Turkey is not going to join the EU

[Loki77]

Despite the chorus of pious hope, Turkey is not going to join the EU



By Geoffrey Wheatcroft

Guardian - Of all the temptations of journalism, prediction is the most dangerous. Soothsayers in our trade are usually made to look foolish by events. The best answer was given by the fabled correspondent in some distant spot who, asked by an importunate foreign desk (in the days of abbreviated cablese) to file "soonest, fullest, whatnext happens", responded succinctly: "Myballs uncrystal."

After that, let me say something simply and confidently: Turkey is not going to join the EU. "Not" does not mean "never" but in any foreseeable future, although you wouldn't know that from Tony Blair. He visited Turkey last Friday at the beginning of his latest forlorn, not to say fantastical, mission to bring peace to the Middle East, intoning the words: "It is important that we continue the process of accession with Turkey."

Nor would you know it from other exalted Euro-personages. Chancellor Angela Merkel has just joined the Social Democrats, her German coalition partners, in saying that full membership "would be worthwhile", one fine day. Erkki Tuomioja, the Finnish foreign minister, whose country's EU presidency is just coming to an end, says that "the door is still open", while Carl Bildt, the foreign minister, continues ardently to favour Turkish membership.

All these pious hopes are expressed at the very moment negotiations between Turkey and the EU have just hit one more pothole, with Brussels suspending talks as a punishment for Ankara's refusal to open its ports and airports to Greek Cyprus. This suspension was a "serious mistake", Blair says, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister calls it "unacceptable".

By now the Turks should have learned that there is much they must accept whether they like it or not, and they have come to feel, not without reason, that when one obstacle is surmounted Europe will always find another. Turkey became an associate member of the EEC or Common Market as long ago as 1963, and in 1987 Ankara applied for full membership of the EU.

During the lengthy interlude came the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and in 1983 the creation of a Turkish Cypriot state, which no one but Ankara recognises. Turkey has a much better case over Cyprus than in other matters, and the despicable behaviour of the Greek Cypriot government - and electorate, when they voted against the reunification of the island once EU membership could not be revoked - has made Cyprus the least loved member state of the EU.

More serious objections are the patchy Turkish record (to put it mildly) on human rights. Turkey still does not enjoy what European countries consider a true rule of law or freedom of speech, and has not come to terms with its history, notably the fate of the Armenians.

Even then, the continual European hesitancy and changing of the tune might suggest bad faith. But that is not really so, and a better way of seeing it is as a kind of social embarrassment. Far from having embarked on an elaborate deception, Europe said something with good intentions but without really thinking it through, only to recognise slowly how grave the practical difficulties are. As a result, Turkey waits for church bells that never ring, while Europe, as one French diplomat puts it, is like a man with a mistress he doesn't want to lose, but doesn't want to marry, either. The trouble is that a moment passes, after which it's no longer easy or even possible to say this thing can work without causing pain.

For their part, the worst mistake the Turks have made is invoking US support. During yet another crisis between Ankara and Brussels a little more than a year ago, Erdogan rang Condoleezza Rice and asked for her help, to which the secretary of state duly responded by expressing yet again Washington's ardent support for Turkish admission to the EU - and thereby further enraging the Europeans.

As usual Blair takes the American line, arguing for Turkish admission on strategic grounds: it "has an importance not just in respect to Turkey but with wider relationships between the west and the Muslim world". Shutting the door will alienate Muslims everywhere, letting Turkey in will build a bridge between the west and the Islamic world.

But another way of putting it is that Europe is being asked to make a huge sacrifice to gratify American strategic interests. Whatever Blair may think, this doesn't meet with universal favour. As the former European commissioner Chris Patten has sarcastically said, it is very good of the Americans to keep offering Turkey admission to the EU, but this is a question on which Europeans might want to have some say themselves.

Neither Blair nor his American friends have noticed that there has scarcely been a less propitious moment for Turkish admission in these 40 years. Turkish sensitivity about being excluded from a "Christian club" is quite misplaced: Europe today isn't a Christian anything, and even fear of radical Islamism is not the main factor. More important is the hangover from previous EU expansion - and the Turkish question also illustrates the gulf between "the soi-disant elites", as that contrarian French politician Jean-Pierre Chevènement calls them, personified by Blair, Tuomioja and Bildt, and the actual peoples of Europe.

In May 2004, eastern European countries that had been sundered from their neighbours by 60 years of war and cold war were admitted to "our common European home" and very moving it was. After the elation, Europe woke up to realise that its 10 new member states now comprised a quarter of its population while providing a 20th of its economic product, and that's before Romania and Bulgaria join in the new year, let alone Turkey, with a per-capita income one-tenth of the British, and a child mortality rate 10 times the French.

A year later, the French and Dutch referendums, which turned down the new EU constitution, were a hostile response to that expansion, and by implication to Turkish admission. For all Blair's high-sounding platitudes, that new mood has been caught by other European politicians. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister who is almost certain to be the conservative candidate - and favourite - in May's presidential elections, is an open opponent of Turkish membership, and is "happy to see that these ideas are gaining ground". As he might say, building bridges between the west and Islam, and sapping the roots of terrorism, are doubtless worthy objectives, but since when did they become the purpose of the EU?

In the end, the problem is less cultural or economic or religious than simply geographical. This is something we have only slowly woken up to, but it explains why Turkey will not join for a very long time, if ever. Bildt says, solemnly and dubiously, that "there is no doubt that Turkey is a part of Europe", but a French politician has put it another way: can we really have a Europe that extends to the borders of Iraq? Many ordinary Europeans seem to know the answer to that better than their rulers.

Author can be reached at:
wheaty@compuserve.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

[Kaapeli]

The negotiations (for Turkeys membership) have already started and they are progressing slowly but steadily. I don't think anything could stop the process now when it has gone this far, it's just a matter of time. It doesn't matter what the people want at this point, the politicians keep on pushing it forward and brinning it up again and again until it happens.

[Loki77]

The negotiations (for Turkeys membership) have already started and they are progressing slowly but steadily. I don't think anything could stop the process now when it has gone this far, it's just a matter of time. It doesn't matter what the people want at this point, the politicians keep on pushing it forward and brinning it up again and again until it happens.

For me the problem is that the Turkey denies the genocide of the Armenians.

[Kitsune]

Nice article. I was against the EU eastern expansion a few years ago - it was simply too early for that. And I think it would be nothing short of desastrous if Turkey would become a member. The problem is that the Americans use their influence to make this happen, and their various Trojan horses and donkeys inside the EU obediently oblige - although they are Europeans, they make themselves the tools of US foreign policy.

In the ongoing US campaign to epand their sphere of influence eastward, the Americans use the EU as a kind of economic NATO analogue. Once a state is accepted by that US dominated military alliance, the process for EU membership usually follows soon. Even better: with every new admitted member the EU gets more and more sluggish, the chances to agree on anything sink and the probability that the European Union can emancipate itself from America and become a rival decreases. At the same time the new members are usually staunchly pro American (they have just turned to a new patron and want to show their loyality), giving the US direct leverage within European matters, but contribute almost nothing to the EU economy having to be helped financially instead.

But the real beauty of it: the EU citizens have to pay for it all!
Frankly, it's about damn time that European politicians start to think more what is good for Europe and not what is good for America.

But it may already be too late. As it is now, the EU has probably already become too large to agree on anything important. The only way out may be to turn the whole organisation into an economic cooperation zone and start anew from inward. A "real EU" could be founded by the original core states. Sans the British if possible, at least until they have found out which is broader, the channel or the atlantic. Let's keep the Trojan horses out this time. And for Germany this all means to make up its mind: we have to get rid of our "British" half of thinking as well.

[tsuri]

Excellent Article.


By now the Turks should have learned that there is much they must accept whether they like it or not, and they have come to feel, not without reason, that when one obstacle is surmounted Europe will always find another
What Turkey has to learn is that "Negotiations"is a very polite term for "you do what we tell you to or else". Has always been like that.


If Turkey manages to get past it´s desasterous human rights record, it´s economy outside of Istanbul and it´s foreign relations problems, it will only have to get past Austria, France, Greece and Cyprus, a EU Reform and the opposition of all net recievers in the Union to join. Even then unlimited sanctions can be placed on them.
Might as well apply for NAFTA.

Unless something radically changes, Turkey will not join the EU in any of our lifetimes.

