Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'd have to go with letting Turkey in on this one. It would certainly increase the EU's potential as a major player. Besides, I thought Cyprus was part of the EU, so why not Turkey?

Cyprus is partial greek, and these greeks made it beiing a viable EU member.

dogma wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
Military power?
They need help with a lot of things and just having enough young men to throw into conflicts may seem a
important point of "power" but we have seen that numbers don't win actually.

Numerical superiority will be critical in the future of level fields.

1hadhq wrote:
And none of those who are for it will pay,especially all your supporters of them becoming part of the EU will not.

No, they won't.

Oh, those superiorty won those middle east powers their wars.....wait....it didn't.

May one of the turkey into EU supporters explain how they come to assume that others should pay the price for their ideas?

The turks are already in an military alliance with europe and also tied to the EU.
Offering them more than the EU can manage doesn't benefit the turks nor the EU.

Yeah mate Turkey do not recognise Cyrpus, which IS in the Union, this is one of the many stumbling blocks to them being admitted in the first place. Their human rights record is kinda sucky too...

I do have to say that one good argument (by Dogma) i can see for allowing them in is to make them more Westernized and as a result less isolated from the EU, which may make them feel cozier with the Iranians or some such.

Needless to say, its a difficult one, i can see the sense in us trying to drag them into the light and away from more radical Islam, but at the end of the day, i just dont want 75 million turks with freedom of abode in any nation in Europe, we have some issues with the Poles for example, especially in Ireland and the UK, and they integrate far better than the Muslim types, there are two at my work and they mix and chat with us, sometimes go for a drink and such. The Muslims dont seem interested in speaking to us at all.

When i was in Germany i would always see gangs of Turkish guys hollering lewd things at groups of girls, and i said to the young lass i was seeing at the time "What are they shouting at you for?" and she said "they always try to screw German girls but we never EVER talk to them!"

Is that what you call a "melting pot"? Never speaking or even attempting to mix with the natives?

Im going to claim ayslum in the USA if we get a few million Turks moving in!

Things go both ways.

The Germans do have a slight history of racism which you may be familiar with (they are not alone in that.) Their method of nationality is based on blood descent not cultural assimilation, meaning that Turkish guest workers in Germany were never allowed to settle properly and integrate. Why then would they?

Cultural behaviours are not genetically determined, which means they can be changed by exposure to different influences.

We already see that Turkey is one of the most secular of traditionally Islamic states. If Europe wants to defuse the timebomb of extremist Islam, a good way to do it is to integrate an Islamic nation into the largely secular western European tradition. Turkey is the obvious target, already being secular of government, joined physically to Europe and desiring to get in.

What stands in their way is a dodgy human rights record (but let's look at East Germany and the Balkan states too) and certain legal milestones such as opening their ports to Cypriot shipping.

The carrot is a better tool than the stick when trying to get people to behave the way we want them to.

mattyrm wrote:

I do have to say that one good argument (by Dogma) i can see for allowing them in is to make them more Westernized and as a result less isolated from the EU, which may make them feel cozier with the Iranians or some such.

Is that what you call a "melting pot"? Never speaking or even attempting to mix with the natives?

We do have about 2.000.000 turks here and they don't tend to be more westernized than those living in turkey.
A few maybe, but still most of those who leave their country are the lower class of their community and end up as conservative
and backwards oriented.Become overreligous and "traditions" ( not legal in turkey ) were followed that arent compatible with
national or EU law. Combine the strong feeling of personal honor and tendacies to seperate themselves from anyone else
with unemployment and lack of interest and all you get is a future conflict right inside EU territory grown with EU and national funds.

Could quote the MP of turkey in his speech in cologne. ( in general he called his fellow turks to stay turks and don't mix and adopt).

So until turkey had several centuries of evolution to a modern country and accepts its neighbours, there will be no way to have
them joining EU without overstretching the abilities of the actual members to support.
And turkey needs help.
A sort of Help, the Iran cannot offer and will not, looking at the past of the turkey.

I do see an argument of turkey getting closer to russia or china, two powers with interest in that region, but the whole idea of an islamic bloc is pure nonsense.
Still asking to get enlightened why continental europe should pay for the strategic interest of america ?

Killkrazy wrote:The Germans do have a slight history of racism which you may be familiar with (they are not alone in that.) Their method of nationality is based on blood descent not cultural assimilation, meaning that Turkish guest workers in Germany were never allowed to settle properly and integrate. Why then would they?

