Do you want Turkey in the EU?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
which is exactly the issue about Turkey

Europe is not a seperate continent from Asia, dufus. It is a peninsula jutting out from Eurasia.

[Bereta_Eder]

Eitherway, EU's decision is the tombstone of EU as we know it. It is good for the Greek side who supports the "taming the beast" policy. Which says that a europianized Turkey will be to our benefit because allegendly it will stop threatening with war, invading our air space (that's a joke ) and generally will be attuned to the european principles of peacefully resolving bilateral issues.

However there are several scenarios.

_Turkey's military regime will react to the efforts for it to be reduced to its rightful role. Turkey will opt out of the negotioatins itself.

_EU will be demolished as per british wishes to nothing more than a commericla free zone. Solidarity between states etc will be gone. Turkey will be able to enter without any changes other than financial ones. (even though the army has its tentacles there firmly as well. aka known as military economy (buying lots of different stuff)

_EU steps to the central core/ coconcentric model also known as two speed EU. Matters of high policy will be decided by a handful of states ready to go full scale integration. Britain, Turkey and other countries will remain in the periphery and will not have a say in decision making policies in those areas. Turkey will enter without making any real changes apart financial ones.

_ Turkey will make real all the changes. Its democracy will become european with the army having no say. The islamists will not rise to alarming power. In that case Turkey gets in and there is a long wait for all principles of free movement to apply but it is in. This is the best case scenario for Turkey Greece but perhaps not the European Union. This would depend on Turkey's stance towards Washington.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Sava
which is exactly the issue about Turkey

Europe is not a seperate continent from Asia, dufus. It is a peninsula jutting out from Eurasia.

It's on a separate continental plate, that's why there's this mountain range in the Urals.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Colon


It's on a separate continental plate, that's why there's this mountain range in the Urals.

Earth science 100

pwned twice in one thread che...

quit while you are ahead (errr... or before you get further behind I should say)

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Sava




Earth science 100

pwned twice in one thread che...

quit while you are ahead (errr... or before you get further behind I should say)

To be fair, India is also on a separate continental plate.

[BlackCat]

Maybe continental plates isn't the best measure - if so, we should throw out Italy since it's on the african.

Well - should even turn Che into an African-American

[Colon™]

Seriously, why assume there's any single "iron" criterium to be considered as European, and not a combination of factors? Turkey has a toehold in the geographic sense, and the remained also lies right next Europe; it shares a history ever since the Roman age (maybe even before); it is a secular country that's moving well towards EU standards of government; and it already has significant economic, political, cultural and sportive ties with EU current members.

[Bereta_Eder]

A reporter that went to Istanbul not Constantinople yesterday said that the number of women wearing a veil seemed to have gone up dramatically since he last visited there.
Islamists are ones that are happy about EU. It will let them express themselves more they think. Personally compared to the 60.000 fascists nationalists greay wolves who marched against the EU some days ago or burned effigies of the patriarch some months ago I prefer the first. Or... no wait. I don't prefer either of them.

[VetLegion]

With regards to development of Turkish democracy, they deserve a chance. Greece had a military dictatorship as lately as 1974. and look at it now. Time does miracles.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Drogue
I also, personally, don't like adding another heavily religious state, with laws that follow that. It may balance the Christian domination, but I'd rather leave religion out of politics, and letting Turkey into the EU would allow them a say in European politics.

Originally posted by BlackCat
@Ancyrean : It may not be a sharia based government, but any government based upon religion gives me the shivers no matter what it is called. If the latest EU doc we have (should have) voted about, had contained some of those "based upon christian values" etc parts that some tried to fiddle in, I would have gone for a plain NO, no matter what good there may have been in it.

To begin with, Turkey is not a "religious state", it has a strictly secular establishment which rejects religion as
a basis for government and law, it even forbids displays of religion in public offices.

The current government and its religious blend confused many about their sincerety for adherence to the founding principles of the Republic. The activist past of many in the governing party, AKP, didn't help dispell these suspicions. However, the AKP people showed care not to increase/justify these suspicions. For example, they shelved the headscarf issue, despite the fact that they would rather have it freed. In the face of popular outrage, they took back a law that criminalised adultery that they previously initiated.

In fact, many in Turkey believe AKP actually legitimised their government by introducing more democracy and reforms and by heading towards the EU, and that it's acceptable/doesn't matter, in light of these policies, if they filled public offices with more conservative people.

Actually, there's no panic among anybody that the AKP is working to fulfill a secret agenda. This includes stalwarts of secularism like the army, despite their obvious disgust of the AKP.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by C0ckney
turkey must improve its human rights record, respect and protect basic freedoms like freedom of speech. accept and come to terms with its past actions and recognise cyprus, to name a few.