[SHAM]

Lets face it, Turkey has two choices.
Pull its head in and make the changes, which can only be a good thing, might dent Turkish pride but would be good for the people...
Or say ..feck it and carry on as they are, and create trade agreements however they can, with whoever they want.

[Canadian2urk]

For me the problem is that the Turkey denies the genocide of the Armenians.

LOL

Armenians did die, we know.... it just was not systematic.

so therefore, "genocide" is not the correct term.

[AROUETLJ]

For me the problem is that the Turkey denies the genocide of the Armenians.

For me the problem is that Turkey wants to join a union of 25, soon to be 27, nations, and it does not recognize one of them. What the hell are they going to do when Cyprus holds the rotating Presidency? Or when an EU summit is held in Cyprus? Never mind the human rights. Sort out the common sense first.

[Clearday-TRForce]

Excellent Article.


What Turkey has to learn is that "Negotiations"is a very polite term for "you do what we tell you to or else". Has always been like that.


If Turkey manages to get past it´s desasterous human rights record, it´s economy outside of Istanbul and it´s foreign relations problems, it will only have to get past Austria, France, Greece and Cyprus, a EU Reform and the opposition of all net recievers in the Union to join. Even then unlimited sanctions can be placed on them.
Might as well apply for NAFTA.

Unless something radically changes, Turkey will not join the EU in any of our lifetimes.


lol Tsuri, you have the biggest and worst human rights record of history,everybody knows it...And it is another hypo of EU. We all know what is EU or not.

EU is also in trouble, you discuss Pro-Americans, but Look at UK in the EU? could you show me another near example like British as a Pro-american in EU? you usually in lies and unrealities.

You discuss so-called Armenian genocide occured 1905, but no one discuss many genocides,massacres by the EU members in the history...This is your way. This is your best-known hypo. :roll:



For me the problem is that Turkey wants to join a union of 25, soon to be 27, nations, and it does not recognize one of them. What the hell are they going to do when Cyprus holds the rotating Presidency? Or when an EU summit is held in Cyprus? Never mind the human rights. Sort out the common sense first.

It is clear,EU is not enough strong to force Turkey to accept a country or not. You have also minimal effects on Turkey. Such as Turkey recognizes Macedonia as an independent state. Do you? Do you want more to recognize many indepentents in this geography. You guys, try to be tricky while tending Turkey's human records bala blasss...So why dont you discuss USA-France-Greece human records? your policy depends on unbalanced decisions. Typical fasist regimes...Look at Sarkozy...really funny!!!


EU? thanks...we are fine here.p-)

[Kitsune]

@Clearday-TRForce:


You are some kind of joker, aren't you?

Who is the one who poses the problem here? YOU TURKS ARE! I mean, YOU want to join the EU, YOU are whining because we don't take you on with open arms. Somehow you make it sound as if the Europeans would try to force you to join and Turkey would bravely resist. Preposterous.

There is a simple solution to our common problems, pal. Simply get YOUR Turkish government to officially withdraw from their position that Turkey wants or even demands its EU membership - and we have an instant happy ending to this sorry affair. And nobody gets forced to recognize anyone or to do anything.
Let's make some trade treaties, shake hands and be on our (separate) ways.

How about it?

[Clearday-TRForce]

@Clearday-TRForce:


You are some kind of joker, aren't you?

Who is the one who poses the problem here? YOU TURKS ARE! I mean, YOU want to join the EU, YOU are whining because we don't take you on with open arms. Somehow you make it sound as if the Europeans would try to force you to join and Turkey would bravely resist. Preposterous.

There is a simple solution to our common problems, pal. Simply get YOUR Turkish government to officially withdraw from their position that Turkey wants or even demands its EU membership - and we have an instant happy ending to this sorry affair. And nobody gets forced to recognize anyone or to do anything.
Let's make some trade treaties, shake hands and be on our (separate) ways.

How about it?


Why do you want trade benefits? what is your priority in trades and volumes? It seems you find it very crucial. But where is your union mate? if your union can not spread welfare,so what is it aim? saving? do you suppose you can save all these until the end of time? You need vision, you must get rid of hypos,dogmatical approachs,religion minded actions and behaviours...we are in 21th.

[Kitsune]

@Clearday-TRForce:

I am interested in profitable trade and good neighbourly relations between Turkey and Europe. I don't know wether that is a hypo (whatever that may be), a dogmatical approach, a religion minded action or a behaviour...it just seems to be a good idea to me. But I don't think it would be beneficial for the both of us if Turkey became a EU member.

But you, yourself, are you now for or against a membership of Turkey in the European Union?

[Niels]

You discuss so-called Armenian genocide occured 1905, but no one discuss many genocides,massacres by the EU members in the history...This is your way. This is your best-known hypo. :roll:
No one discusses them, because nobody is denying them.

[Switek]

I see that it's mostly internal decission of Turkey to avoid face all, difficult own past... It has right to do and helps this way Europe to avoid difficult challenges.

In my humle opinion only deep utopist could believe that participation of Turkey in EU is possible. Official declarations and some changes was just to improve internal situation in both Turkey and UE.

So let's say the truth openly: Europe do not want Turkey, Turkey do not want Europe.

[Ergnkon]

Turkey is not going to join the EU

This is great news!


The negotiations (for Turkeys membership) have already started and they are progressing slowly but steadily.

Actually, nothing has started yet. It supposed to start in January, but nothing sincere about it. It's just going to be a lame attempt to keep Turkey in this endless so-called membership process, in order to get what they want from the current government in Turkey for the couple of members in the EU.


I don't think anything could stop the process now when it has gone this far, it's just a matter of time. It doesn't matter what the people want at this point, the politicians keep on pushing it forward and brinning it up again and again until it happens.

Turks doesn't want this membership. The support went down to 30-25% from 75% in the last 6 months or so. It's just the current government who denies to see this, but it'll all change with the next upcoming elections. New admistration in Turkey will definetelly put an end to this nonsence...no worries guys :)

The Turks understood that, so called EU membership is very dangerous for Turkey and it has to be stopped.

[alfigel]

The negotiations (for Turkeys membership) have already started and they are progressing slowly but steadily. I don't think anything could stop the process now when it has gone this far, it's just a matter of time.

I beg to differ. The negotiations with Turkey have been partially halted just a few days ago.

[Ergnkon]

I beg to differ. The negotiations with Turkey have been partially halted just a few days ago.

Only on the 8 chapters. 27 chapters can be continued on. but not to be closed until Turkey recognises Greek Cypriots...which will never happen.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It doesn't matter.

The EU is going to fall apart in a few years anyway under the weight of it's contradictions. I'm hoping that we in the UK can do as much as possible to speed up the process :)

Then we can just go back to being a free trade area like it should have stayed all along.

[Russian_dude]

I mean if Turkey would join the EU, then why not Russia? It will likely overtake Turkeys GDP in the near future and is a lot more compatible with Europe, despite the political situation. Also, why not Morocco? Why not Kazakhstan?

I am afraid that when Turkey joins, overnight, 50 million Turks from the most backward regions would flood Europe.

[alfigel]

I mean if Turkey would join the EU, then why not Russia? It will likely overtake Turkeys GDP in the near future and is a lot more compatible with Europe, despite the political situation.

If Russia is able to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria), then it can join the EU. Economic wealth is only one of many criteria.

[Kitsune]

What is it with you people? Why do you want everyone to be a EU member? Turkey? The European Union stretching to Iraq? Or to the Pacific, if Russia becomes a member? And whose next? India? Well, in that case we should call it the perhaps the "Indo-European Union". And why not China? And what about Algeria and Marocco? And why only those? Why not every state in Africa?
Hey, here is an idea: why not take on every country in the world? And we simply rename the EU to UN-2. I mean, isn't a second UN what this world really needs? Wouldn't it be great if we could discuss United Nation topics some more in a second United Nations Organisation? And if we could counter any decisions of the UN with opposing decisons made by UN-2? :grin:

[alfigel]

What is it with you people? Why do you want everyone to be a EU member? Turkey? The European Union stretching to Iraq? Or to the Pacific, if Russia becomes a member? And whose next? India? Well, in that case we should call it the perhaps the "Indo-European Union". And why not China? And what about Algeria and Marocco? And why only those? Why not every state in Africa?