So why do those italians , spanish and yogoslavians not suffer this fate as you put it?
Are they "better arians" and we evil germans integrated them because we like pasta and paella that much?
Or do those muslims of ex-yugoslavia a better job at integration cause they already actively try to speak and live with the natives?
There are craptons of chances to learn, and most of them for free.
But that needs the will and less nationalistic view than turks have.

Aye and i was in Germany when they played Turkey in the football, and all of the Turks were driving around honking their horns and being super aggressive about it.

I just get the feeling that they dont want to integrate.

As i said before if you are a loose "muslim" ie, your mam and dad are but you went to school with me and my friends, then sure you will integrate, but we get these strict muslims, and they have no desire to integrate. The Koran demands that they spread their stone age views, not live in harmony with us In Europe.

Plus, Turkey shares borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria. Freedom of movement within the EU has caused enough problems with regard to terrorism, without adding to our list of security risks.

1hadhq wrote:
Oh, those superiorty won those middle east powers their wars.....wait....it didn't.

I take it that you know nothing of Turkish political history vis a vis the military.

1hadhq wrote:
May one of the turkey into EU supporters explain how they come to assume that others should pay the price for their ideas?

The turks are already in an military alliance with europe and also tied to the EU.
Offering them more than the EU can manage doesn't benefit the turks nor the EU.

More than they can manage in what sense? Political? Turkey is unmanageable politically because many people living in the EU are stricken by prejudice, and a lack of foresight. Not unlike any other body of individuals. Indeed, the very manner in which you chose to phrase your question points to the fact that you've already found your own answer emotively, and are therefore intransigent.

Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number.

and i am pretty sure Richard Dawkins website is banned from being viewed in the whole country.

Turkey sounds like a fething wonderland.

I was once hassled for money after dancing with a woman in a Turkish nightclub. Apparently hookers work differently there.

I think Turkish integration into the EU has become a symbol East/West relations. I think it is a mistake to think on those terms.

Turkey is quite distinct from most of the Middle East, and it's numerous human rights issues are driven from factors quite different from most of the Middle East. Turkish membership should be considered in the same terms as Russian membership, as both are nations that aren't strictly part of Europe but have long histories of trade and interaction with Europe, both have issues with human rights, democracy and government corruption, and both have GDP/capita well below the EU average.

For the record, I think both Turkish and Russian membership is a bad idea.

mattyrm wrote:Aye and i was in Germany when they played Turkey in the football, and all of the Turks were driving around honking their horns and being super aggressive about it.

I just get the feeling that they dont want to integrate.

Nobody wants to integrate, nobody decides that they and their children will slowly take on the attitudes and beliefs of their adoptive country, but it still happens. It happens because people are a product of their surroundings, so when you move to another country it is inevitable your children will to a large extent assume the values of your adoptive state. Their children will take on even more, until suddenly the Italian migrants that moved to Australia in the 50s are complaining about how these immigrants from Indonesia aren't taking on Australian values.

The Koran demands that they spread their stone age views, not live in harmony with us In Europe.

Christianity requires adherents to spread the word, and yet...

I think you have this issue dead on Sebster. Turkish membership in the EU is not a good thing, nor does it really make sense. The Turks are a rather unique cultural group and are just not European culturally, politically, religiously and most certainly not economically. That isn't a bad thing, it is just reality. Turkey is not ready to join the EU, and frankly it shouldn't. The European Union is just that: European. Not to mention the Greeks and Turks are still on a very unstable level in terms of relations. Those two going to war over any issue while both being members of the EU would break up the union and force an international crisis. It may not be completely likely, but it is a definite possibility, and I see it as being just one of the many problems that lie in the way of Turkish membership in the EU.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I think you have this issue dead on Sebster. Turkish membership in the EU is not a good thing, nor does it really make sense. The Turks are a rather unique cultural group and are just not European culturally, politically, religiously and most certainly not economically. That isn't a bad thing, it is just reality. Turkey is not ready to join the EU, and frankly it shouldn't. The European Union is just that: European. Not to mention the Greeks and Turks are still on a very unstable level in terms of relations. Those two going to war over any issue while both being members of the EU would break up the union and force an international crisis. It may not be completely likely, but it is a definite possibility, and I see it as being just one of the many problems that lie in the way of Turkish membership in the EU.

