Do you see a place for Turkey in the EU?

Nuttzz

Personally I dont, without harping on that the EU is a christian club, there are a lot of civil rights issues in Turkey brought about by muslim customs. Until they reform their civil rights I wouldnt support their application

A number of Eu countries have come out against their planed adultery law
see http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040917155851.koto3xxh
if you look at the comments on this site there is a lot of anti turk feelings posted. This is another problem that the EU will face, there is very strong anti turk feelings in Germany

Turkey is only part of NATO due to its location, it suited the yanks to place nuclear weapons close to the USSR.

halkar

not again.

It is their internal matter and non of EU's bussiness to interfere. After all we didn't have divorce here until recently when rest of Europe did. Just another rubbish from EU to Turkey but this time their PM wasn't so pleased.

How much more difficult EU can make for them?

Here is a joke recently went around in the EU meeting about Turkey:

One of the European countries gets the question of when the first atom bomb was dropped. That was in 1945. Another European country is asked where it fell. Well, on Hiroshima. And then comes the question for the Turks: Do you happen to have a complete list of the names of all the victims?”
Go figure :eek:

thejollyrodger

I can only see Turkey being admitted into the E.U if they comply with all the E.U regulations, human rights, etc. I cant see this happening for a long long time.

halkar

thejollyrodger wrote:

I can only see Turkey being admitted into the E.U if they comply with all the E.U regulations, human rights, etc. I cant see this happening for a long long time.

So you think ex-commies managed that in 10 years?
If EU would have looked Turkey warmly many years ago I am sure their human rights would have been far better than now. This is going on for half a century.

sovtek

Nuttzz wrote:

Personally I dont, without harping on that the EU is a christian club, there are a lot of civil rights issues in Turkey brought about by muslim customs. Until they reform their civil rights I wouldnt support their application

Because bombing Kurdish villages is soo very Muslim.

chill

thejollyrodger wrote:

I can only see Turkey being admitted into the E.U if they comply with all the E.U regulations, human rights, etc. I cant see this happening for a long long time.

Agreed. For VERY long long time !!

Turkey is a country where neither the people nor the politicians have much interest in the kinds of human rights that we insist on in the EU. If it isn't their extreme Islamic dogma then it's their military power brokers.

We need to stop the EU being destroyed by this kind of mindless expansion outside the natural geographic area and philosophy of Europe.

mike65

chill wrote:

We need to stop the EU being destroyed by this kind of mindless expansion outside the natural geographic area and philosophy of Europe.

:eek: What does that mean exactly? Is it cos they is Muslim? We don't want thier kind about the place?

Mike.

halkar

chill wrote:

Agreed. For VERY long long time !!

Turkey is a country where neither the people nor the politicians have much interest in the kinds of human rights that we insist on in the EU. If it isn't their extreme Islamic dogma then it's their military power brokers.

We need to stop the EU being destroyed by this kind of mindless expansion outside the natural geographic area and philosophy of Europe.

What is natural geographic area and philosophy of Europe ? :eek:

Meh

Nuttzz wrote:

Personally I dont, without harping on that the EU is a christian club, there are a lot of civil rights issues in Turkey brought about by muslim customs.

Which the Turks are doing a lot to address:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3659298.stm
Rape within marriage is to be made a crime. Leniency for rapists who marry their victims will be abolished. Leniency for mothers who kill their children will also disappear. The difference between women and girls in sexual assault cases is disappearing.

Provocation will no longer be a defence in "honour killings" - murders of women accused of illicit affairs by their relatives. The idea of "honour", a societal code once enshrined in the legal code, is to go. Attacks on women that were once handled as attacks on the family or as creating disorder in society, will now be treated as attacks on individuals.

The statute of limitations for major corruption cases, especially involving government and business, is to be abolished. All laws will have to be in accordance with the international agreements that Turkey is party to. Discrimination on religious, ethnic and sexual grounds is made a crime.

Privacy is also to be protected - the police will be punished for entering homes without good reason, the interception of telephone calls and the gathering of personal information restricted. And heavy penalties are to be introduced for environmental destruction.

They have some distance to go yet, but if they continue with these kind of reforms, I don't see why they shouldn't join the EU by the end of the decade.

The argument that Turkey is "too religious" is nonsense -- Turkey is a more secular country than Ireland is, and it's far more secular than Ireland was 30 years ago when we joined the EU.

simu

I'm in favour of their entry once they've sorted out their human rights policies to be in line with the rest of Europe.

