EU Turkish Issue?

Moriarty

I've split all discussion of the youtube video morlar linked to into this thread to prevent this one going off topic and getting locked.

AngryHippie

djpbarry wrote: »

The key issues, in my opinion, are:

1. the non-recognition of Cyprus as a state by the Turks
2. the closed border between Turkey and Armenia (although I would regard this as less of an issue)
3. Human rights abuses in south-eastern Turkey (in the context of conflict with the PKK). While the Turkish government has made great strides in recent years on this issue (a fact recognised by Amnesty International), there still remains much to be done in terms of implementation, although this has been hampered by the current military operation in the region.

I would hardly regard [1] and [2] as insurmountable. As for [3], progress is unlikely to be made until the conflict with the PKK is resolved.

I would just like to get some clarification on points 2 & 3, Should the Turkish nation have to acknowledge the Armenian genocide ?
Do the human rights abuses of which you speak just include those since the US "liberation" of Iraq or are you including their Air attacks after Desert storm on the huddled Kurdish refugees ?
(Not suggesting the Kurds are angels either as they were complicit in the Armenian genocide mentioned above)

djpbarry

AngryHippie wrote: »

Should the Turkish nation have to acknowledge the Armenian genocide ?

While I think that from a moral standpoint, yes they should, I would regard this as an unfair prerequisite to EU membership. We cannot apply unique criteria to Turkey that have not been applied to other member states.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Do the human rights abuses of which you speak just include those since the US "liberation" of Iraq

No, not at all. I think it is common knowledge that Turkey had a very poor human rights record in the past. While great strides have been made in addressing this issue, the south-east of the country in particular remain a black-spot. I was not implying that the human rights abuses were a result of the conflict in Iraq, but those efforts to stamp out human rights abuses in the region are being hampered by the military operation.

AngryHippie

djpbarry wrote: »

While I think that from a moral standpoint, yes they should, I would regard this as an unfair prerequisite to EU membership. We cannot apply unique criteria to Turkey that have not been applied to other member states.

I appreciate that, but holocaust denial is illegal in at least one member state, Would it not be a source of major embarassment for the union to admit a new state that was in clear breach of the laws of one of the founding states ??
(France is the member state in question. Holocaust denial is a crime in France)

Tea drinker

AngryHippie wrote: »

I appreciate that, but holocaust denial is illegal in at least one member state, Would it not be a source of major embarassment for the union to admit a new state that was in clear breach of the laws of one of the founding states ??
(France is the member state in question. Holocaust denial is a crime in France)

Nah, I remember some legal issues about this in Germany too.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland. The Netherlands and Italy have recently considered legislation but rejected such proposals in 2006 and 2007 respectively. Slovakia made Holocaust denial a crime in late 2001 but repealed the legislation in May 2005. Spain decriminalized Holocaust denial in October 2007.

djpbarry

AngryHippie wrote: »

Would it not be a source of major embarassment for the union to admit a new state that was in clear breach of the laws of one of the founding states ??

A compromise could be reached. At present in Turkey, the penal code makes calling "for the recognition of the Armenian genocide" illegal. This should probably be reviewed, but the EU has said that Turkish acceptance of the Armenian genocide is not a condition for Turkey's entry into the bloc.

Tea drinker

Some info re: Cyprus issue. You have to confirm birth date to view so young ones stay away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAP7KuAfvWY

turkishspeed

wes wrote: »

If they meet the conditions, I see no reason why they shouldn't be let in.

hi my friend but the conditoions is not same when poland or other countries who joined e.u few years ago they didnt get the same conditions did you know that

turkishspeed

all guys dont know nothing about turkey i m sorry you r juging before you see anythink

wes

turkishspeed wrote: »

hi my friend but the conditoions is not same when poland or other countries who joined e.u few years ago they didnt get the same conditions did you know that

I am well aware. Extra conditions have been put on Serbia as well btw. So the EU is not picking on Turkey here. Rules change sometimes.

I think Turkey can meet the conditions. It may take a while, but hopefully it won't be too long.

Jim_Are_Great

I'm not nearly as well informed about this issue as many people here obviously are, but there are edges being fudged which I think should be, for want of a better term, un-fudged.

A fundamental part of being an EU member state is that, while accepting the many privileges, you must surrender a portion of national sovereignty. This has been so since the early days of the EU (The European Court of Justice making the initial decision to that effect in 1963 in the case of Van Gend en Loos v Netherlands). European law requires that national law is always inferior to EU law where the EU has competence. This includes even national constitutional law. The point of this is that, if some religious coup took place and sharia law was declared (or imposed, or whatever the term may be) the ECJ, given its pervasive liberal attitude, regard for human rights and pro-unity slant, is very likely to declare such action impermissable by EC law. Assuming that there would be at least one Turkish citizen dissatisfed with religious law, and happy to take a case to the ECJ, the EU could declare this impermissable and take appropriate action. In short, it is likely that EU membership would prevent religious rule in Turkey should the occasion arise.

Also, the point has been made, or at least implied, that Turkish EU accession would somehow make "Islamicisation" more of a threat, and easier to accomplish. I fail to understand this. Now, perhaps I fail to understand this because the argument has been poorly articulated, or because I simply don't appreciate what precisely is at issue. But I think it is more likely that I fail to understand this because it is a flawed argument. It has been suggested, for example, that the large number of Turkish MEPs reciprocated by Turkish accession would be condusive to an undesirably religion-oriented society. This is patently ridiculous. Even with a majority of fundamentalist MEPs (a situation which is far-fetched enough to begin with) the EU parliament could never be empowered to impose religious law or social doctrine. I think the argument opposing Turkey's membership on the basis that they fear the spread of unwanted religious influences needs clarification.

In response to the "Turkey has nothing to offer us" line of thinking, it must first be pointed out that

• Turkey has a developed economy, with a higher growth rate than most of its neighbours, and many EU countries (ie approx 7%). It also has a respectable per-capita GDP.
• Turkey, as has been stated, has a young and growing population and workforce
• Turkish workers were undeniably responsible for the post-war German economic boom, with Turkish workers fuelling the labour-starved German economy. A similar boom was fuelled by Turkish workers in the Netherlands in 1964.
• Turkey, obviously, has a strategic location, and could, if used correctly, open the Middle-East to increased EU co-operation, and a hopefully stabilising influence.
• Turkey has a large military and is a considerable contributor to NATO.

Aside from all this, however, EU mebership has never been granted or refused on a What-have-you-got-for-us policy. Membership has been granted to weaker countries with a view to strengthening them, thus encouraging unity and co-operation in future. This is what happened in Ireland, and this is what happened in the post-Nice expansion. Why shouldn't it happen in Turkey?

I appreciate and accept the arguments against Turkish membership at this very second. But 2013 is the earliest possible date for turkey to join, and even that is very unlikely. I don't think anybody want Turkey in the EU before it addresses its problems, and in this regard, the criteria set for eligibility seem sound. Here is the crux: in a hypothetical world where Turkey jumps through the requisite hoops, why shouldn't Turkey be granted membership?