 |
|
klinastrom
|
|
I think Turkey will get a special relationship with the EU but not full membership. In the off chance the latter happens Turks will never be allowed to have free passage in any EU country untill each country decides so in its own terms. Since Greece lifted its veto against Turkey, to get Cyprus in, the rest of the EU had to, at last say what it thought about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kronic
|
|
Germany
Mar 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ancyrean
You mean, they should have. By all established European regulations, traditions, procedures and practice with regard to new memberships, Turkey earned the right to start negotiations with the EU. Even the EU Commission accepted that much. |
I'm not against starting the negotiations, but I don't see how Turkey fits into the EU at all. They are economically weak (even compared to most of the new EU members), corrupt and have interests in a region where I don't want to see EU engagements. Also their judicial system is far away from meeting EU standards.
I also don't see the EU as a project to bring prosperity to the whole world. Let's better have a smaller working EU than a large meaningless union
And whether people are uninformed are not, it's wrong to ignore the people's will, because it might end up in a rise of racism and all that crap.
We're currently having a huge debate in Germany how good our integration concepts were. And the experts come to the conclusion that we didn't even manage to successfully integrate those people and their children that came to Germany in the 60's. They're outsiders, mainly live in modern ghettos and have a lot of disadvantages. They seem to lack the will for integration in the same time.
All parties, left or right, liberal or conservative share the opinion that we have to change our concepts, because we utterly failed. In a recent poll, 80 % of the Germans thought that foreigners should have more will to integrate.
I'm sure that the populations of most other European countries share the same fear and the same sentiments (again: whether that's right or wrong, they just DO have these feelings).
It's better to articulate that it might have been a mistake to promise the Turks something that nobody took seriously.
And where does Turkey stand today? There's surely still a long distance to EU standards, so I see no problem in rejecting them. They can have a partnership, but to develop a true democracy is their business, not that of the EU. I'm not willing to take the responsibility for the development of the Turkish democracy.
So I say stop playing with the Turks, confront them with the European reality.
Last edited by kronic on 02-12-2004 at 01:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
kronic, could you present your argument about why Turkey shouldn't become a member of EU as a bulleted list of reasons?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
I say because most of that is/was/usually is an emotional argument which can't be discussed properly.
If you try to structure it a bit you see it is not very easy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Carinthia is a stinking biotope of the most reactionary, most German-nationalist elements in Austria. It's where they all go. Compared to other Austrian regions, Carinthia felt most German and had most Nazi members (and activists). One of the worst was Odilo Globotschnigg, figure the tragic irony and stupidity of the name.
|
The ironic part is that I believe Carinthia is the craddle of Slovenians that unfortunatelly got germanised...
quote:
I was not pleased with Polish membership either, but not out of general xenophoby but because of that backwards medieval kind of Catholicism that rules the country.
|
Oh? And that's not a biased post?
WHat do You mean by "medieval kind of Catholicism"?
------------------------
I believe Poland could do a similar thing with Ukraine and other eastern states.
Georgia, Armenia, Byelorus (someday oneday), Russia (uh, hate to say it), all the Balcanes and perhaps Lebanon and eventually Israel should once be in European Union.
One thing I'm afraid is that Turkey will block Armenian membership.
I've been invited by a Turkish friend to a "Turkish evening". First, there was a speach by the ambassador of Turkey and ex-Polish ambassador in Turkey, and later something to eat, and even later a Turkish film, "Uzak".
Sometimes it was interesting, sometimes it was silly, like when the ambassador suggested that de Gaulle's definition (or rather description) of Europe: "from the Atlantic to Ural mountains" contains Turkey.
I wanted to ask a question, but one of the guys organising the sessions was quicker: would Turkey block Armenian entrance?
The ambassador tried not to reply first, saying that no, no, during entire Turkish membership in NATO Turkey never opposed new members. When He was reminded by the guy that the question is about Armenia precisely,
He said that when Armenia will fulfill the criteria, yes, Turkey will be in favour of Armenian membership, but only if they accept the boarder, and back off from Azerbeycan.
I wondered if I shouldn't ask what's the difference between Turkish engagement in Cyprus and Armenian in Azerbeycan, but quitted.
(the Turkish evening was pretty nice, in general. I quite liked the film)
However, the problem remains:
I'm pretty sure Turkey will block Armenian membership.
And the question of Armenian boarder (Syria does not recognise the boarder in Hatay region too, at least on some maps) is a problem of both neighbours and perhaps Turkey should solve it before entering EU.