Read the Copenhagen criteria. There are only a few countries left that meet the geographic criteria who aren't a member yet: Iceland (but they're a Schengen country already), Switzerland, Norway, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegowina, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and then tiny countries like Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino or Vatican City. And for most of them it will be a long time until they will be able to reach the other criteria, and the EU must consider itself to have enough absorption capacity.

[Ergnkon]

And what about Algeria and Marocco? And why only those? Why not every state in Africa?

LOL! really :) I think Turkey is encouraged by the membership of Cyprus. After all, they're only 150 miles from Syria and 550 miles from Europe :)

[Loki77]

LOL! really :) I think Turkey is encouraged by the membership of Cyprus. After all, they're only 150 miles from Syria and 550 miles from Europe :)

But the majority of them are Greeks. Greeks comprise 77% of the island's population, Turks 18%, while the remaining 5% are of other ethnicities.
However 77% of them they are Europeans...

[Ergnkon]

But the majority of them are Greeks. Greeks comprise 77% of the island's population, Turks 18%, while the remaining 5% are of other ethnicities.
However 77% of them they are Europeans...

So as it's been pointed out by Turkey many times before, it's just a Christian Club and there is no place in the EU for teh Muslim Turkey :)

They should point this fact out to Turkey instead of other lame excuses.

[Kitsune]

Read the Copenhagen criteria. There are only a few countries left that meet the geographic criteria who aren't a member yet: Iceland (but they're a Schengen country already), Switzerland, Norway, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegowina, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan[...]
These Copenhagen criteria are simply nuts. As long as Siberia belongs to Russia, the largest part is outside Europe. Except for Istanbul and Cyprus, Turkey is located in Asia. And "Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan"? Deepest Central Asia! What have we to do with these countries? Its again the US, who is very active in that region at the moment, who wants to present to these states the option to join the EU. But it sure as hell isn't in our interest.

[alfigel]

These Copenhagen criteria are simply nuts. As long as Siberia belongs to Russia, the largest part is outside Europe. Except for Istanbul and Cyprus, Turkey is located in Asia. And "Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan"? Deepest Central Asia! What have we to do with these countries? Its again the US, who is very active in that region at the moment, who wants to present to these states the option to join the EU. But it sure as hell isn't in our interest.

Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria) before starting to rant. There, everything is explained in detail.

[alfigel]

So as it's been pointed out by Turkey many times before, it's just a Christian Club and there is no place in the EU for teh Muslim Turkey :)

While the predominant religion in the EU is indeed Christianity, the EU has no affiliation with any religion in any way. Conservative politicians tried to amend a reference to "God" into the (failed) EU constitution, but that was quickly removed, simply because it would be contradicting the freedom of religion within the EU ("God" implies a monotheistic religion, and thus would be offending against atheists, atheistic religions like Zen, or polytheistic religions like Hinduism).

And no matter how often you Turkish EU haters claim that the EU is a "Christian Club", it's still wrong.

[Loki77]

These Copenhagen criteria are simply nuts. As long as Siberia belongs to Russia, the largest part is outside Europe. Except for Istanbul and Cyprus, Turkey is located in Asia. And "Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan"? Deepest Central Asia! What have we to do with these countries? Its again the US, who is very active in that region at the moment, who wants to present to these states the option to join the EU. But it sure as hell isn't in our interest.

Thanks by say the truth!

[Russian_dude]

Thanks by say the truth!

Exactly, I was just saying that if Turkey is "Europe" (well trying to invade Europe at every occasion hystorically.) then Russia is 2 times as European. Obviously Russia in the EU is a bit silly.

[alfigel]

Exactly, I was just saying that if Turkey is "Europe" (well trying to invade Europe at every occasion hystorically.) then Russia is 2 times as European. Obviously Russia in the EU is a bit silly.

Still, my point was that there exist exact rules which countries are eligible for EU membership from the geographical point of view, and that this rule is more complex than "all of its area must be on the European continent". I made no judgment about this definition, nor did I talk about the other criteria (which are even more complex), but some people here start raging and ranting before even informing themselves the slightest bit.

[Ergnkon]

While the predominant religion in the EU is indeed Christianity, the EU has no affiliation with any religion in any way. Conservative politicians tried to amend a reference to "God" into the (failed) EU constitution, but that was quickly removed, simply because it would be contradicting the freedom of religion within the EU ("God" implies a monotheistic religion, and thus would be offending against atheists, atheistic religions like Zen, or polytheistic religions like Hinduism).

And no matter how often you Turkish EU haters claim that the EU is a "Christian Club", it's still wrong.

Most of the EU countries are not even as secular as Turkey...which means; State and Church is not saperated in most EU member countries. So it is a Christian club no matter how hard you try to deniy this. Can you deny the Europeans' reason for being against Turkey's membership has mostly to do with Turkey being muslim?? NO...it's even mentioned as a main reason very often by the members here. There won't be any healty disgussions on the matter as long as the truths for the opposition is denied.

[Russian_dude]

Yeah, ok, but when parts of Russian territory are more westward then Japan and when most of Turkey's land mass is in Asia (except for one little bit stolen from the Greeks and one from Cypriots.) what does Europe even mean then?

[Loki77]

Turkey's land mass is in Asia (except for one little bit stolen from the Greeks and one from Cypriots.)

Great...woot

[Russian_dude]

I think that the EU agrees with me on the Cyprus bit and we all know Constantinopol is Turkoman ancient birthland since time immemorial.

[alfigel]

Most of the EU countries are not even as secular as Turkey...which means; State and Church is not saperated in most EU member countries. So it is a Christian club no matter how hard you try to deniy this.
So how exactly can the EU be a Christian club when there are e.g. non-Christian MPs in the European Parliament? Or in the commission? And which countries have a direct affiliation with any certain church? Remember, freedom of religion in Turkey is a lot worse than in Europe (Christian churches have very strict rules regarding owning property) even though Turkey is officially a secular country, and you claim "most" EU countries are not.



Can you deny the Europeans' reason for being against Turkey's membership has mostly to do with Turkey being muslim??

Of course I can. Inform yourself about the objective criteria of becoming an EU member. I contains nothing (zero, nil, nada) about religion (except that freedom of religion must be guaranteed).


NO...it's even mentioned as a main reason very often by the members here. There won't be any healty disgussions on the matter as long as the truths for the opposition is denied.

You are such a pathetic whiner. People on this forum don't represent the EU. The represent their own mistrust and prejudice against Turkey, but they are not affiliated in any way with the EU or its politics.

Your claim "it must be true because a person living in an EU country said so" is so pathetic, and has nothing to do with the truth.

[Ergnkon]

So how exactly can the EU be a Christian club when there are e.g. non-Christian MPs in the European Parliament? Or in the commission?


that doesn't tell anything. Majority of the EU citizens are against Turkey's membership due to religious difference, and they will decide Turkey's membership at the end via referandum. Latest polls shows, those which will hold a referandum regarding Turkey's membership, opposes up to 65% only due to religious reasons.



And which countries have a direct affiliation with any certain church?

All of the countries that hasn't seperated the state and the church and refers to christianity being a state religion in their constitutions. Which happenes to be all except France.



Remember, freedom of religion in Turkey is a lot worse than in Europe (Christian churches have very strict rules regarding owning property) even though Turkey is officially a secular country, and you claim "most" EU countries are not.

That's what you're made to believe. There are churches all over in Turkey, but there still exists EU capitals that doesn't have/allow building mosques.



Of course I can. Inform yourself about the objective criteria of becoming an EU member. I contains nothing (zero, nil, nada) about religion (except that freedom of religion must be guaranteed).

Sounds like you should be informing about yourself in the light of the things I wrote so far...unless of course you blindly choose to deniy it all just like so far you've been doing. (i.e go find out which country's capital does not allow a mosque...or didn't untill recently) ;)


You are such a pathetic whiner. People on this forum don't represent the EU. The represent their own mistrust and prejudice against Turkey, but they are not affiliated in any way with the EU or its politics.

You shouldn't make a habbit of accusing others as being whiners when they tell something about your EU which you didn't know about before ;)


Your claim "it must be true because a person living in an EU country said so" is so pathetic, and has nothing to do with the truth.

Well..polls tells a lot.