It's funny to hear Irish people saying that Turkey is "too religious" - I've often seen journalists in France write that it's worrying that some countries in the EU still have a ban on abortion (i.e. Ireland and Poland) - this is seen as a sign of religious influence on the governing of this country.

gom

simu wrote:

I'm in favour of their entry once they've sorted out their human rights policies to be in line with the rest of Europe.

It's funny to hear Irish people saying that Turkey is "too religious" - I've often seen journalists in France write that it's worrying that some countries in the EU still have a ban on abortion (i.e. Ireland and Poland) - this is seen as a sign of religious influence on the governing of this country.

Ireland has the strictist laws on abortion. Abortion is not banned by the constitution in Poland. Its just the law that has tightened...

As for Turkey in the EU. I'm completely against Turkey getting full membership of the EU. At present they consist of a country of 70m(2nd only to germany and bigger than France or UK in population terms). By admitting Turkey the EU would fundementally change to a more conservative society. The EU Parliment would have very little progressive Social policy in comparison to today.

Turkey has a GDP per Person(PPP) of $7,000 as per 2003. Compare this to the EU average of $23,700, Turkey is far far behind.

Agriculture in Turkey is mostly still pre-industrial. It is at a level of pre WW2 Ireland. Tractors are not used by the average farmer. The cost in terms of funding the CAP for Turkey would be huge and run on for at least a quater of a century.
Cohesion funding and Structural Funds in Turkey would be widespread. The Turkish government would be so used to having their roads, rail, airports, civic projects, schools etc etc etc payed for by EU money that they would neglect to account for such spending in their own budgets and face serious problems when they reach the EU average, if indeed its possible to catch up with the EU without holding it back at the same time.

Ireland gained tramendusly from the CAP but our country is much smaller in comparison to that of Turkey and we benefitted from US firms located here. No other country in the world is as attractive to US Transnational Corporations as Ireland is. This is a position that will not arrode quickly.
While Ireland gained from EU money on civic projects such cohesion funding only came about after 15years of membership and was not the norm until the late 80s.

The Population of Turkey is growing and will continue to grow at a far faster rate than that of the rest of the EU. By various estimates Turkey could become the largest EU country by 2040-2050.
I believe that it is a naive and foolish move to admit Turkey to the EU as it was promised to them for being a buffer and a US Nuke base during the Cold War. If Turkey were to join the EU we would never be able to form a more cohesive europe as Turkey would not be interested in the Federal model for europe. It would have too much to loss as the largest(presently 2nd largest) country in the EU. The intergovermental model is best suited to Turkey's position within the EU.

I'd favour EFTA/EEA membership for Turkey. They would have free movement of people, goods, capital under the Schegien Agreement and would be able to benefit from EU structural funding also under EEA membership. The plus side would be that the EU would not have to give such funding MANDATORIALLY. Turkey is close to the EU but it can not join in my view.

The arguement that we are a Chrisitan club is a poor one. Allowing Turkey to join as a sort of jesture to the Muslim world is short-sighted and stratgically unsound. The Uk might benefit as Turkish membership would surely downgrade the EU to a economic pact like NAFTA and in my view thats all the UK wants the EU to be. France and Germany want Turkey in the EU as it would make the posibility of an EU military force without US help more viable.

In the end we must ask one question.
If Turkey is to join the EU will it benefit the EU or destroy it?

sliabh

There is a an unasked question here as to what is the limits of the EU?

If Turkey is accepted as a candidate for admittance (with only a tiny geographical presence in Europe) then where/when do you say no to a country. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Morocco or Lebanon could apply to join. Certainly the Ukraine and Georgia have been mentioned as well (yes I know they are basket cases politcally and economically but they are technically in "Europe" by being west of the Urals).

So if geography is not the limitation to the EU's expansion what is?

[as an aside, I once met an American from Cleveland who said she would prefer if her state was in the EU instead of the US ]

mycroft

Three small basic things I'd kind of like Turkey to y'know stop, before we consider EU membership.

1. Ban honour killings, and enforce the law that you just failed to inact in order to outlaw honour killings.

2. Stop the mistreatment of the Kurdish minority, the treatment of the Kurds by the Turkish government is borderline ethic cleansing

from this amnesty international report

Torture remained widespread and the perpetrators were rarely brought to justice. Prisoners were killed and seriously wounded when protests against the replacing of dormitories with smaller cells were ended with force.

and

Rape and sexual assault by members of the security forces continued to be reported. During incommunicado detention in police or gendarmerie custody, women and men were routinely stripped naked. Methods of sexual abuse reported included electric shocks and beating on the genitals and women's breasts and rape.

One of the European countries gets the question of when the first atom bomb was dropped. That was in 1945. Another European country is asked where it fell. Well, on Hiroshima. And then comes the question for the Turks: Do you happen to have a complete list of the names of all the victims?”