As well as Cyprus case perhaps, though if the Cypriote Greeks could join without it, perhaps the Turks should be able to do it as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Or Cyprus for that matter, or Slovenia (has a disputed border with Croatia)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
No, you're right. Theoretically, all disputes have to be solved prior to entry. Obviously, exceptions are made as needed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
We'll certainly have a referendum in due time, and sadly, no, it won't be a close race 
There is a positive corelation between country's level of development and negative stance towards EU membership. This was shown in the referenda of the ten latest members: if I am not mistaken, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus, being most developed, had the least votes in favor of membership. Malta barely made it I think, 55% in favour or some similar fugure 
At the current pace of growth, Croatia will still be sufficiently backwards when referendum is held  , so I estimate about 75-80% votes for the YES option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
axi
|
 |
Athens Greece
Sep 1999
time: 07:18
|
|
quote:
Sea boundries with Turkey also I believe there is disagreement about the land border between the two but I could be wrong about that one. |
There is no dispute over the land border with Turkey. The border is pretty well defined by a wide river
On the Aegean there have been the following turkish claims.
- Exploitation of the Aegean continental shelf (seabed up to 200m depth) which is not defined by any treaty and is the only issue open for discussion, according to Greece.
- Greece's territorial waters which remain at a 6 mile distance from land (as well as Turkey's in the Aegean), with Greece wanting to exand to the interantional standard of 12 miles but Turkey has declared that Greece doing so would be a Casus Belli, because turkish access to the Aegean would be severly restricted. Note that in other parts of it's coast, Turkey has 12 mile territorial waters.
- Greek airspace, which was set in 1930 to be at 10 miles from land, a limit which doesn't coincide with neither the 6 nor 12 mile territorial waters. Turkey claims this should be reduced to 6 miles, Greece wants to increase to 12, along with surface border.
- The limits between the two countries FIRs ,which Turkey claims they should not be at the limits of turkish airspace, but that they should be at the middle of the Aegean, overlooking the fact that in that case the turkish FIR would contain many greek islands.
- Turkey disputes that the Imia (Kardak) islets were included in the 1947 treaty that ceded the Dodecanese from Italy to Greece, and claims ownership. This claim came out of the blue in 1996.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wernazuma III
|
 |
Decolonize!
Aug 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
The ironic part is that I believe Carinthia is the craddle of Slovenians that unfortunatelly got germanised... |
 Don't portray it as if Carinthia had been ethnically cleansed. That's stupid and reveals your irrational hatred over everything German.
Yes, Carinthia was a predominantly Slovenian reign and an important national Slovenian Symbol (the seat of the Carinthian duke) stands there, but also, Bavarian migrants came to the north of it before the times of Charlemagne, overall in a generally peaceful migrational process, similar to that migrational proces where Slovenians migrated to the area replacing and mixing with the prior pseudo-romanized-Celtic population with rests of Langobards (shall we in Europe now count up the happenings of that time?).
Becoming a part of the Habsburg territory, the German element got stronger there, but not in an ideological effort of "germanizing" the land. Over a long process from 700 to 1900, the cultural bprder between "German" Carinthia and "Slovenian" Carinthia moved south (emphasis is on cultural, as basically the Carinthian population is neither Germanic nor Slavic but the same mix in both cultural/language-groups)
After WWI, the nationalist conflict exploded between Yugoslavians and Austrians. It should be said that the referendum deciding that the southern part of Carinthia would stay with Austria was only favorable because many Carinthian Slovenians opted for Austria. Still, the conflict persisted and the "German" Carinthians had to think of themselves being more German than Germans (as explained they were mostly of Slovenian or part-Slovenian origin themselves)
Ethnic cleansing did happen during the Nazi regime, replacing Slovenian peasants with Southern Tyrolians, but time was fortunately too short to carry out wider plans, so the demographic impact was not leading to the disappearing of the Slovenian minority. The "germanisation" you insinuate happened for all Carinthia while it happened only in the southernmost part and only in the Nazi period, a time that will always overshadow Austrian history.
Hm, I wonder why I agree in most to all parts with the opinion of a Carinthian-Slovenian historian at my University who (financed by organizations of the Slovenian minority) studies the history of his people, but you narrow the issue down to the "unfortunate germanization" of a Slavic nation.
quote:
Oh? And that's not a biased post?
WHat do You mean by "medieval kind of Catholicism"? |
This part was meant to be biased, Catholicism is medieval in itself to me and when a nation seems to follow those values in a catholic nationalism, I consider it backwards. Like banning abortion alltogether or censorship of artists for blasphemy. I also think it's a shame that pedophile, antisemitic priests in Gdansk (Jankowski) can still have a huge following. I hope you get rid of the swine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gangerolf
|
 |
huuhh
May 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VetLegion
We'll certainly have a referendum in due time, and sadly, no, it won't be a close race
There is a positive corelation between country's level of development and negative stance towards EU membership. This was shown in the referenda of the ten latest members: if I am not mistaken, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus, being most developed, had the least votes in favor of membership. Malta barely made it I think, 55% in favour or some similar fugure
At the current pace of growth, Croatia will still be sufficiently backwards when referendum is held , so I estimate about 75-80% votes for the YES option. |
This must mean that Norway has been in slight decline since the referendum in 1994. The latest poll shows 46% yes, 45% no and 9% utterly confused.