New poll shows 60% of Europeans against Turkish membership in EU

According to the poll, which was carried out by LH2 and France Inter, an average of 26% of EU members now support a Turkish membership. The poll of 1,000 people found that 60% of the respondents said that they did not want Turkey to join the EU, while 14% said that they had no opinion.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/5591921.asp

...and why is there a problem for not wanting EU membership for Turkey? Most Europeans don't want it, Turks don't want it, you don't want it, I don't want it..so? sounds like all goes as hoped and wanted. :)

[Kaapeli]

I beg to differ. The negotiations with Turkey have been partially halted just a few days ago.

Yes, partially. Not even that disagreement could end them completely. The negotiations will drag forward slowly as long as it takes but they will never end until Turkey is a member.

[alfigel]

that doesn't tell anything. Majority of the EU citizens are against Turkey's membership due to religious difference, and they will decide Turkey's membership at the end via referandum. Latest polls shows, those which will hold a referandum regarding Turkey's membership, opposes up to 65% only due to religious reasons.

Bullshyt. Which countries will do a referendum?



All of the countries that hasn't seperated the state and the church and refers to christianity being a state religion in their constitutions. Which happenes to be all except France.
Bullshyt. Austria for example has no state religion, all it has are officially recognized religions (these are the ones who get funded by the state, have the right to hold religious education in school, etc.). Amongst these religions are the Roman-Catholic church, the Protestantic Church, the Christian Orthodox churches, the Jewish religion, and Islam! Islam! Religion education of Muslim children in school! State funding for Muslim organizations. And so on. You see, I just disproved you.




That's what you're made to believe. There are churches all over in Turkey, but there still exists EU capitals that doesn't have/allow building mosques.

Turkey _generally_ forbids building new churches. That's a fact. On the other side, most of the time the reason why certain mosques were not allowed not be built was because they were based on dubious designs not meeting the local building regulations.



...and why is there a problem for not wanting EU membership for Turkey? Most Europeans don't want it, Turks don't want it, you don't want it, I don't want it..so? sounds like all goes as hoed and wanted. :)

Who says I don't want it? Did I ever say that? All you'll probably find is that Turkey will not be able to become an EU member in the current situation, but the final decisions are up to the EU. BTW, I really wonder how many of the Turkish people want Turkey to become an EU member state? I really doubt it's the majority, so why blame the EU when your politicians act contrary to your people's will?

Anyway, to conclude this: you fabricate hilarious claims that you call "facts", it's ridiculous and so pathetic. Go on with it, it's entertaining. :-) Whatever you write, it's comedic entertainment in its best form.

[alfigel]

Yes, partially. Not even that disagreement could end them completely. The negotiations will drag forward slowly as long as it takes but they will never end until Turkey is a member.

Somebody already stated that the question over Cyprus is the real show-stopper, and that Turkey will never change its agenda in that case. So I highly doubt that.

[Ergnkon]

Bullshyt. Which countries will do a referendum?

Boy...you just show how much you actually know what you're talking about and it makes me wonder if you should be taken serious enough to debate this matter :)

One of the countries that'll hold referendum(for now and many to follow) is your own country for God's sake...and you had no idea about.

France and Austria are due to hold referendums on Turkish membership once the accession talks end in about 10 years, all but guaranteeing that Turkey will be blocked if the current climate prevails.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1531350,00.html


Bullshyt. Austria for example has no state religion, all it has are officially recognized religions (these are the ones who get funded by the state, have the right to hold religious education in school, etc.). Amongst these religions are the Roman-Catholic church, the Protestantic Church, the Christian Orthodox churches, the Jewish religion, and Islam! Islam! Religion education of Muslim children in school! State funding for Muslim organizations. And so on. You see, I just disproved you.

So, the question remains; Should you be taken serious about what you know on the matter? Did you read all 25 countries' const. already? or are you just ranting?


Turkey _generally_ forbids building new churches.

Non EU member
"Modern Turkey's first new church opens in Istanbul"

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=22640&sec=20&cont=5

on the other hand, a EU member at least for two decades:

The Faith that has No Place
After years of worshipping in squalid makeshift mosques, Muslims in Athens await an official house of prayer.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060501-1186536,00.html

So question stil remains; how much do you actually know about Turkey, EU and your own country?


Who says I don't want it? Did I ever say that? All you'll probably find is that Turkey will not be able to become an EU member in the current situation, but the final decisions are up to the EU. BTW,

Nope, right after the upcoming elections, Turkey's new government will stop this nonsence.


I really wonder how many of the Turkish people want Turkey to become an EU member state? I really doubt it's the majority, so why blame the EU when your politicians act contrary to your people's will?

Interesting to see you can express opinion on this matter without actually knowing anything about it.

Public support for Turkey's bid to join the European Union plunged over a six-month period that ended at the beginning of May, according to an EU survey released yesterday.

The Eurobarometer poll of just over 1,000 people in Turkey conducted through April found that the percentage of respondents “with a positive image of the EU” dove to 43 percent from 60 percent six months earlier, the poll showed.

...and that was in last July. It's much lower now...esp. after EU's decision last week ;)

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=48212


Anyway, to conclude this: you fabricate hilarious claims that you call "facts", it's ridiculous and so pathetic. Go on with it, it's entertaining. :-) Whatever you write, it's comedic entertainment in its best form.

I guess you saw what's coming eh? ;)

I understand, it's hard to argue with hard facts for you...after all, you didn't even know your country was going to hold an referendum. Now, how anyone supposed to take what you write seriously?

[Dado]

If u ask me 1 simple rule should be applied here:
Only the countries that have 51% of their territory on the European continent can join EU.

Anything else is just silly and could very well lead to EU assimilating the North pole...

[Ergnkon]

If u ask me 1 simple rule should be applied here:
Only the countries that have 51% of their territory on the European continent can join EU.

Anything else is just silly and could very well lead to EU assimilating the North pole...

Good idea.

What are you going to do about the southern part of the Cyprus then :)

[kosse]

If u ask me 1 simple rule should be applied here:
Only the countries that have 51% of their territory on the European continent can join EU.

Anything else is just silly and could very well lead to EU assimilating the North pole...
I have news for you. Turkey has 100% of it's land mass on same lithospheric plate as "Europe". The "European continent" is just a man-made invention to make a separation from Asia out of historical and cultural reasons. IF Turkey becomes culturally European enough (meets the requirement criteria) there is no physical reason based on geography whatsoever to bar it from entering EU.

[zulu261]

EU expansion sucks. These eastern countrys are fine to but they **** the EU up, sorry for you guys from there.

The rich countrys have to pay a ****load of money for them and nothing comes back except non employed people and massive population growth.

Thanks to everyone that these arrogant, self-loving turks (best example is Clearday) are not joining anyway in the near future. Cheers to Greece and Cyprus ;)

[Amateur]

The Faith that has No Place
After years of worshipping in squalid makeshift mosques, Muslims in Athens await an official house of prayer.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060501-1186536,00.html

Actually works for a mosque in Athens are now under way in the Votanikos area near the centre, and that disproves your position. There was no need for a mosque before the nineties, because there were hardly any muslims in Athens before the immigration wave of the '90s. And it took some time to overcome inertia and reactions by orthodox fanatics, but now it's being built. In any case there are (and have always been) plenty of mosques in Thrace, where the muslim minority of Greece lives.


And as for the "southern part of Cyprus", I guess you mean the Republic of Cyprus, which is already a member state, and actually has a right to veto Turkey's accession. I do hope Turkey will notice that in due course. p-)

[Loki77]

IF Turkey becomes culturally European enough (meets the requirement criteria) there is no physical reason based on geography whatsoever to bar it from entering EU.


:cantbeli::cantbeli::cantbeli:

[kosse]

:cantbeli::cantbeli::cantbeli:


Damn me what I wrote. I just realised that now. rofl What I meant:

IF Turkey becomes culturally European enough (meets the requirement criteria) it should be accepted. There is no physical reason based on geography whatsoever to bar it from entering EU.

[tsuri]

Most of the EU countries are not even as secular as Turkey...which means; State and Church is not saperated in most EU member countries. So it is a Christian club no matter how hard you try to deniy this. Can you deny the Europeans' reason for being against Turkey's membership has mostly to do with Turkey being muslim?? NO...it's even mentioned as a main reason very often by the members here. There won't be any healty disgussions on the matter as long as the truths for the opposition is denied.

If the EU was a christian club, we would have referenced GOD in the constitutional treaty. The truth is: Turkey is too atheist for the EU and it´s population is too muslim for Europeans. A Paradox but interestingly true.


