will this decide if Turkey has a future in the EU?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The thing many of you dont seem to get is that while Spain, England, Belgium, France and many other EU member states have committed atrocities in the past, they are already members and so they are irrelevant to what we are discussing here, wich is; Why shouldnt Turkey be let in.

Why not kick them out, since they seem to not meet your criteria for being in?

Because I'm not in a position to do so. And cant help make it happen. What I can do though is express my opinion to the MEPs why they shouldnt vote for Turkeys membership.

Besides kicking members out is dumb, make them do the right thing isntead

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why not kick them out, since they seem to not meet your criteria for being in?

Kuci, its no use arguing with racists. They'll never change their views.

[laurentius]

**** off, idiot

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nazi lover

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by laurentius
Maybe so, but I find discussion about current members past crimes irrelevant to this discussion about whether we should accept Turkey in.

But fundamentally, if France, Spain or Britain weren't member-States, and applied today, would you oppose their entry?
Please don't say "this question is irrelevant". Please answer. These countries have done crimes probably worse than Turkey's in the same timeframe, and never significantly atoned for them, just like Turkey. Do you think they'd deserve to be in the EU less than Lybia or Tunisia?

I said if they would meet the criteria. At the moment they dont and I never said they did.

But why would you (basically) eternally exclude Turkey, even if it met the criteria? Turkey will likely meet the criteria much sooner than the others bar Israel.

Anyway Israel and Palestinians might be finding a solution soon, so another obstacle from their membership might be gone soon.

So do the Turks in Cyprus. The ones who made an obstacle to the peace agreement in Cyprus were the Greek Cypriots.

Sure and I appreciate you opinion. In fact I thank you for the first matter-of-fact comments so far made by anyone. Again, i know I'm repeating myself here but the subject at hand is Turkey, not Spain, not France, not UK, but Turkey. So lets talk Turkey who wants to be in not the current members who we cant throw out just like that.

Yes, but the problem with your argument, is that you reject Turkey on some grounds, but you wouldn't reject any other country on the same grounds. This means that you are singling out Turkey. It looks like you oppose Turkey not for the reasons of principle you have mentioned (democracy, human rights, history), but because it is Turkey.

Tunisia and Libya were included because of the sophistication of those societies. They have problems, they dont meet the criteria yet, but their problems with democracy can be solved as well as anyones. Neighbouring Algerias, Moroccos or Egypts problems are of a whole other magnitude. Dont you agree?

I don't know anything about Lybian society, so I can't tell. From those I met (in Germany), the Turks are quite "Europeans" in the meaning that they are acceptably tolerant, treat women like human beings, etc. True, those are urban expat students I'm talking about. But in comparison with some other nationalities from the same milieu, they were quite progressively minded.

I dont hate Islam, I dont hate the Turks as a people. I only hate the mindset in Turkey atm and the official denial they live in. So please stop all this racist bull****. OK?

OK, but please make more explicit what you call the "mindset in Tukey atm". I don't know what that is.

What does the american indians or blacks rights have to do with Turkeys membership in the EU!?
Cant you at least try to keep this on topic?

It IS the topic! You pretend that Turkey is unacceptable because of its horrible history. I mention that some of our members have a horrible history on their own, but it's somehow irrelevant. You only apply your principles to Turkey, but do not apply them to anybody else.
This means that you don't want Turkey to be in, and rationalize this opposition afterwards, by using arguments you would never use about any other country. I believed I could find another explanation, but I actually couldn't.

Care to enlighten me? Why should a dark history be relevant to Turkey's membership in the EU, but irrelevant for any other country?

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by laurentius


The thing many of you dont seem to get is that while Spain, England, Belgium, France and many other EU member states have committed atrocities in the past, they are already members and so they are irrelevant to what we are discussing here, wich is; Why shouldnt Turkey be let in.

The only thing we should be focusing here is what Turkey has done, since its is the one wanting to be a member.

Your statement begs the question, what moral power do you have to judge others for their "past atrocities" when you did not apply the same scrutiny for your existing members?

Where have I overlooked at the atrocities of the current members btw?I'm pro basque nation, I'm pro united Ireland and I think Frnace should apologise Algerians. I dont over look anything Mr. I just think those issues are irrelevant ot the matter at hand.

Then what makes you not adopt the same concerned attitude after the Turks are in, and be pro-Kurdish then? The answer lies in the fact that such statements so far are a smoke screen for what you really have in mind, which is so totaly unrelated with the EU in general:

Calling city names barbaric is part of my personal vendetta against the barbarisation of Greaco-Roman heritage in general. Non-constructive? Maybe, but I would like to see latin as EUs lingua franca too. Thats again just my wish. Turkey being the target here only because their hypoctitical way of making money with other peoples past while having destroyed the places and killed the people themselves.

Your personal vendetta against what?? Turkey's EU membership is not about anybody's personal vendettas for historical might-have-beens. The European project was exactly designed to prevent the very kind of habits of keeping historical hatreds alive, of which you have unwittingly displayed a brilliant example.

Your examples are only as consistent. How many of the Roman cities on the north african coast (where some prospective members exist according to your selectiveness) remain the same? How many cities in Britain? France? Or should we hate France for not calling Paris Lutetia? Vienna as Vindebona? But no, since they are already EU members, this is irrelevant, according to you.

