French Reject E.U. Constitution

[Bereta_Eder]

and there were no "peoples of europe" in roman times. it was the roman empire and the barbarians (ostrogoths, visigoths mainly and mongols or hunns) untill it all got wonderfully mixed up and you have after a long time the "peoples of europe" who are actually very mixed up from old times

[Ned]

Originally posted by paiktis22


In Roman Times there were no Turks. The only mongols of that time were those of Attila. They don't have a relationship with Turks, apart that they were both mongol tribes (vs indoeuropean) (as linguistically defined I emphasize)

Well, the people of Turkey are not entirely Turkish, are they?

[Ned]

Originally posted by paiktis22
and there were no "peoples of europe" in roman times. it was the roman empire and the barbarians (ostrogoths, visigoths mainly and mongols or hunns) untill it all got wonderfully mixed up and you have after a long time the "peoples of europe" who are actually very mixed up from old times

True. But still the Western Romans viewed the people of the East, Asiatics they called them, as a different people. For one, they were far more "civilized" than the peoples of Europe.

The fact that Turks have mixed in changes nothing.

[Bereta_Eder]

Today, no of course. No european peoples is "just something". there have been mixing for centuries.

[Agathon]

It does seem Turks are culturally distinct from Europe. Europe is secular. Many Turks, and many people who could immigrate through Turkey, are Islamists.

Watch a Turkish football match – they're like the rest of us.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ned


True. But still the Western Romans viewed the people of the East, Asiatics they called them, as a different people. For one, they were far more "civilized" than the peoples of Europe.

All are from the east
The first people the Romans saw as barbarians were others than mongols. celts, goths etc then of course the mongols. but who was a barbarian and who wasn't it's all very relative particularly during the end of the western part of the roman empire and even before

[Ned]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Today, no of course. No european peoples is "just something". there have been mixing for centuries.

Who was mixing? Mostly Latins and peoples of Italy, Celts, Germans and Scandanavians. Huns and Magyars to a lesser extent.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ned


Who was mixing? Mostly Latins and peoples of Italy, Celts, Germans and Scandanavians. Huns and Magyars to a lesser extent.

Huns too. Attilla's 700,000 army was half german when he took on the romans (who were also mixing with other indo-european tribes since long before)

[Ned]

I doubt there were that many Huns. At most, 20-30 thousand in their army. The rest were allied forces, Germans and Goths. It is interesting that the Franks appears to have fought on both sides of the battle.

[Bereta_Eder]

the problem with the turks entering is not because of any of that. that's why i emphazied that poeple of the same "group" already exist in europe and are members of the eu and one would have to be crazy to say they're not "european".

the problem is much more about the size of turkey's population, it's islamic culture, the lack of democracy and its state of the economy. at least that's what i think.

[Pekka]

There are many reasons paiktis. Those you mentioned, size of Turkey, it's Islamic culture and state of economy surely are the biggest reasons for majority of nay-sayers.

And some people just don't like Turks, period. I bet there are lots of those too.

[Bereta_Eder]

that's because they fear that millions of turks are going to set up shop next to them. it's always about food, all others are dressings. if that's the case ok. those are legitimate reasons but not racist. even culture issues is not racist. from there on then yes i'll accept the term and be amused.
anyway the dice is cast, turkey will sometime in the future get an "association reletion" with the EU and the latter wont expand much. and the road to the EU will be much more dififcult now on. Romania and Bulgaria are the ones who will get it easy. all others will have to walk a long way. in a respect it is a bit unfair to them

[DanS]

Seriously, de Villepin is a terrible choice of a Prime Minister for two reasons:
1. He has NEVER faced suffrage. He has never been elected. It's because of his open love for "high politics", and his dislike of dirtying his hands in elections. As a result, he's unlikely to be humble toward the sovereign people, and the regime's popularity will further go down the drain.

2. He is in the Gaullian tradition of believing in France's status as a "special" country. Heck, I've just heard one of his recent speeches where he said "Go to the other end of the world, in the far Asia, and say you're French. You'll see the eye of the other sparkle with more stars than there are on the European flag"
The image of Europe has considerably suffered from the French arrogance, and only arrogance can come from such a general attitude, even if the holder of these beliefs is well-intended.

I agree. As an outsider, de Villepin looks like a very bad choice. The French voters just kicked us in the nuts because they felt like they were losing control to unelected elites in Brussels, so... let's appoint an unelected elite as prime minister in Paris.

The only saving grace is that de Villepin is a good public speaker. But unless he's going to be a figurehead, he needs to know how to use brass knuckles for politics at that level.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yes, there a HUGE fear of that happening, but there is no fear at all of the millions of poor in the 10 eastern european countries who just got accepted, of setting up shop in the west

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
yes, there a HUGE fear of that happening, but there is no fear at all of the millions of poor in the 10 eastern european countries who just got accepted, of setting up shop in the west

there was fear about that too. the old EU states even encated laws limiting free movement of eastern europeans for some time. you dont know the facts. you could just ask.


and i'm not saying there isn't "racism" (nomatter how ridiculous any such claim is) either. just pointing out other aspects of that issue as i see them.