Yeah, ok, but when parts of Russian territory are more westward then Japan and when most of Turkey's land mass is in Asia (except for one little bit stolen from the Greeks and one from Cypriots.) what does Europe even mean then?

Every part of Turkey was taken from the "Greeks" (the Byzantine Empire´s citizens referred to themselves as Greeks)
But it´s not the point since landgrabbing was common in Europe itself too. The Argument was that a country has to belong TO Europe, not be in Europe.


New poll shows 60% of Europeans against Turkish membership in EU


And declining. On both sides. Europeans come to understand that taking in a large and poor member sucks and Turkey is learning that EU Membership severly restricts your ability to flex your muscles on the international scene.


The EU is going to fall apart in a few years anyway under the weight of it's contradictions. I'm hoping that we in the UK can do as much as possible to speed up the process

Then we can just go back to being a free trade area like it should have stayed all along.
This is stupid. You created a free trade area, namely EFTA and then immediatly after setting it up, applied for EC Membership.
It was a supranational entity all along. You dont join such an organisation only to downgrade it...

[Loki77]

Damn me what I wrote. I just realised that now. rofl What I meant:

IF Turkey becomes culturally European enough (meets the requirement criteria) it should be accepted. There is no physical reason based on geography whatsoever to bar it from entering EU.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Argentina can enter now in the EU...

[AROUETLJ]

lol Tsuri, you have the biggest and worst human rights record of history,everybody knows it...And it is another hypo of EU. We all know what is EU or not.

EU is also in trouble, you discuss Pro-Americans, but Look at UK in the EU? could you show me another near example like British as a Pro-american in EU? you usually in lies and unrealities.

You discuss so-called Armenian genocide occured 1905, but no one discuss many genocides,massacres by the EU members in the history...This is your way. This is your best-known hypo. :roll:




It is clear,EU is not enough strong to force Turkey to accept a country or not. You have also minimal effects on Turkey. Such as Turkey recognizes Macedonia as an independent state. Do you? Do you want more to recognize many indepentents in this geography. You guys, try to be tricky while tending Turkey's human records bala blasss...So why dont you discuss USA-France-Greece human records? your policy depends on unbalanced decisions. Typical fasist regimes...Look at Sarkozy...really funny!!!


EU? thanks...we are fine here.p-)

I'm Maltese. My country only became independent in 1964, and before that we were always a colony. So, my dear fellow, I think I hold the moral high ground here if you want to talk about human rights and massacres.

[kosse]

Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Argentina can enter now in the EU...
Are they in the same geographical area as EU? Simple answer: No. Turkey ,on the other hand, is and if it becomes "European" enough it's not a big deal to stretch the historical concept of "Europe" a bit to include Turkey in it.

Have you considered Scandinavia's or even better - Finland's geographical position? They are not part of the "European mainland" any more than Turkey is. What matters here is cultural connection. If Finland was a muslim country and looking for a way into EU we would have without any doubt be going though this same conversation.

[Ergnkon]

Actually works for a mosque in Athens are now under way in the Votanikos area near the centre, and that disproves your position. There was no need for a mosque before the nineties, because there were hardly any muslims in Athens before the immigration wave of the '90s. And it took some time to overcome inertia and reactions by orthodox fanatics, but now it's being built. In any case there are (and have always been) plenty of mosques in Thrace, where the muslim minority of Greece lives.

cheap excuse. The EU laws does not have any limitations on the numbrs of the followers of religions in order to build temples for that faith...there is no such law what's so ever. Proof? Turkey has more Churces than any EU country has mosques, but it's still being pressed to build more Churces for a few thousend Christians.


Your claim was not that public support in Europe for Turkey's accession is diminishing (that's common knowledge), you rather claimed that the reason for this is the religious difference (i.e. Turkey being a muslim country), and your quote proves nothing of the sort.

So, it has nothing to do with Turkey being a muslim country? I hope your not expecting me to take this claim serious and reply in detail. I'm sure there are many members here ready to disapprove you...but will they??, now that you're debating with a Goddamn Turk ;)



And as for the "southern part of Cyprus", I guess you mean the Republic of Cyprus, which is already a member state,

It's still a half Cyprus and it still doesn't change the fact that they don't represent the whole island and the Turks in the north. ;)



and actually has a right to veto Turkey's accession. I do hope Turkey will notice that in due course.

There is no more accessions and Greek Cypriot vetoing won't be necassarry ever again in the very near future. ;)

[Mahir]

/care roflroflrofl

[Switek]

Can anyone answer me for one question... What's the future for Turkey? Among muslims, worldwide, Turkey is recognized a triator of islamic values... So if not EU, may be, islamisation?

[Vorian]

cheap excuse. The EU laws does not have any limitations on the numbrs of the followers of religions in order to build temples for that faith...there is no such law what's so ever. Proof? Turkey has more Churces than any EU country has mosques, but it's still being pressed to build more Churces for a few thousend Christians.

Most of those churches are old Byzantine relics. Since Byzantine empire was a theocratic empire it's logical there are so many churches in Turkey.

[Amateur]

cheap excuse. The EU laws does not have any limitations on the numbrs of the followers of religions in order to build temples for that faith...there is no such law what's so ever.

"Cheap excuse"? So Greece should have been building mosques in Athens in the '80s, when there would be nobody to pray in them? Are you kidding?
The respect of muslim religious rights in Greece is beyond doubt and it is shown in Thrace, where the muslim minority have had their mosques and everything since 1923. And when the need arose, or actually some years after the need arose, we built a mosque in Athens too. As simple as that.


Turkey has more Churces than any EU country has mosques, but it's still being pressed to build more Churces for a few thousend Christians.

I 'm really tempted to explain why there are so few Christians left with a little bit of history; and you wouldn't like it...p-) But let's not talk about the embarassing past, let's stick to the present: since 1971 Turkey has closed down the orthodox Halki Seminar (the orthodox priests' academy) and has persistently denied to allow its functioning until the present day, thus depriving the orthodox church in Turkey of any new priests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halki_seminary Now how 's that for religious freedom?


So, it has nothing to do with Turkey being a muslim country? I hope your not expecting me to take this claim serious and reply in detail. I'm sure there are many members here ready to disapprove you...but will they??, now that you're debating with a Goddamn Turk ;)

Actually there have been many members here that repeatedly denied there is any religious (or geographical) reason for denying turkish accession, long before I started debating with you. You should have been paying more attention. Here 's two good samples:


While the predominant religion in the EU is indeed Christianity, the EU has no affiliation with any religion in any way. Conservative politicians tried to amend a reference to "God" into the (failed) EU constitution, but that was quickly removed, simply because it would be contradicting the freedom of religion within the EU ("God" implies a monotheistic religion, and thus would be offending against atheists, atheistic religions like Zen, or polytheistic religions like Hinduism).
And no matter how often you Turkish EU haters claim that the EU is a "Christian Club", it's still wrong.

IF Turkey becomes culturally European enough (meets the requirement criteria) it should be accepted. There is no physical reason based on geography whatsoever to bar it from entering EU.

Especially Alfigel has repeatedly given you, and other members disagreeing with him, links to the Copenhagen criteria (once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria), so that everybody would notice there is NO provision at all by the EU about religion, other than respecting religious freedom. I guess he got fed up of pointing out the obvious and left the discussion.

Now let me tell you my opinion on this. Personally I have stated my view in another thread, saying that if Turkey meets all criteria (religion not included), it should be allowed to be a member state of the EU. I don't deny that there may be some religious background in the general dismay of the European peoples to accept Turkey, as echoed in the polls you refer to. However I think the religious thing is part of a wider conception of a civilizational gap between Europe and Turkey, which mainly refers to democracy, rule of law and human rights, secondly to the level of economic and social development and only thirdly to bullying its neighbors (and this only applies to Greece and Cyprus). If Turkey did better in those areas (especially the first), I don't think there would be many arguments left for the few people believing in a "Christians only" Europe. And another thing, which is well put by the article that started this thread, is that turkish persistence (and american pressure to the EU) to join the EU as it is (i.e. without adhering to the european standards of democracy and human rights) is more and more seen by the Europeans as an american effort to undermine the common european identity and loosen up the EU into a kind of "economic NATO", as one member here put it. That (i,e, being seen like an american "trojan horse") doesn't help Turkey either.


your policy depends on unbalanced decisions. Typical fasist regimes...Look at Sarkozy...really funny!!! EU? thanks...we are fine here.p-)

You of all people are calling Europe's governments "fascist regimes"? :cantbeli: Buddy, here 's a link to the definitions and aspects of fascism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
First read it, then have a look at your country and ask yourself: exactly which part of fascism's definitions doesn't apply to Turkey? "Nationalism"? "Economic corporatism"? "The State being superior to the individual"? "A powerful leader portrying the nation"? (Ataturk's portrait everywhere)
For God's sake, in Turkey the army can overthrow the government anytime! (last incident: 1997, PM Erbakan sacked by the army). Now how's that for fascism?