And what about this statement about making money on whatever? You mean, Turks adverrtise about ancient Greek and Roman cities as touristic highlights in the face of the fact that they do not directly descent from those who built these. So for any country to open its historical sites to tourism, they have to be direct descendants and God forbid not be conquerors of those places? That's what I can fathom from your statement.

Europe suffered enough from this kind of senseless romanticism for the past, and you can still get out of it. You can admire the ancent Greece and Rome and not have a personal vendetta against Turkey at the same time. It is possible, others have done it; so can you.

[DinoDoc]

I guess you want Germany out of the EU then?

The correct comparison to make would be Spain, Portugal, and maybe Greece (don't remember when they became a member).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I guess you want Germany out of the EU then?

The correct comparison to make would be Spain, Portugal, and maybe Greece (don't remember when they became a member).

Right after the end of the juntas

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Care to enlighten me? Why should a dark history be relevant to Turkey's membership in the EU, but irrelevant for any other country?

Again, this is not something I said. Any applicant to EU meets just the same criteria as Turkey. What I said was that the talk about how some of the current member states have dark pasts is irrelevant to Turkeys membership. You talk about crimes done against native americans and black people. Well, hello, USA is not the issue here. As far as I know they have yet to file their membership application. But since you asked. Yeah I'm outraged about them, I would be happy to help the native american tribes gain full independence from USA if they wish or atleast get their lands back.

To me the issue here right now is Turkey and Turkey alone. Its the one on trial here.

But fundamentally, if France, Spain or Britain weren't member-States, and applied today, would you oppose their entry?
Please don't say "this question is irrelevant". Please answer. These countries have done crimes probably worse than Turkey's in the same timeframe, and never significantly atoned for them, just like Turkey. Do you think they'd deserve to be in the EU less than Lybia or Tunisia?

I indeed would. I would oppose to the UKs entry before Northern Ireland questions is solved or Basques have what belongs to them. The same rules apply to every new member. Unfortenately when those nations joined the Union the standards were different since the Union was more of a politico-economical alliance of the West to counter the Soviet bloc. The Unions has changed remarkably after that though and its new standards include respect for certain things.

But why would you (basically) eternally exclude Turkey, even if it met the criteria? Turkey will likely meet the criteria much sooner than the others bar Israel.

Eternally? I said "not soon if ever". That is only my pessimistic vision of them meeting the criteria. I'm much more optimistic about Isreal solving their problems tan seeing Turkey withdrawing from Cyprus. This is maybe something we disagree on.

So do the Turks in Cyprus. The ones who made an obstacle to the peace agreement in Cyprus were the Greek Cypriots.

No. Turkey still illegally occupies the Northern part of the Island. Why should the Greeks accept that illegal occupation?

Yes, but the problem with your argument, is that you reject Turkey on some grounds, but you wouldn't reject any other country on the same grounds. This means that you are singling out Turkey. It looks like you oppose Turkey not for the reasons of principle you have mentioned (democracy, human rights, history), but because it is Turkey.

While I may not be very sympathetic to Turkey I dont single them out or discriminate them. Such allegations are nonsense, and I proved them false earlier.

OK, but please make more explicit what you call the "mindset in Tukey atm". I don't know what that is.

From what I have gathered its much like the one in USA atm. Its easier to believe the official lies and pretend innocent that confront the reality.

It IS the topic! You pretend that Turkey is unacceptable because of its horrible history. I mention that some of our members have a horrible history on their own, but it's somehow irrelevant. You only apply your principles to Turkey, but do not apply them to anybody else.
This means that you don't want Turkey to be in, and rationalize this opposition afterwards, by using arguments you would never use about any other country. I believed I could find another explanation, but I actually couldn't.
country?

Again things done by already members or third nations are totally and completely irrelevant to this discussion. The same rules apply to everyone, unfortenately they havent always been the same.

You are right in one thing though. I dont want Turkey in EU this day, this time.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i do.

[Kuciwalker]

Again things done by already members or third nations are totally and completely irrelevant to this discussion. The same rules apply to everyone, unfortenately they havent always been the same.

They're entirely relevent, because if you wouldn't oppose their membership, then you can't oppose turkey's either.

[BeBMan]

Well, despite I'm being for Turkey, generally the EU is under no obligation to accept any new members just because those countries want to be in.

[laurentius]

Didnt I just say I would oppose to their membership too?

[Dinner]

I'm for Turkish membership but I do recognize there are valid arguments to keeping them out. The biggest one would be economics; to many people who are to poor thus you'd either have to strip funds from developing the current new member states or you'd just have to put up with a large populous member being dirt poor (and thus always sending workers west).

By and large Turkey's economic backwardsness can be managed just as Ireland's or Greece's economic troubles were managed though Turkey's problems will take longer to sort out since it is so much larger. Ideally, truely free elections would be held in Turkish Kudistan before they were admited so that the question of Kurdish independence could be settled once and for all. Either they leave Turkey and don't become EU citizens or the Kurds stay with Turkey and become EU citizens but the constant calls for armed revolution need to stop.

[VetLegion]

Is Finland the most xenophobic country in Europe?