Do you want Turkey in the EU?

[BeBMan]

Seriously, direct democracy is nice for some issues, but I think it is not that great for issues that are so highly emotional like this one, esp. not when some decide about the fate of others in another country. It is unfair.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
there is nothing to gain and everything to lose for us. (but much to gain and nothing to lose for the EU.)

You'll lose significant tax money, and much economic activity would shift from Switzerland to the new members (through imports and through direct investments), but the EU isn't solely about wealth transfer.

The EU, economically speaking, is also about the creation of a common market, which involves not only common tolls, but common regulations as well. Something your fellow Swiss have understood as they joined Schengen If you want to see why I support these regulations so much, read my posts in the "what has the EU done for you" thread. For whomever is used to cross the border often, the EU has done an excellent job.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BeBro
Seriously, direct democracy is nice for some issues, but I think it is not that great for issues that are so highly emotional like this one, esp. not when some decide about the fate of others in another country. It is unfair.

I agree. I do support a referendum on Turkey's entry, but such a referendum absolutely has to be taken in all of Europe at once, with the supranational result deciding about it.

We Europeans need to give our say on the matter. Precisely because the issue is emotional. If the European leaders let Turkey join without asking us, despite the results of the 2005 referendums (which were interpreted in Brussels as a sign that Europe went too far, too quickly, and without asking the people what they wanted), you'll have a European crisis of epic proportions. I wouldn't rule out demagogues getting elected and removing their country from the EU.

However, though the people absolutely have to give their say on the matter, this is typically an issue where all Europeans must decide with one voice. No "France is the only country who voted no, hence the French rejected the Turks".
What we need is "more that 50% of all Europeans have welcomed/rejected the Turks - the sovereign European people have taken the decision".

[BeBMan]

Actually I don't think there should be a referendum at all. This is simply unfair to Turkey - they were being told over and over that they cannot become a member because they don't meet the criteria now. So what if they indeed reach those criteria - then we are saying "Nice, but we still have to vote about your entry?" That's highly unfair. It sends the message "you can change all you want, but finally we simply decide if we like you in here or not". Can you imagine what it would do to the democratization in Turkey if the result is negative in such a referendum?

IMO it should be simply: they reach the criteria = membership vs. they don't = no membership. A referendum would have made more sense before the talks started (for example about exactly this question - start those talks or not). A referendum now since the talks already started or even later is generally bad IMO:

Oh, I have to leave now.....will look back later

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by VetLegion


Nah . Budapest was under Turkish rule for 145 years and yet they do not oppose Turkish entry.

Austria did voice opinion of many, but why they chose to press it alone is a mystery to me.

There are lots of turks in Austria and Germany and while I don't want to have a general opinion on them, most do and this opinion is mostly negative. Part of because most of turkish immigrants are social underclass people with little to no education and behaving that way.

I know one turk that was quite a pleasent guy, but i see others in the subway that behave like little babys, screaming around and toying with their all new super handy, taking pictures of everyone. Yeah great. Additionally hardly any of the immigrants will want to join our culture. They retain their own and while this is perfectly legal it's not making you friends among the local population.
A multicultural society can only work if there is a lot of respect and tolerance on both sides. I don't see that happening anytime soon. But I cannot see that happen even in the long time if people do not receive education. Hardly any government understands the importance of this sector. The most advanced in education are mainly the nordic european countries.

I don't think an EU membership will increase immigration though, because the sole chance to move into the EU actually in most cases is a reason for people NOT to do it. They rather stay home and enjoy this chance. At least that's what I think.


I think it's okay if someone stands up against this and I am glad we did this. People have concerns and the austrian diplomatic stance was the projection of these concerns. I think that's a generally a good thing and in this case it was not really destructive, so I don't see where you got a problem with

[Bereta_Eder]

there are 145 or so UN resolutions calling for withdrawl of turkish occupation troops from cyprus.
all blatantly ignored.

force makes right then?

and one anan plan, which foundered. calling for the people who were invaded to pay the settlers turkey brought from anatolia to settle on occupied cyprus was too much. a plan which the gov of cyprus never accepted! it was put directly to referendum.

come on!

this IS a problem of invasion and occupation nomatter how the turkish political elite wants to present it. and most certaintly the int. laws dont back them up. turkey always had a funny way of interpreting them.

[Bereta_Eder]

also aegean.

turkey didnt invade airspace before 1974.
but after that and after reports painted a picture of an aegean full of oil, now turkey wants greece to give it half of it.


again, Turkey is simply an iraq with angloamerican backing. (iraq was secular too)

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

a) Many foreign policy issues, like Northern Iraq, like Cyprus, like the Aegean, require the input of the Army (like their analysis of the military situation on the ground). Such foreign policy decisions are actually taken as a result of a consensus and coordination between all state institutions involved, like the Foreign Ministry, like the intelligence office.