And finally I wonder... if Turkey is fine outside the EU, why does this whole issue bother you Turks so much? Why do you keep discussing the reasons you are rejected? You could just say "no thanks" and let it be, without discussing the reasons so much. My guess is, you do want to enter the EU, but you want it on your own terms. Right? p-)

[Russian_dude]

The Cyprus example undelines the poblems of letting Turkey into the "pantry" (EU) what if the local Turkish majority in Berlin decides they are persecuted and decides to separate from Germany, will Turkey recognise them?

Turkey has an occupational force in one of EU members, this is outrageous.
Also just compare southern Cyprus and the northern enclave. Turks are sitting on a goose that lays golden eggs but have managed to muck it up, there is not a whole lot of tourism there.

[Russian_dude]

Culturally, Turkey's ONLY relation to Europe and it's legacy there, are wars, invasions and genocides. Yeah 1680 the Turks went all the way to Vienna to study European culture, soak in some Euro-tolerance and promote Kebabs and coffe shops.

[Ergnkon]

"Cheap excuse"? So Greece should have been building mosques in Athens in the '80s, when there would be nobody to pray in them? Are you kidding?

Yep..it's just a cheap excuse and I'm sure since it's for the limitations of muslims, many here will buy it willingly too ;)

There are places in Turkey not a single Christian lives, but Turkey has to build churches there also as a "condition" to enter EU.


I 'm really tempted to explain why there are so few Christians left with a little bit of history; and you wouldn't like it...p-) But let's not talk about the embarassing past, let's stick to the present: since 1971 Turkey has closed down the orthodox Halki Seminar (the orthodox priests' academy) and has persistently denied to allow its functioning until the present day, thus depriving the orthodox church in Turkey of any new priests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halki_seminary Now how 's that for religious freedom?

Yeah, Turkey is NOT a EU member...Greece is.

Treatment of the Turkish/Muslim minority in Greece:

The Turkish minority in Greece is almost entirely Muslim. Treatment of this minority by the government has both ethnic and religious overtones. The government of Greece does recognize the Muslim minority in that country, but "aggressively prosecutes and bans organizations and individuals who seek to call themselves 'Turkish.'" Turks have been in Greece since at least 1363 when the Ottoman army routed the Serb, Bosnian and Hungarian army. They are Greek citizens. In spite of the Treaty of Lausanne which guaranteed the Muslims civil and human rights, they are heavily discriminate against in many ways.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_greec.htm



Actually there have been many members here that repeatedly denied there is any religious (or geographical) reason for denying turkish accession, long before I started debating with you. You should have been paying more attention. Here 's two good samples:

In every Turkey-EU thread, most of the contributers states it's b/o religion...your denial of it will not change this fact.


Especially Alfigel has repeatedly given you, and other members disagreeing with him, links to the Copenhagen criteria (once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria), so that everybody would notice there is NO provision at all by the EU about religion, other than respecting religious freedom. I guess he got fed up of pointing out the obvious and left the discussion.

Copenhagen Criterias has to be complied only for starting accession talks and Turkey did started that.


However I think the religious thing is part of a wider conception of a civilizational gap between Europe and Turkey, which mainly refers to democracy, rule of law and human rights,

OK, Turks are not as "civilized" as your people. How do you explain this then? You must be very brave to talk about "civilization". We call this kind of bravery " A Bravery of ignorance"

Although ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece make up a large minority with their own language and culture, their internationally-recognized human rights and even their existence are vigorously denied by the Greek government. Free expression is restricted; several Macedonians have been prosecuted and convicted for the peaceful expression of their views. Moreover, ethnic Macedonians are discriminated against by the government's failure to permit the teaching of the Macedonian language. And ethnic Macedonians, particularly rights activists, are harassed by the government — followed and threatened by security forces — and subjected to economic and social pressures resulting from this harassment.

http://hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=greece&document_limit=20,20


secondly to the level of economic and social development

Well, I'm sure many know the stituation of Greece before becoming member, so don't lecture non-EU countries about it ;)

Since joining, Greece has gone from being a poor, peripheral Mediterranean nation to a regional powerhouse with the fastest economic growth rate in the eurozone. But that growth has come only recently, after nearly two decades of stagnation. Greece spent much of its first 18 years in the EU playing continental bad boy, obstructing European foreign policy and milking billions of euros in subsidies out of Brussels—money that many claim has been put to dubious use.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4880875/site/newsweek/


and only thirdly to bullying its neighbors (and this only applies to Greece and Cyprus). If Turkey did better in those areas (especially the first),

That's the result of your people's actions. You shouldn't complain much about it.

The Greek Cypriots claim that the Cyprus problem was caused by the landing of Turkish troops in 1974 and that if only they would withdraw, the problem would be solved. This is a serious misconception, for the landing of Turkish troops was the consequence, not the cause, of the problem. Moreover, there were in fact two military actions in 1974; the first was by Greece and the Greek Cypriots, which caused the second by Turkey.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113we45.htm

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/MACEY/macey.html


I don't think there would be many arguments left for the few people believing in a "Christians only" Europe. And another thing, which is well put by the article that started this thread, is that turkish persistence (and american pressure to the EU) to join the EU as it is (i.e. without adhering to the european standards of democracy and human rights) is more and more seen by the Europeans as an american effort to undermine the common european identity and loosen up the EU into a kind of "economic NATO", as one member here put it. That (i,e, being seen like an american "trojan horse") doesn't help Turkey either.

Why would US want totally loose control over Turkish politics by helping them to become a EU member? US doesn't want Turkey in the EU. They know pressing EU for Turkey will backfire like it always did.



The State being superior to the individual"? "A powerful leader portrying the nation"? (Ataturk's portrait everywhere)
For God's sake, in Turkey the army can overthrow the government anytime! (last incident: 1997, PM Erbakan sacked by the army). Now how's that for fascism?

Your hatered for Ataturk and his army today is understanable...honestly :)

THE GREEK-TURKISH WAR. Greek forces landed at Izmir on May 15, 1919. Like the Italians, the Greeks had colonial ambitions in Anatolia and wished to incorporate most of western Asia Minor into the Greek state. The Greek army soon became the tool of the British cabinet under Lloyd George, who wanted to force the Turks into accepting the Treaty of Sèvres.

http://www.bartleby.com/67/2321.html



And finally I wonder... if Turkey is fine outside the EU, why does this whole issue bother you Turks so much? Why do you keep discussing the reasons you are rejected?

Do you really still wonder about that after all the information posted about Greece? Actually, it's the Turks who wonder how the hell Greece gets away with it all.


You could just say "no thanks" and let it be, without discussing the reasons so much. My guess is, you do want to enter the EU, but you want it on your own terms. Right? p-)

You're right. Turkish people already said NO, it's the current gov't who doesn't want to see that for their own agenda. Whether with elections or other means, this EU nonsence for Turkey will be stopped in a very near future :)

[Amateur]

Treatment of the Turkish/Muslim minority in Greece: The Turkish minority in Greece is almost entirely Muslim. Treatment of this minority by the government has both ethnic and religious overtones. The government of Greece does recognize the Muslim minority in that country, but "aggressively prosecutes and bans organizations and individuals who seek to call themselves 'Turkish.'" Turks have been in Greece since at least 1363 when the Ottoman army routed the Serb, Bosnian and Hungarian army. They are Greek citizens. In spite of the Treaty of Lausanne which guaranteed the Muslims civil and human rights, they are heavily discriminate against in many ways.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_greec.htm

Excellent! since religious tolerance was the issue, I think you have just supported my view that Greece practices religious tolerance towards the muslims of Thrace, since your quote contains no accusation whatsoever on that. Now the issue of calling themselves Turks is rather different than that of religious tolerance; those people are mentioned in the Lausanne treaty as "muslims", not "Turks" and that's how the Greek state regards them. Any individual has the right to define himself as he pleases, and that right is fully respected in Greece (i.e. there is no prosecution of individuals calling themselves Turks). But the state does not recognize any associations or legal persons by the name "turkish association etc.", because that would be against the Lausanne treaty provisions.