I think the question of "where is the list of the names of all the victims" is a question many Kurdish families would like to ask Turkey's Government

Johnny Versace

Turkey isn't even in Europe.

If they get in, I can see Israel eventually being let in... and that would just be horrendous.

sliabh

Johnny Versace wrote:

Turkey isn't even in Europe.

If they get in, I can see Israel eventually being let in... and that would just be horrendous.

I can't imagine Israel would want to join the EU for a host of reasons

PH01

I say Yes to Turkey (and ham).
I wouldn't close the door on Turkey joining the EU. Give them time. they're progressing along the path towards a fair, just and secular society.
There will come a day when they'll have all their problems sorted and them they should be allowed to join.

SkepticOne

sliabh wrote:

There is a an unasked question here as to what is the limits of the EU?

If Turkey is accepted as a candidate for admittance (with only a tiny geographical presence in Europe) then where/when do you say no to a country. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Morocco or Lebanon could apply to join.

Indeed, but then the US has states like Hawaii which is not part of America. Are geographical boundaries of this sort important in these times of global communications?

If you asked people in the streets whether or not Turkey is 'European', they would most likely think in terms of the culture of that country, imo, rather than which side of the Bosphorus most of the country is on.

seamus

SkepticOne wrote:

Indeed, but then the US has states like Hawaii which is not part of America. Are geographical boundaries of this sort important in these times of global communications?

If you asked people in the streets whether or not Turkey is 'European', they would most likely think in terms of the culture of that country, imo, rather than which side of the Bosphorus most of the country is on.

Indeed. Although I think "EU" is purely a name. What's the point in having an international co-operative community if you're going to exclude certain countries based on geography? Kind of hypocritical.

The point of the EU is to allow free movement of goods and people between different countries, provide unlateral support for disadvantaged communities and develop a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation between different countries. It's purpose is not to develop an elitist European Superstate.

If Australia approached the EU, interested in becoming a member of this community, would people deny them because they're not in Europe?

SkepticOne

It is one of those issues where a variety of factors come into play. You can't isolate any single one. The point I would make is that the geographer's definition of what constitutes 'Europe' is probably one of the less important factors (at least at this stage of the development of the EU). It would probably become more important later.

The other factors would include economic development, shared cultural heritage, human rights. The cultural and human rights aspects probably would have been less important when the EU was just the Common Market, but with increased political integration, these other factors are becoming more of an issue. Personally, I'm in favour of Turkey joining once it has sorted out the human rights issue to the satisfaction of the other countries.

gom

sliabh wrote:

I can't imagine Israel would want to join the EU for a host of reasons

Well actually:
85% of Israels favour joining Anti-Semetic EU
Israeli Foreign Minister Considers EU Membership - Silvan Shalom is still foreign minister by the way


If Turkey got the go ahead Iraq might apply as it would be bordering turkey?


The Geographical arguement on not allowing Turkey in is hard to quantify with Cyriot membership. The Christian Club arguemnet is a racist and irrational arguement. Not to mention Bosnia being promissed membership even stronger than Turkey. Bosnia has a dominent Muslim population.

What is worrying me is the racism that has been brought into the debate on why Turkey should not join the EU. I'm worried about the future of the EU with such a large poor state in it. How can we do forward to be the most competitive knowledge driven economy (Lisbon Agenda 2010) if we have a huge and growing poor country like Turkey attached and holding the EU down
?

simu

Speaking of geography, the French overseas territories of Martinique & Guadeloupe (in the Carribean) and Réunion (in the Indian ocean) are in the EU and use the euro - they're even on the euro banknotes if you look at the little band under the map of Europe. Pretty far from Europe, it has to be said!

halkar

I don't think Turkey wants to join EU for money, you might think they are poor but they far better in terms of infrastructure than many countries that joined EU at their times. And anyone that is going on about being a poor country should look back and see how Ireland was poor when they joined and Greece and others that joined now.

Turkey doesn't need EU money nor its freedom of movement but with its young population and aging EU population it will be curicial for EU to maintain its workforce next few decades to come. Add to this the fact that Turkey is on many rich resources like petrol (which is not cost efective to use at the moment but it will be when world dries out), have over 60% of world Boron reserves (you can check google for what it is :P) and reserves of methane hydrate (next generation Natural gas) as well as it is right in the heart of the pipelines from Russia, Middle East and other countries around petrol rich Caspian sea. In the long run it will benefit EU more than EU will benefit Turkey.

mycroft

halkar wrote:

Turkey doesn't need EU money nor its freedom of movement but with its young population and aging EU population it will be curicial for EU to maintain its workforce next few decades to come. Add to this the fact that Turkey is on many rich resources like petrol (which is not cost efective to use at the moment but it will be when world dries out), have over 60% of world Boron reserves (you can check google for what it is :P) and reserves of methane hydrate (next generation Natural gas) as well as it is right in the heart of the pipelines from Russia, Middle East and other countries around petrol rich Caspian sea. In the long run it will benefit EU more than EU will benefit Turkey.