The multiplicity of these issues give the impression that the Army is involved in all state decisions.

Actually it is the simplicity by which the chief of army can bypass all decisions of the political "power" that gives that impression... Not that the political "power" often takes decisions that they haven't doublechecked with what the army deams as good for Turkey.

That abnormal but so fundamental aspect of Turkey's political system is what froghtens so many in Europe. And that because under EU rules Turkey based on its population will have more votes than say France. Given that the army and not the political power will be giving the instructions one can see why this is unacceptable to many EU countries. Especially those who want a deeper integration


BTW Northern Iraq, Cyprus and the Aegean all belong to someone else!!!

[Sandman]

I reckon Britain should give up a chunk of its base there, using the land to smooth over property disputes between the two sides.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Atahualpa

There are lots of turks in Austria and Germany and while I don't want to have a general opinion on them, most do and this opinion is mostly negative.

I know about all the reasons. I was wondering why Austria decided to put up a show because the result was known in advance. Probably internal political point scoring. And Austrians did help push Croatia in too with this package, that's good.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
there are 145 or so UN resolutions calling for withdrawl of turkish occupation troops from cyprus.
all blatantly ignored.

force makes right then?

and one anan plan, which foundered. calling for the people who were invaded to pay the settlers turkey brought from anatolia to settle on occupied cyprus was too much. a plan which the gov of cyprus never accepted! it was put directly to referendum.

come on!

this IS a problem of invasion and occupation nomatter how the turkish political elite wants to present it. and most certaintly the int. laws dont back them up. turkey always had a funny way of interpreting them.

If the Annan Plan was accepted by the Greek Cypriots, more than half the displaced Greeks would be able to return to their previous homes. That at the price of around half of Turks having to lose their homes which in fact they found after having been expelled by the Greeks from their homes in the south in the 1960s.

It was a compromise that nobody was happy about, but that's the definition of compromise I guess.

On the Turkish troops, again, if the plan was accepted by the Greeks, nearly all of the troops would be gone, most of them by now. Greeks have noone to blame but themselves for their continuning presence.

And finally, the Cyprus problem is not essentially one of "occupation". Each and every Greek I spoke with had this fancy idea that the issue started in 1974, out of the blue sky on an island having heavenly peace and happiness. None have the slightest clue of how the Turks were expelled first from their constitutionally defined posts and then from their very homes and villages, eventually being sqeezed into 3% of the island under siege, fighting for their survival. None remember the ethnic cleansing and the killings by the Greeks.

For them, the problem is the arrival of the Turkish troops, the lost property, the lost persons. Accordingly, when the troops withdraw and the situation reverts back to pre-1974, heaven will return and justice will be done.

Unfortunately, the problem is essentially the Greek illusion that Cyprus belongs to Greeks and Turks are nothing more than a historical nuisance created by the Ottoman rule, hence entitled to some cultural rights but nothing more. This perception was never endorsed by not even the founding treaties of "the Republic of Cyprus", let alone the international community.

THAT is the essence of the Cyprus problem.

[C0ckney]

turkey and the turks have to realise that debating the finer points of who did what in cyprus is not something europe is espeically interested in. what europe is interested in is turkey recognising all of its members!

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by VetLegion


I know about all the reasons. I was wondering why Austria decided to put up a show because the result was known in advance. Probably internal political point scoring. And Austrians did help push Croatia in too with this package, that's good.

Because people are alienated when it's all just "yes saying" and Schüssel took the opportunity to help Croatia in. Croatia is a country where Austria is among the biggest foreign investors, so you get the point.

Anyway another thing was that there have been elections in a province here, where the ÖVP was projected to lose all their votes from the dramatic victory of the last election and fall behind the social democrats (which they did in the end, but I don't think turkey played any role there; the ÖVP ****ed up a lot of things in Styria and they got the bill).

Overall I can't see why Schüssel's show could be perceived negative. All it did was to debate things a little longer, which can hardly be a bad thing.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Because it is occupied.

Like Tibet.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Overall I can't see why Schüssel's show could be perceived negative. All it did was to debate things a little longer, which can hardly be a bad thing.

The media here portrayed it as "we don't want Turkey and we won't move an inch" position, which Austria loudly took and after a "serious talk" with British minister Straw had to give up. It came out as childish.

As for minister Plassnik herself, the articles in the newspapers after the summit were overwhelmingly positive with headlines like "the woman who got Croatia in" and such