OK, Turks are not as "civilized" as your people. How do you explain this then? Although ethnic Macedonians in northern Greece make up a large minority with their own language and culture, their internationally-recognized human rights and even their existence are vigorously denied by the Greek government. Free expression is restricted; several Macedonians have been prosecuted and convicted for the peaceful expression of their views.
http://hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=greece&document_limit=20,20

"Ethnic macedonian minority"? You should know that, because Greece is a free democratic country, a political party promoting the concept and rights of what they describe as the "macedonian minority in Greece", the Rainbow (Ουράνιο Τόξο) - was founded in September 1998, and ran in the 2004 elections. It received 2,955 votes in the whole region of Greek Macedonia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_language_%28Greece%29
That should be about 0,1% rofl
Those are the facts, and they were measured in free general elections. The rest is fairytales.


The Greek Cypriots claim that the Cyprus problem was caused by the landing of Turkish troops in 1974 and that if only they would withdraw, the problem would be solved. This is a serious misconception, for the landing of Turkish troops was the consequence, not the cause, of the problem.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113we45.htm
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/MACEY/macey.html

Cyprus is not the main issue here (I ranked it third in my previous post), so I 'll only tell you this much about it: british sources on the Cyprus issue are biased (to say the least), because England was actually the main reason of the Cyprus problem. As always, when leaving a colony behind, they made sure there would be two sides fighting each other forever (see India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine etc.) "Divide et impera", as the Romans put it... Now here's a good book on british policies in Cyprus. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyprus-Conspiracy-America-Espionage-Invasion/dp/1860644392/sr=1-2/qid=1166721945/ref=sr_1_2/202-6624105-2467824?ie=UTF8&s=books Other than that, I really don't want to start discussing Cyprus. The whole world knows what Turkey did; enough said.


But let's get back to the main topic, which is not Greece, but Turkey, and especially its effort to join the EU:


Why would US want totally loose control over Turkish politics by helping them to become a EU member? US doesn't want Turkey in the EU. They know pressing EU for Turkey will backfire like it always did.

They wouldn't lose control of Turkish politics, they would actually expand it into EU politics via Turkey. And, just to remind you, here's a quote from the initial Guardian article that started this thread:

During yet another crisis between Ankara and Brussels a little more than a year ago, Erdogan rang Condoleezza Rice and asked for her help, to which the secretary of state duly responded by expressing yet again Washington's ardent support for Turkish admission to the EU - and thereby further enraging the Europeans.As usual Blair takes the American line, arguing for Turkish admission on strategic grounds: it "has an importance not just in respect to Turkey but with wider relationships between the west and the Muslim world". But another way of putting it is that Europe is being asked to make a huge sacrifice to gratify American strategic interests.

Persuaded now?


Your hatered for Ataturk and his army today is understanable...honestly

I have no reason to hate Ataturk; he did his best for his country, and I respect that in any man. But I didn't see you answering my questions about fascist charasteristics of the turkish State, including the "worship of a leader portraying the State"...



You're right. Turkish people already said NO, it's the current gov't who doesn't want to see that for their own agenda. Whether with elections or other means, this EU nonsence for Turkey will be stopped in a very near future :)

Now that answers my above question about fascist characteristics, doesn't it? Exactly what "other means" are there for a democratic state's policy to change, other than elections??? Could it be that you are referring to yet another intervention by the military? p-)
Or should I perhaps call you "Sir"? Sorry General, I hadn't noticed those stars on your shoulder... /salute rofl

[Loki77]

Can anyone answer me for one question... What's the future for Turkey? Among muslims, worldwide, Turkey is recognized a triator of islamic values... So if not EU, may be, islamisation?

Good question

[Amateur]

Good question


Can anyone answer me for one question... What's the future for Turkey? Among muslims, worldwide, Turkey is recognized a triator of islamic values... So if not EU, may be, islamisation?

Let me add myself to those asking the question. And I would like to pose the question specifically to Ergnkon (that should also help us stop the greek-turkish debate, which is irrelevant in this thread). So here's the question:

You have made absolutely clear that you dislike the turkish orientation towards the EU, and from what you write it's also obvious that you don't like the current turkish government, as being islamic and pro - EU. So one could say you belong to the "laik" or non-religious Turks, referring to the tradition of Kemal Ataturk. But wasn't Ataturk's view that Turkey should adjust herself to the western world and belong to it? How is the denial of the EU prospect compatible with that? And, to come back to the question put by switek and loki77, what would be the future for Turkey outside the EU, if not an islamistic future?

[Mahir]

hehe Atatürk's view was, to make Turkey a more modern country, more modern than any country on the world. To do that Atatürk wanted to take best parts of the western world, and adjust them (not itself) to Turkish culture. Turkey is a laik, democratic, modern country since 1923. We were here before the EU and we will be here after the EU. Turkey's sources are enough for our future. Islamistic future? Atatürk removed all the religious things that our Sultans had (leader of the Muslims) because it was against our laik system, so any future that depends on any religion is not an option for our aim.

[Switek]

hehe Atatürk's view was, to make Turkey a more modern country, more modern than any country on the world. To do that Atatürk wanted to take best parts of the western world, and adjust them (not itself) to Turkish culture. Turkey is a laik, democratic, modern country since 1923. We were here before the EU and we will be here after the EU. Turkey's sources are enough for our future. Islamistic future? Atatürk removed all the religious things that our Sultans had (leader of the Muslims) because it was against our laik system, so any future that depends on any religion is not an option for our aim.

There are nice ideas. I appreciate it.

But in reality? With growing influences of different mullas from the east and south?

[Mahir]

Ty mate but tbh after Atatürk, we didnt have any leaders that could continue what Atatürk was doing sadly.
In reality, there were always mollas in Turkey and there will be too. As an example in the first years of our country, they tried to change our laik system back to extreme religous molla system and killed one of our lieutenants(Kubilay) and tried to provocate people. Kubilay is the symbol of our laik country. Death penalty was their end of course. That's why we have to have a strong army in our lands. Agaisnt mollas, terrorists or any other threats. Recently our army also warned our society about those molla activities again.

Menemen uprising of 1930, which sometimes referred to as the "Menemen Incident" as well, took place in Western Turkey, in Izmir's Menemen sub-province.
An Islamic fundamentalist hodja by the name of Dervis Mehmet arrived in town on December 23, 1930 with six of his armed followers, inciting the locals for an Islamic uprising.

Second Lieutenant Kubilay, a martyr of the secular Republic still remembered
To quell the pro-Shariat demonstration, government sent a small army unit led by Second Lieutenant Kubilay. Dervis Mehmet and his followers opened fire on the unit and killed Kubilay. Not content with just killing the local representative of secular authority, Dervis Mehmet severed Kubilay's head from his body by a saw and pitched it on top of a spear carrying the green flag of Islam.
Dervis Mehmet and his followers were soon surrounded by gendarme and army troops and were all either killed and captured wounded.

(http://www.belgenet.com/foto/kubilay-1.jpg)
The “Menemen Incident,” due to its shockingly violent nature, is still remembered by secular Turks today as an example of the bloody extremes to which some pro-Islamic reactionaries might be driven to uproot the secular order if they are given the chance.

link: http://www.turkishpolitics.us/1923-38/Rebellions.html

[Pvt.Anderson]

good news this day should be made a holiday

[Ergnkon]

Let me add myself to those asking the question. And I would like to pose the question specifically to Ergnkon (that should also help us stop the greek-turkish debate, which is irrelevant in this thread). So here's the question:

You have made absolutely clear that you dislike the turkish orientation towards the EU, and from what you write it's also obvious that you don't like the current turkish government, as being islamic and pro - EU. So one could say you belong to the "laik" or non-religious Turks, referring to the tradition of Kemal Ataturk. But wasn't Ataturk's view that Turkey should adjust herself to the western world and belong to it? How is the denial of the EU prospect compatible with that? And, to come back to the question put by switek and loki77, what would be the future for Turkey outside the EU, if not an islamistic future?

Fair question.