Can't help noticing you're avoiding answering most our problems with Turkey, the whole massive human rights abuse.......

halkar

mycroft wrote:

Can't help noticing you're avoiding answering most our problems with Turkey, the whole massive human rights abuse.......

I have already stated that their human rights records had been far better if EU had helped last 50 years instead of ignoring the country. If you so cared about human rights you can look back to our own little island and see how we threated our young girls when they were pregnant outside of marriage and covered up many priest abuses. So much for EU human rights.

To their credit this is something they have been working on and showing progress. Kurds have their own political parties and some cities are governed by them, their own schools, papers and even state TV stations started to broadcast in Kurdish. So what human rights are you on about? These things doesn't change over night and anyone going on about Kurdish issues there are always two sides in every story. Don't forget that it was Turkey opened their borders to Kurds when Saddam was using chemical weapons on them. I didn't see EU offering any help rather than complaining about why Turkey closed borders after hundreds of thousands of Kurds allowed. Simple reason is that none of EU countries offered any help at the time to Turkey that her economy was already in crises due ME conflicts and in the very same year over hundreds of thousands of Turks crossed Bulgarian border due Bulgarian cruelty. Bulgaria considered candidate after many decades of destroying Turks there. Maybe that is something you didn't know either. So did they pass the EU human rights test? How about another potential candidate Romania?

Also dont forget the fact that PKK (Kurdish terrorist group) was not accepted as a terrorist organization until Sept 11 and their genocides to Turks in South Eastern Turkey is not something you would hear in European media or see on Amnesty web site where more than 30.000 civilian and soldiers died.

mycroft

I have already stated that their human rights records had been far better if EU had helped last 50 years instead of ignoring the country. If you so cared about human rights you can look back to our own little island and see how we threated our young girls when they were pregnant outside of marriage and covered up many priest abuses. So much for EU human rights.

Nice, throw an accusation back at me, rather than defend your own country.

Yes thats true, however I've worked with both Pro Choice, and clerical abuse victims so suggesting that we shouldn't protest over current Turkish human rights abuse because our society had skeltons in the closet is the grossest form of deflection I can think of.

To their credit this is something they have been working on and showing progress. Kurds have their own political parties and some cities are governed by them, their own schools, papers and even state TV stations started to broadcast in Kurdish. So what human rights are you on about? These things doesn't change over night and anyone going on about Kurdish issues there are always two sides in every story.

Okay heres a few links for you.

here

Mehmet Sen was abducted on 26 March 1994 by two plain-clothes policemen. The next day his body was found abandoned. The deceased had been tortured and shot in the head.

here

Savas Buldan was leaving a casino with two friends in Istanbul on 3 June 1994 when they were approached by seven or eight people with walkie-talkies, firearms and bullet-proof vests who introduced themselves as police officers. The three men were then forced into three cars. That night, three bodies - shot at point-blank range - were discovered in an area near the river.

here

Court found it established that on 22 November 1993 a team of police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Diyarbakir Security Directorate had undertaken searches in order to find Mehmet Sah Ikincisoy. They had gone to his father's and then to his uncle's apartment, where a shoot-out had occurred. Mehmet Sah Ikincisoy had been arrested the same day and shot dead the following day while under the control of the authorities.

All those are direct quotes from the european court of human rights rulings.

Not to mention the abortive Illisu dam

The Dam will affect up to 78,000 people, the majority of whom are ethnic minority Kurds. As many as 25,000 would be forced to resettle; losing their homes, land and livelihoods beneath the Dam's enormous resevoir. Communities will be fragmented; rural families relocated to towns or urban slums and a vibrant culture and way of life irredemably lost.

Maybe that is something you didn't know either. So did they pass the EU human rights test?

Links? evidence? Thats of mass state involvement in killings that is occuring in Turkey.

How about another potential candidate Romania?

This thread isn't about Romania it's about Turkey.

Also dont forget the fact that PKK (Kurdish terrorist group) was not accepted as a terrorist organization until Sept 11 and their genocides to Turks in South Eastern Turkey is not something you would hear in European media or see on Amnesty web site where more than 30.000 civilian and soldiers died.