The thing to me is that I don't really know what being culturally European means. I know its used to mean 'white' by a lot of white power groups, but I don't think that's what most people mean when they use it. I think people are referring genuinely to some kind of European set of values or something, but I think there isn't all that much consensus on exactly what it is within the EU. Do Poland, Bulgaria, Spain and the UK have the same idea of what being European means? And if their human rights record is alright and the EU stands to gain from their inclusion, should it even matter if they're sufficiently 'European'.

I don't see how the EU can decide who should and who shouldn't be members until those kinds of issues are settled.

Albatross wrote:It is somewhat telling that most of the people on here in favour of Turkey joining the EU, are not EU citizens themselves. I don't fancy a massive influx of Turks, like.

I've been to Stoke Newington.

Feels funny when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it.

All I have to say is, Turkey is only decent if its smoked properly, although I have heard turkey fried in peanut oil is quite succulent.

Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number

You're quite possibly right there. America will also quite possibly be a second tier power then. There's no certainty in the future. In the space of fifty years, we we went from Pax Britannica to WW1. In the next fifty years, we went from WW1 to The Cold War. As things stand, we're in the American era, but that too will quite possibly cease to be the case in fifty years time(if not probably?).

And I highly doubt that the EU's future rests entirely on the integration of a country as backward as Turkey. They're hardly major players on the International Field and probably won't be for a very long time, even if the country manages to survive.

I think we should probably stop absorbing nations and actually work on getting the system in order and actually working (rather than being a black hole of back room dealing and lost billions with seemingly no accountability).

Directly elect politicians and presidents etc, get them actually working towards a goal rather than passing horrible, useless laws, and work towards a proper united effort.

Either that, or go back to being just a trading block. At the moment they are mired somewhere in the middle and don't look like they will ever come out of it. I think Europe will be strong either just as a trading unit, or as a "United States of Europe", but not something ripping itself apart in the middle, admitting states without any clear system in place, and no real idea of what exactly it is they are trying to actually do.

Ketara wrote:

Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number

America will also quite possibly be a second tier power then.

Quite possibly a third tier power, considering its current lowly status in the power tier league championship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Kilkrazy wrote:The Germans do have a slight history of racism which you may be familiar with (they are not alone in that.) Their method of nationality is based on blood descent not cultural assimilation, meaning that Turkish guest workers in Germany were never allowed to settle properly and integrate. Why then would they?

That. Seems to me other EU members have gotten over a number of little things in Germany's history.

The carrot is a better tool than the stick when trying to get people to behave the way we want them to.

And that. Without the possibility of EU membership, why would Turkey look west for its role models? The time might not be right NOW, but things change. Why close that door?

dogma wrote:More than they can manage in what sense? Political? Turkey is unmanageable politically because many people living in the EU are stricken by prejudice, and a lack of foresight. Not unlike any other body of individuals. Indeed, the very manner in which you chose to phrase your question points to the fact that you've already found your own answer emotively, and are therefore intransigent.

Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number.

Yup. Turkey may not look exactly like western Europe, but it's not Iraq, Iran or Syria either. The fact that people in this thread have equated Turkey with some of those other Middle Eastern nations shows a certain blanket thinking regarding Muslims that's awfully shortsighted IMO.

I dont think the Turkish govt is anything like as bad as the Iranians mate, lots of Europeans go there on holiday for example, and i never heard of anyone going camping in Tehran! Well... unless they got dragged off a boat and forced to stay for a while.

dogma wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
Oh, those superiorty won those middle east powers their wars.....wait....it didn't.

I take it that you know nothing of Turkish political history vis a vis the military.

Feel free to imagine whatever you please.

dogma wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
May one of the turkey into EU supporters explain how they come to assume that others should pay the price for their ideas?

The turks are already in an military alliance with europe and also tied to the EU.
Offering them more than the EU can manage doesn't benefit the turks nor the EU.

More than they can manage in what sense? Political? Turkey is unmanageable politically because many people living in the EU are stricken by prejudice, and a lack of foresight. Not unlike any other body of individuals. Indeed, the very manner in which you chose to phrase your question points to the fact that you've already found your own answer emotively, and are therefore intransigent.

Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number.

So prejudice and lack of foresight of the europeans ?
Provide us with examples of your own foresight and prove youre free of prejudice and I may believe that.
Until then, youre just ignored the question.
Could be a hint on your view of EU as willing vassal that has to pay for the ideas of his "liege".

So if EU is a tier 2 power in dogma's future of power, why do you think there is any interest in tier 1 ?
We should not leave the US alone on the lower tiers, shouldn't we?
And were surprisingly happy with our future for the next 38k years....

gorgon wrote: Without the possibility of EU membership, why would Turkey look west for its role models? The time might not be right NOW, but things change. Why close that door?