But I think your correlation theory makes sense.
Bad economy->distrust in national government->belief that joining a foreign supranational organization run by the Franco-German elite will magically improve everything over night ->EU here we come.
In the case of Malta, I think its links with Libya played a role as well. And of course the fact that almost the entire opposition (ie the Labour party) was agaisnt EU-membership.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kronic
I'm not against starting the negotiations, but I don't see how Turkey fits into the EU at all. They are economically weak (even compared to most of the new EU members), corrupt and have interests in a region where I don't want to see EU engagements. Also their judicial system is far away from meeting EU standards.
I also don't see the EU as a project to bring prosperity to the whole world. Let's better have a smaller working EU than a large meaningless union
...
And where does Turkey stand today? There's surely still a long distance to EU standards, so I see no problem in rejecting them. They can have a partnership, but to develop a true democracy is their business, not that of the EU. I'm not willing to take the responsibility for the development of the Turkish democracy
|
When Spain, Portugal and Greece joined, how much better were they than Turkey now, in terms of economic strength, corruption, judicial system? They were fresh out of fascist dictatorships and IIRC the EU Commission even advised against their membership on precisely these grounds.
I remember reading somewhere that when the issue of Spanish membership was being discussed, many were astonished that a heavily agrarian and traditionally strongly religious society with little recent experience in democracy should be allowed in. Some even said "Europe ends at the Pyrenees"! Some things never change, it seems.
quote:
And whether people are uninformed are not, it's wrong to ignore the people's will, because it might end up in a rise of racism and all that crap. |
Good point, but I think it would be much better to inform the public, fight misperceptions and confront the threat of rise of racism that way.
Reading about what Europeans think of Turkey, through personal experience and hearing innumerable anecdotes from friends telling about how ignorant they are about Turkey ("but you still have sharia!" "are women allowed to work in your country?" "how can a country where you can marry 4 women be European?" "what do you mean you don't use the Arabic alphabet?" etc etc etc etc), I can't believe I come from the country they're talking about! (I forgot to mention my favourite line that I was asked a gazillion times: "Are you really Turkish?"  )
quote:
We're currently having a huge debate in Germany how good our integration concepts were. And the experts come to the conclusion that we didn't even manage to successfully integrate those people and their children that came to Germany in the 60's. They're outsiders, mainly live in modern ghettos and have a lot of disadvantages. They seem to lack the will for integration in the same time.
All parties, left or right, liberal or conservative share the opinion that we have to change our concepts, because we utterly failed. In a recent poll, 80 % of the Germans thought that foreigners should have more will to integrate. |
They should have more will to integrate? You guys still call them Guest Workers, I mean doesn't that say something about the way you regard them, let alone encourage them to integrate?
quote:
It's better to articulate that it might have been a mistake to promise the Turks something that nobody took seriously. |
That might be too much to admit for Europe today 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I've been invited by a Turkish friend to a "Turkish evening".
...
(the Turkish evening was pretty nice, in general. I quite liked the film) |
Also, the food in such gatherings are usually what makes me attend, it's such a treat when you're abroad
quote:
He said that when Armenia will fulfill the criteria, yes, Turkey will be in favour of Armenian membership, but only if they accept the boarder, and back off from Azerbeycan.
I wondered if I shouldn't ask what's the difference between Turkish engagement in Cyprus and Armenian in Azerbeycan, but quitted. |
The difference is that Turkey landed on Cyprus on the basis of the guarantee agreements that set up the Republic of Cyprus, after watching an organised effort to exile the Turks first from their constitutionally-assigned state positions, than phsically from their homes and villages, alongside with numerous attacks and killings that drew the infuriation of the whole world for 11 years. The island was taken over in 1974 by Greek Cypriot fascists who had a declared agenda to unite the island with Greece which is what triggered the guarantee clauses.
Whereas, in Armenia's case it was plain agression on a neighbour in the turmoil of the implosion of the USSR, pure and simple.
quote:
However, the problem remains:
I'm pretty sure Turkey will block Armenian membership.
And the question of Armenian boarder (Syria does not recognise the boarder in Hatay region too, at least on some maps) is a problem of both neighbours and perhaps Turkey should solve it before entering EU.