THE PKK were declared illegal in the hysteria post 9/11, and don't imply that the 30,000 are entirely compromising innocent turks, the majority of the civilian casualities are kurds and you are implying that they were killed by kurds in the war.

You'll see that 30,000 figure mentioned on plenty of amnesty websites, along side a finger of accusation at the turkish government.

halkar

Most of your links are decade old. That is my point, maybe those people would have been alive if EU didn't ignore Turkey for decades.

You might as well dig for the human right records of the ex-commies that have joined EU, they were no angels either. I did not give example of Romania to change to thread's direction but just as a comparision to Turkey's EU bid. Romania will join, so do you want Romania with it's human rights records?

mycroft

Most of your links are decade old.

But the court cases only took place last year, it's taken ten years for the Kurds to be able to get the cases to the european court of human rights, and the amnesty report details current abuse. I used those cases as clear cut irrefutable examples.

That is my point, maybe those people would have been alive if EU didn't ignore Turkey for decades.

I'm sorry what?

The EU is responsible because the Turkish government has been egaged in ethic cleanising, and it's our fault. Not the fault of Your government, or the people who people who ordered the killings or the people who did the actual killing, it's the EU's fault for letting it happen.....

But hang on, you did say earlier today;

It is their internal matter and non of EU's bussiness to interfere.

So which is it????

Romania will join, so do you want Romania with it's human rights records?

Once again I'll ask you for links that prove Romania has engaged in systematic ethic cleanising, state sanctioned murder and rape, and herding tens of thousands of people from their homes in order to build a damn, without compensation, and through force.

halkar

So what are you saying? Or what you want Turkey to do? Seperate the country and give what terrorists wants whom most are not even kurds from Turkey. Then will you be happy to let them in? While you are at it lets unite Ireland, and divide Spain too.

I don't see any need to give you link for Romania as human rights is not only about Kurds and displaced people and also other humans too. You can find a lot about Romania in your amnesty links.

And yes I do beleive it is their internal bussiness just like our laws about Abortion and Divorce. Did EU tell us otherwise when we were joining in 1972?

If you consider the improvements in Turkey for the past few years including abolishing death penalty despite the uproar from public who wanted Ocalan to be executed. Go back and read my first post and you get the idea how EU has been with Turkey for the past few decades. Maybe it suited EU so that they can use it as excuse to not include Turkey in their club just like you are doing now.

halkar

mycroft wrote:

I'm sorry what?

The EU is responsible because the Turkish government has been egaged in ethic cleanising, and it's our fault. Not the fault of Your government, or the people who people who ordered the killings or the people who did the actual killing, it's the EU's fault for letting it happen.....

But hang on, you did say earlier today;

It is their internal matter and non of EU's bussiness to interfere.

So which is it????

My quote was to the adultery law as it was posted in first post. Read again, I dont remember saying their human rights or ethnic cleansing are their internal affair.

mycroft

Can't help but notice you avoided all my points.

I don't see any need to give you link for Romania as human rights is not only about Kurds and displaced people and also other humans too. You can find a lot about Romania in your amnesty links.

Generally it's considered good form if you make an allegation here, to back it up, not to tell the person challenging you to see for yourself.

I've looked at the site and seen nothing compariable with the behaviour of the Romanian government to the Turkish government. I consider your argument about Romania being as bad a Turkey invalid until you prove otherwise.

So what are you saying? Or what you want Turkey to do? Seperate the country and give what terrorists wants whom most are not even kurds from Turkey. Then will you be happy to let them in? While you are at it lets unite Ireland, and divide Spain too.

Did I say anything about that? I was saying that your country has a sickening abusive human rights record and seeing as we can do f*ck all about it, except stop your EU membership until you improve it.

Your government is murdering people.

Your government is breaching human rights

Your government troops are raping women and killing children

Your government is oppressing the freedom of expression of the Kurdish people

Your government is engaged in ethic cleanising.

And yes I do beleive it is their internal bussiness just like our laws about Abortion and Divorce. Did EU tell us otherwise when we were joining in 1972?

So you believe what you do in your own country is acceptable and the EU should but out, but it's our fault for deaths of Kurds at the hands of Turkish miltary and Police. Here's your cake, would you like to eat it as well?

Maybe it suited EU so that they can use it as excuse to not include Turkey in their club just like you are doing now.

Or maybe we're trying to force Turkey to change with the only weapon we really have.

Your defence of the indefencible is sickening.

mycroft

halkar wrote:

My quote was to the adultery law as it was posted in first post. Read again, I dont remember saying their human rights or ethnic cleansing are their internal affair.

So certain aspects of this society we can condemn and critize but others we can't?