 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:23
|
|
if you're going to let turkey in, then change the name of the european union to the eurasian union, and allow membership for say, china, india, pakistan, israel, iraq, jordan, syria, kyrgyzstan...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed
if you're going to let turkey in, then change the name of the european union to the eurasian union, and allow membership for say, china, india, pakistan, israel, iraq, jordan, syria, kyrgyzstan... |
I am sorry but that's dumbest logic ever.
"Hey, because the United states of america is called "of america", they should let every nation in america join, and if they don't they're racist!"

|
|
|  |
 |
|
kronic
|
|
Germany
Mar 2002 time: 06:23
|
|
Agreed though I don't think Turkey is ready for the EU either.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003 time: 12:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed
umm, it has nothing to do with race, az. it's pure geography. 
if you're going to invite countries not in europe into the european union, it ceases to become a european union. therefore, either keep turkey out of the european union, or change the name of the european union to something else. |
Q, in terms of what's the difference between Turkey on the one hand and Morocco, China, Japan, Pakistan and whonot on the other; as I said previously here Turkey is part and parcel of European diplomatic and political history for centuries, oftentimes at the centre of it. Turkey is a part of virtually all European institutions, and on top of that its qualification for membership is set around 40 years ago. As such, it never created a question mark as it would with, say, Morocco. On these accounts, a puritanically geographical approach is irrelevant and thus Turkey's membership would not require a renaming of the whole union.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970 time: 21:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ancyrean
Q, in terms of what's the difference between Turkey on the one hand and Morocco, China, Japan, Pakistan and whonot on the other; as I said previously here Turkey is part and parcel of European diplomatic and political history for centuries, oftentimes at the centre of it. Turkey is a part of virtually all European institutions, and on top of that its qualification for membership is set around 40 years ago. As such, it never created a question mark as it would with, say, Morocco. On these accounts, a puritanically geographical approach is irrelevant and thus Turkey's membership would not require a renaming of the whole union. |

Europeans could gain way more from the benefits of letting Turkey in than Turks will benefit from being in the European Union.
The Turks can do alot of real effective diplomacy, not only to the Arab and Muslim world, but also, at least in the economic world, with Russia and other former Soviet nations.
These kinds of special, credible relationships are currently not available to Eurocoms. Having Turkey on your side is a huge bridge to many non Western places. Iran is one example.
Plus access to Turkish women what the hell is wrong with you guys already??? 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003 time: 12:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by VetLegion
There's plenty of time before Turks understand that EU are just pulling her leg . It will go like this:
- eventually full negotiations will begin
- turkey will fulfill all the criteria
- 1st. failed referendum in EU countries
- 2nd. failed referendum in EU countries
- 3rd. failed referendum in EU countries
(time passes)
- 4th referendum passes in all EU countries except Greece
- Greece vetoes Turkey's membership and promisess to do so for all eternity, except in case Turks accept to convert to Orthodox Christianity
At this point (and this is some 50 years in the future), Turks go: wait, WTF!? WTF!???????, build a couple of nuclear devices and have another go at Vienna...
|
In fact, Greece is one of the staunchest supporters of Turkish membership these days. That support actually is the hallmark of the thaw of tensions between the two countries and decades old questions like sea and air borders in the Aegean are being quietly negotiated for a successful agreement 
On a side note, Turkey will sign the European Constitution along with Bulgaria and Romania (not sure about Croatia).
On referenda, I'd think nobody will put Turkey's membership to public vote as it was not done for any other member's entry, unless of course Europe decides to make a showcase of double standards
quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa
I don't think it's important if Turkey is ready for the EU, because I think the EU is not ready for Turkey |
quote: Originally posted by kronic
Agreed though I don't think Turkey is ready for the EU either. |
I think right now the EU is more not ready for Turkey than Turkey is for the EU. In early october the EU Commission will issue a report on Turkish readiness to start negotiations, and Turkey's readiness is expected to be certified in that report. The commissioner guy in charge of overseeing the report was in Turkey last week and he was so strongly and undiplomatically saying that Turkey crossed the critical threshold and there's no question anymore about not starting the negotiations but rather the issue is on the tone of the report. The commission will also issue an unprecedented 'impact report' about Turkey's membership.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|