Turkey's improvements in human rights and democratisation are deemed sufficient by the EU Commission to start the membership negotiations. However, I agree that there's still room for improvement.

With regard to "past actions", past actions of past members wer somehow no criterion for membership, and it was not put as one before Turkey neither 40 years ago, nor now in the Negotiation Framework Agreement.

As for Cyprus, Turkey already did its part by actively supporting a comprehensive UN plan for the unification of the island. That united Cyprus would be perfectly recognisable to Turkey. Now that excuse of a state in the southern Cyprus, which doesn't even recognise its wrongdoings against the Turkish community, is rewarded with EU membership for its intransigence.

Turkey will only recognise a united Cyprus that would finally come to grips with the fact that Turks are not a minority to be granted rights to, but equal partners in a federal/confederal structure.

one important test for turkey will come next year when they try out a customs union with the EU countries, at the moment it appears that they will fulfil their obligations, except in respect of cypriot shipping and goods. this will (and should) be a major sticking point.

Turkey is already in a full fledged customs union with the EU since 1995, way before and in a more complete manner than many if not all the new 10 members of the EU.

[Colon™]

I may add that the Ottoman Turks also have had a history of separating religion and government. There was sharia law for the Islamic population, but not so amongst the populations of other faiths. Moreover, the Ottoman state was largely developed along secular lines and it did not attempt to forcefully convert its subjects to Islam. Hence the Turks do not have a history of theocracy (unlike many Arab countries) and I seriously doubt Islamist extremists pose a danger to the secular state.

Erdogan himself has shown himself to be pragmatic.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
kemalist state= severe democracy deficiency and founding principle of turkey since its birth.
consists of: army securing a secular state
responsible for: direct interference to political life ranging from hard and soft coup d'etats to direct influence of political decisions under the veil of democracy. i.e. minister of exterior of turkey needs approval from chief of army.
also responsible for: various supresions of left wing, islamists etc etc. cyprus invasion, kurdish suprecion etc.


and of course there's a danger that if kemalist state IS abolished that islamism will arise.
(no way turkey entering EU with kemalism- unless EU shifting to central core/concentric circles model or is destrid and reduced to free comercial zone, in either way turkey;s admission won;t be met with resistance if it keeps the kemalist state)

It's an oft-made oversimplification to say the army in Turkey is behind every policy making decision. I'm actually no fan of the Army and I understand the gist of the criticism coming from Europe against its position in the state structure, but I often see that criticism become simplistic and exaggerated.

For example, army coups happened mostly after breakdowns of order in the nascent political system or the political/public life. Those interventions produced different results, depending on the circumstance.

For example, in 1960, when the centre-right government was becoming more and more restrictive, the coup of that year produced a very liberal and left wing constitution. In 1980, when there was a virtual civil war between communist and fascist organisations fueled by money from both sides of the Cold War, a very restrictive constitution came into being. However, as a result of the latter constitution and the coup, the army became the most criticised institution in the country.

The Army's subsequent withdrawal from civilian affairs and its principled stance against political islam restored its stature in the public opinion.

However, confusion stems from the fact that:

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.

b) Their no-pasaran attitude and outspoken language towards fundamentalists and their moves, perceived or real.

That's so ok for a great majority of the people here

[BlackCat]

I think that any religious influenced politician is a threat to a secular state - even if the person doesn't want a fullfledged religious government, they still tries to get some of their religious based ideas included.

Besides the fullblown religious governments, it really scares me that ID is creeping in through the backdoor in us. Sorry, that was a little off topic rambling

In several ways I actually sees Turkish governemt as more secular than f.ex. Italy.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
However there are several scenarios.

_Turkey's military regime will react to the efforts for it to be reduced to its rightful role. Turkey will opt out of the negotioatins itself.

_EU will be demolished as per british wishes to nothing more than a commericla free zone. Solidarity between states etc will be gone. Turkey will be able to enter without any changes other than financial ones. (even though the army has its tentacles there firmly as well. aka known as military economy (buying lots of different stuff)

_EU steps to the central core/ coconcentric model also known as two speed EU. Matters of high policy will be decided by a handful of states ready to go full scale integration. Britain, Turkey and other countries will remain in the periphery and will not have a say in decision making policies in those areas. Turkey will enter without making any real changes apart financial ones.

_ Turkey will make real all the changes. Its democracy will become european with the army having no say. The islamists will not rise to alarming power. In that case Turkey gets in and there is a long wait for all principles of free movement to apply but it is in. This is the best case scenario for Turkey Greece but perhaps not the European Union. This would depend on Turkey's stance towards Washington.

There's also the possibility that as Turkey will try to do its homework, the EU will also somehow restructure its decision making procedures and streamline its system to admit Turkey without the embarassment of pleading indigestion at the last moment.