As well as Cyprus case perhaps, though if the Cypriote Greeks could join without it, perhaps the Turks should be able to do it as well. |
Firstly, Hatay border is not an international problem, it's Syria's unwillingness to come to peace with the fact of that province's union with Turkey some 70 years ago. Syrians themselves are careful not to rise it in any forum, let alone make it a foreign policy issue/priority.
Secondly, I don't think Turkey would veto Armenia's potential membership. It would on the contrary encourage it, as a fully democratic Armenia (unlike now) is to the benefit of everyone. It would be Armenia itself who'd have a hard time in withdrawing from Nagorno-Karabakh, in recognising both Turkey's and Azerbaijan's borders, and in saying goodbye to the Russians and their protection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm kind of split on Turkish membership. On one hand I want to see Turkey anchored to the west so it can become an example of successful modernization for the rest of the Muslim world. On the other hand much of Turkey is very backwards, corrupt, and grindingly poor. |
That's exactly why there would be a time period of adaptation during these so-called negotiations, during which the clear prospect of membership and reforms that EU would diligently oversee would create financial stability and attract foreign investment, fueling rapid growth. This in addition to EU funds that would be released for adaptation programs.
quote:
There continues to be a big problem with the Kurds though this is now on the back burner and no one knows when it wills flair again plus the Turkish legal system is exactly up to European standards. |
On the Kurdish issue, the Kurds are quite happy with the EU process, they got a lot that they wanted solely due to the EU process and Europe almost stopped its criticism about the Kurdish issue. So the EU process can
only make things better for them.
quote:
The other issue is that since Turkey is so poor and so populous we will see several million Turks moving west for jobs at the first possible opportunity. Can Europe successfully absorb so many people who are so different? So far it doesn't seem like they can even assimilate the immigrants they already have. |
There will certainly be a limitation of 7-9 years on Turkish free movement after the membership (which is itself at least 10 years away). By that time, I seriously doubt the picture will be the same as now in terms of the potential for a massive Turkish immigration.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003
time: 12:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by axi
- Greece's territorial waters which remain at a 6 mile distance from land (as well as Turkey's in the Aegean), with Greece wanting to exand to the interantional standard of 12 miles but Turkey has declared that Greece doing so would be a Casus Belli, because turkish access to the Aegean would be severly restricted. Note that in other parts of it's coast, Turkey has 12 mile territorial waters. |
AFAIK, the Law of the Sea allows for different circumstances for territorial waters, like archipelagos and such. Turkey asserts that the Aegean, with its thousands of islands all over it, fits into the category of special cases, since if Greece declared 12 miles it would totally block Turkey's access from Black Sea to the Mediterranean.
quote:
- Greek airspace, which was set in 1930 to be at 10 miles from land, a limit which doesn't coincide with neither the 6 nor 12 mile territorial waters. Turkey claims this should be reduced to 6 miles, Greece wants to increase to 12, along with surface border. |
Actually, Turkey does not recognise the 10 mile Greek airspace, that's why it feels free to send planes over what it considers as international airspace. When I was in Greece I was really amazed by the fact that no Greek newspaper ever mentioned the Turkish perspective about non-recognition, but instead made the whole thing look like they do it knowingly it's Greek airspace, hence shameless agression. They still have the right to stick with their national policy, but why wouldn't they tell about at least what the Turks say?
quote:
- The limits between the two countries FIRs ,which Turkey claims they should not be at the limits of turkish airspace, but that they should be at the middle of the Aegean, overlooking the fact that in that case the turkish FIR would contain many greek islands. |
Flight Information Region (FIR) is an arrangement to govern civilian air traffic. FIR lines around the world denote lines of responsibility for air controllers to guide and direct civillian aircraft. But only Greece treats FIR lines as lines denoting sovereignty and asks Turkish military planes to give their flight path information for their flights over the Aegean. When this is refused, then it's "The Turks flew over our airspace and violated our FIR, endangering civil traffic".
This nuance is also somehow consistently and conveniently ignored even the most respected Greek newspapers.
quote:
- Turkey disputes that the Imia (Kardak) islets were included in the 1947 treaty that ceded the Dodecanese from Italy to Greece, and claims ownership. This claim came out of the blue in 1996. |
It goes more than that. Turkey claims that the arrangements and Treaties that govern the territorial division of the Aegean omit/does not cover small islets (many smalller than a football field, including Kardak/Imia) and as such those are gray areas in terms of anybody's sovereignty.
Whatever our disagreements, things are not as bad as before. I guess there have been very elaborate diplomatic talks on these issues, and it's said that it has covered quite some distance. I really look forward to the day when these stupid issues are no more issues!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2004 12:23
|