The door isn't meant to be closed, but any type of partial membership with included time to evolve for turkey seems to be
not welcome to some who beat the drums for "full membership soon".
Actually the EU got enough to chew. Add turkey to soon and the ship will sink.

1hadhq wrote:

dogma wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
Oh, those superiorty won those middle east powers their wars.....wait....it didn't.

I take it that you know nothing of Turkish political history vis a vis the military.

Feel free to imagine whatever you please.

dogma wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
May one of the turkey into EU supporters explain how they come to assume that others should pay the price for their ideas?

The turks are already in an military alliance with europe and also tied to the EU.
Offering them more than the EU can manage doesn't benefit the turks nor the EU.

More than they can manage in what sense? Political? Turkey is unmanageable politically because many people living in the EU are stricken by prejudice, and a lack of foresight. Not unlike any other body of individuals. Indeed, the very manner in which you chose to phrase your question points to the fact that you've already found your own answer emotively, and are therefore intransigent.

Anyway, it matters little to me. The EU will be a second tier power in the next 50 years; with or without Turkey. Turkey simply gives you folks a reasonable future beyond that number.

So prejudice and lack of foresight of the europeans ?
Provide us with examples of your own foresight and prove youre free of prejudice and I may believe that.
Until then, youre just ignored the question.
Could be a hint on your view of EU as willing vassal that has to pay for the ideas of his "liege".

So if EU is a tier 2 power in dogma's future of power, why do you think there is any interest in tier 1 ?
We should not leave the US alone on the lower tiers, shouldn't we?
And were surprisingly happy with our future for the next 38k years....

gorgon wrote: Without the possibility of EU membership, why would Turkey look west for its role models? The time might not be right NOW, but things change. Why close that door?

The door isn't meant to be closed, but any type of partial membership with included time to evolve for turkey seems to be
not welcome to some who beat the drums for "full membership soon".
Actually the EU got enough to chew. Add turkey to soon and the ship will sink.

hey hey don't bring the US into this. Dogma's words are Dogma's alone.

I dunno why, but I was expecting this post to be about food.

No reason why European folks can't enjoy a little turkey from time to time...

The idea of the EU being anything beyond a trade bloc was confirmed as a joke by the recent EU presidency episode.

The idea of the EU being anything beyond a trade bloc was confirmed as a joke by the recent EU presidency episode.

People thought it was ever anything other than a whites only trade bloc?

Whites only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh no wait I get it, because that 60 or so percent of the EU consisting of latin and slavic people doesn't count, fair one.

nice fail

1hadhq wrote:
Feel free to imagine whatever you please.

Its not a matter of imagination so much as an observation of demonstrated ignorance.

1hadhq wrote:
So prejudice and lack of foresight of the europeans ?
Provide us with examples of your own foresight and prove youre free of prejudice and I may believe that.

I don't have the prove that I'm free from criticism in order to criticize.

1hadhq wrote:
Until then, youre just ignored the question.

I assumed it was a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious. People pay the price for each others ideas every day. Its a fundamental component of the human experience. After all, you certainly didn't invent Germany. In fact, it can be inverted and used to attack your position:

Why do you feel that others should be forced to pay the price of failing to admit Turkey to the EU?

1hadhq wrote:
Could be a hint on your view of EU as willing vassal that has to pay for the ideas of his "liege".

What are you on about? I'm explaining what I think that the EU should do in order to secure a prosperous future for itself. Its the end result of policy analysis, and the foundation of discussion. There is no implicit notion of power.

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the concepts of analysis and identification. I suggest you brush up on those ideas.

1hadhq wrote:
So if EU is a tier 2 power in dogma's future of power, why do you think there is any interest in tier 1 ?
We should not leave the US alone on the lower tiers, shouldn't we?
And were surprisingly happy with our future for the next 38k years....

So you're assuming that I'm approaching this from a nationalist perspective? That's a mistake.

dogma wrote:
What are you on about? I'm explaining what I think that the EU should do in order to secure a prosperous future for itself.

If only...we'd...welcomed the Turks...we'd have...avoided...this...nightmare

Bam! headshot

fades to black

In my imagination the first line is spoken by some dying old man in a post-apocalyptic MadMax(imilian) style film set in Germany 2080. Hopefully technology will provide a way of keeping Rutger Hauer alive for the role.

As I said earlier.