Atatürk looked to the west for in his efforts of modernisation of Turkey, with a serie of revolutions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk%27s_Reforms) Atatürk also warned the nation about the west's ambitions on the Anatolia and their never ending will for always seeking to revange the defeat they suffered in 1919-1923 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_War_of_Independence)

Today, special conditions the EU has set up for Turkey's membership is pretty much in coordinance with the teraty of Sevres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres)

To be able to see and compare this, one should have a very good idea about the Turkish Nations history between 1915 - 1923 and hundrets of pages of Turkey's progress reports of 2005 and 2006. If I must give you an example of one of these special conditions, I can, i.e " The control of the waters of Euphrates and Tigris is to be given to an commission in the EU", which happens to be centered in Athens, Greece. There are may contitions like this that reminds the Turks of Sevres Treaty, which the Ottomans had to comply with. Even though Turks welcomes the universial values such as human rights and so, the conditions similar to in the case of natural waters and threat to its national sovrenty/security, are totally unacceptable by the Turks.

Regarding the question about Turkey's future whether it'll be an Islamic one or not; Such threat is greater right now with the current gov't and its ambitions for keeping Turkey on the accession track no matter what it costs. They came to power with only 34% almost five years ago and most of people voted for them would not make the same mistake in the upcoming elections. Majority of Turkish people will take care of them...if they choose to get nasty, there is always Atatürk's army to take care of them.

Where would Turkey go w/o EU? Well...right now Turkey's interntional agenda is focusing on the hell that's about to break loose around it and to be able to do something about it, It has to freeze it's EU accession and to be able to do that, it has to change the gov't that insists with their false EU desires. If Turkey feels the need for being a part of some kind of union or something like that, the Shangai five has a very insisting attitude on Turkey's partnership and this is being talked in Turkey at the various levels of the society.

Again, I'd like to keep the debate civilized. In order to do that, I'll respond to those who are sincere in their questions and not to those with slogan like inputs to start a flame war. Please have an idea about the Sevres Treaty and 2005-2006 progress reports of Turkey in detail to be able to understand/confront what I'm saying.

[Amateur]

Today, special conditions the EU has set up for Turkey's membership is pretty much in coordinance with the teraty of Sevres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres) To be able to see and compare this, one should have a very good idea about the Turkish Nations history between 1915 - 1923 and hundrets of pages of Turkey's progress reports of 2005 and 2006. If I must give you an example of one of these special conditions, I can, i.e " The control of the waters of Euphrates and Tigris is to be given to an commission in the EU", which happens to be centered in Athens, Greece. There are may contitions like this that reminds the Turks of Sevres Treaty, which the Ottomans had to comply with. Even though Turks welcomes the universial values such as human rights and so, the conditions similar to in the case of natural waters and threat to its national sovrenty/security, are totally unacceptable by the Turks. Please have an idea about the Sevres Treaty and 2005-2006 progress reports of Turkey in detail to be able to understand/confront what I'm saying.

Following what you said, I had a look at the 2005 and 2006 progress reports by the EU Commission on Turkey (those are the links:http://abmankara.org.tr/guncel/2005ilerlemerapEN.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key-documents/2006/Nov/tr_sec_1390_eu.pdf )
I must say I didn't read them all, but I did a word search; I found no mention of the words Euphrates and Tigris, and all references to "water" had nothing to do with those rivers. I am also unaware of any EU commission on the control of their waters, especially not in Athens.
Furthermore there is no such reference in the Copenhagen criteria, as already said many times here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria
The main areas where Turkey has inadequately complied to the EU criteria are Cyprus, religious freedom, women's rights, trade union rights, minority rights, reform of the Penal Code (article 301 on "insulting turkishness") and human rights viloations against the Kurds. That's according to a synopsis of the 2006 report that you can find here
http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/transatlantic_topics/eu_enlargement/Turkey_2006_Progress_Report.pdf
So I don't think there is any support for your view that the EU is demanding concessions from Turkey on those rivers' waters (or any other provision of the Sevres treaty) as part of the negotiations. But as I said, I didn't do a thorough search; you are free to prove otherwise.

[Ergnkon]

Following what you said, I had a look at the 2005 and 2006 progress reports by the EU Commission on Turkey (those are the links:http://abmankara.org.tr/guncel/2005ilerlemerapEN.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key-documents/2006/Nov/tr_sec_1390_eu.pdf )
I must say I didn't read them all, but I did a word search; I found no mention of the words Euphrates and Tigris, and all references to "water" had nothing to do with those rivers. I am also unaware of any EU commission on the control of their waters, especially not in Athens.
Furthermore there is no such reference in the Copenhagen criteria, as already said many times here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria
The main areas where Turkey has inadequately complied to the EU criteria are Cyprus, religious freedom, women's rights, trade union rights, minority rights, reform of the Penal Code (article 301 on "insulting turkishness") and human rights viloations against the Kurds. That's according to a synopsis of the 2006 report that you can find here
http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/transatlantic_topics/eu_enlargement/Turkey_2006_Progress_Report.pdf
So I don't think there is any support for your view that the EU is demanding concessions from Turkey on those rivers' waters (or any other provision of the Sevres treaty) as part of the negotiations. But as I said, I didn't do a thorough search; you are free to prove otherwise.

Oh..of course they're not a part of the Copenhagen criterias, as I said they're "special conditions" that's created only for Turkey...and they're there. You just have to have a Turkish eye to pick it up...not a Greek one ;)

Also, Turkey passed the Copenhagen Criterias in October 3rd 2005, they wouln't be able to start the accession talks otherwise ;) What's more interesting is; the artcle 301 existed back then too and it was approved. That's why Turks hesitating to do anything about it because it was approved before.

The EU understand the Kurds rights as giving an autonomy to them and as long as it's taken like that, their so caled "rights" will be violated.

Merry Christmas :)

[Switek]

So, is Turkey going or not going to EU...? I'm confused...:roll:

[Ergnkon]

So, is Turkey going or not going to EU...? I'm confused...:roll:

Thank God.....NOT going to be a member in the EU ! :)

[Amateur]

Merry Christmas :)
Thank you, and all the best to you too.

Oh..of course they're not a part of the Copenhagen criterias, as I said they're "special conditions" that's created only for Turkey...and they're there. You just have to have a Turkish eye to pick it up...not a Greek one ;)
I don't think you 're being fair here. You said that in the many pages of Progress Reports for Turkey by the Commission you could find demands that are similar with the Sevres treaty; and as an example you said that the EU requires of Turkey control over the waters of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, by a commission based in Athens. Since you gave no references, I checked the reports myself in the following links and, as I said, there's nothing there. (the links again:
http://abmankara.org.tr/guncel/2005ilerlemerapEN.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/...ec_1390_eu.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key-documents/2006/Nov/tr_sec_1390_eu.pdf) )
I also told you in advance you are free to prove otherwise, but all I get is this innuendo about "greek eyes". Fine... just tell us where your "turkish eyes" picked it up...p-)

[chris450]

No one discusses them, because nobody is denying them.

very well said

[4X4Driver]

Hm..digging up two years old threads I see :)

Well...luckly a lost has been changed since than in Turkey and the ones against this membership (incl. me) has proven to be correct. :)


Turkish Support for Joining EU Plunges, Poll Shows (Update2)

Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Turkish support for joining the European Union is plunging and barely a quarter of the population expects the nation to become a member, a survey showed.
Only 40 percent of Turks think EU membership would be a ``good thing,'' down from 54 percent last year and 73 percent in 2004, according to a poll released today by the German Marshall Fund (http://www.gmfus.org/) of the United States and the Italian foundation Compagnia di San Paolo (http://www.compagnia.torino.it/)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=az3mrvNAaUFY&refer=europe

...and it keeps going down :)

[Revolveri]

Well, I'm not surprised. The EU is weak on the world scene simply because the members can't unanimously agree on anything. As long as the Lissabon treaty is dead the EU can't work with so many members.

I've nothing particular against Turkey joining the EU but at the moment the Union is a behemoth collapsing under its own weight which means if not losing its weight at least building the muscle and bones to support it.

[Mackie]

...and it keeps going down :)

Good to see. woot

[Buffalo_soldier]

The EU lacks direction.

It doesn't know what it wants to be.

[Mackie]

The EU lacks direction.

It doesn't know what it wants to be.

We know but it lacks not more direction than UN or NATO.
The achievement of the EU is still impressive.