I highly doubt that the EU's future rests entirely on the integration of a country as backward as Turkey.

Ketara wrote:As I said earlier.

I highly doubt that the EU's future rests entirely on the integration of a country as backward as Turkey.

Oh I don't know...consider the inclusion of turkey...consider, over a period of 50 years, the established EU member states harvesting hundreds of thousands of unwanted Turkish foetuses for their stem cells...consider a European Union riding high on the wave of a genetic revolution, where every citizen (and Subject) has his own mandog butler and a starfish wife, whilst the Tier 1 countries (not China, I believe they're secular) squander their resources building giant Godmaphones in a doomed attempt to converse with the Divine, eventually resulting in the drawdown of the Border Legions (lack of funds) and the sacking of Camp David by hordes of roaming Mexican/Canadian hybrid creatures, lips a foaming, intent on plunder.

Over the course of writing this post I've come to believe that the salvation of the EU very much depends upon our willingness to assimilate Turkey.

dogma wrote:
Its not a matter of imagination so much as an observation of demonstrated ignorance.

You don't need to demonstrate your ignorance.

dogma wrote:
I don't have the prove that I'm free from criticism in order to criticize.

You know the old saying with the first stone to be thrown...

dogma wrote:
I assumed it was a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious. People pay the price for each others ideas every day. Its a fundamental component of the human experience. After all, you certainly didn't invent Germany. In fact, it can be inverted and used to attack your position:

Why do you feel that others should be forced to pay the price of failing to admit Turkey to the EU?

I did not invent Germany? Wrong. I did. Obviously. And certainly.
Why should i not do so?

Back to your inverted question, since you seem unwilling to answer it as is.
Others should be forced to pay for whatever they order. Simple, you want it , YOU pay for it. Not someone else.
The price of failing to admit turkey to EU is 0.
Because Turkey isn't left outside. They are just not yet ready to join and if you read carefully I didn't say they should never be
a part of the EU ( as a trade bloc ). Still, some outsiders want the EU to adopt turkey for their own benefits, and this soon.
So why should those few already financing the EU also carry the burden of Turkey?
Just to have the same deep red finances like a well known nation has?
I don't see there any benefits in the next 100 years to come for the actual members of the EU if Turkey joins.
Instead, more aid is needed and the unsolved issues of Turkey with minorities and the neverending story of conflicts
in the middle east ( turkish borders, right there. ) would lead to one foreseeable outcome:
the EU had to play moderator ( which didn't work in ex-yugoslavia ) on several spots and I think the "unity" of the europeans
in any foreign or military policy is not a secret...
And the benefits?
Nobody is interested in enlarging the EU just to have longer borders to control or in the conflicts you get into when a countrys
law is influenced by different tradition and religion. Don't forget the long arm of the eurocrats. Youre nowhere safe.
Maybe the skilled turks are the big bonus if they join.. or we do keep this realistic and do not overestimate the abilities of them.
Their economics will help us....not. And they are already associated to the EU.
The military? Had a lot of support with extra cheap wargear....from us europeans.
They are great inventors and researchers....when did anyone notice something new there...seem they do not stand out.

So, the price of adding them to EU isn't lowered at all. The EU would need to invest in a size the EU funds doesn't contain.
But the price of not adding turkey to the EU?
Its really cheap.
No additional costs. Did Turkey ever tip the scales in europes favor in any field? IMO not, so its still a heavy price tag on
a EU membership vs a low price tag with a different type of association.
In both cases, the europeans would pay, but the step by step method does work whilst the hope for later changes does not.

dogma wrote:
What are you on about? I'm explaining what I think that the EU should do in order to secure a prosperous future for itself. Its the end result of policy analysis, and the foundation of discussion. There is no implicit notion of power.

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the concepts of analysis and identification. I suggest you brush up on those ideas.

Funny how you throw in your unfounded analysis and your nonexistant identification.
I must have missed your post where you explained your reasoning and your sources.
Its to be found on page ? of this thread if you please point me to?

dogma wrote:
So you're assuming that I'm approaching this from a nationalist perspective? That's a mistake.

No I am assuming your approaching this from a "we iz da best and you funny little people from the old continent should listen to us
or else... but we don't care anyway so maybe not" position which I find wierd.

whatwhat wrote:Whites only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh no wait I get it, because that 60 or so percent of the EU consisting of latin and slavic people doesn't count, fair one.

nice fail

Since when were slavic people



And spaniards



Not white?

Or did europe somehow crash into South America when I wasn't looking?