I'm not against a Turkish memberhip in general, negotiations will take many many years anyway. That should be enough time to solve the biggest problems. But what the EU badly needs is a reform of it's decision making processes, more transparency, more democracy and less bureaucracy. This should have happened even BEFORE the last enlargement to 25. There are still many countries knocking at the EU's door, but there should not even be talks about further enlargement steps before we get our things clear with the existing members.

Of course the peace thing is one of the major legitimations and benefits of the EU. But I strongly disagree that this should be only remotely the sole reason and purpose of the EU.

No it did not exist in any comparable way before. The Bologna process started a process hardly imaginable without the EU. Its not only about a handfull of funny but insignificant student exchanges like all countries in the world know them. Its about systematical harmonisation of the academic education framework. All those study-agendas in the member states universities allready have been or will be within the next years remodelled in a way to reacht that goal. The introduction of the ECTS-Points system allready now has made it possible to change within a study the university and continue it without much of a loss of time and effort in another member state. So the specific strenghts of education remain untouched, but the systems become comparable. Moreover studies in other member states have been fostered by the Erasmus programme that has allready brought over a million students to another country. From the dimensions its quite above any international cooperation would ever be IMO.


So would have been that possible outside the EU? Perhaps. Would it have been probable? I dont think so. It would take far more resources to achieve the same bilaterally between 25 countries, and the results would be worse.

Thats only one example that affects me personally, but there are dozens out there. Nearly all of them could be theoratically handled with international or bilateral means. Really. But if we look at this honestly, then we all know how those international/bilateral attempts would look like in reallity. They would all look in terms of success and effeciency like the current EU foreign policy!

My wish is another one. I want the EU foreign policy to look in terms of efficiency and success like the Erasmus program.

There are many fields were a Europe-wide legislation is of immenant importance. Eg environmental (minimal-)regulations are one of them. Pollution does not know any borders. Also the Europe-wide flood management that should come in the next years really makes sense. Energy security is an issue the EU yet sucks but will become more and more important. The member states must not be tricked out one against another. A united stance will ease many things in that field. A foreign policy that is yet int he stars would be necessary if the European countries want to make any foreign policy at all. I mean a single member state cant do anything, united it would at least make sense again. Not to start about infrastructural plans, aviation controll, space program, cooperation on the field of justice and police, European norms and regulations on industrial applications etc protection of the fishery grounds etc etc etc.

Of course there are many things that can be handled in a better way on lower levels, but there are many essential points that only can be tackled on a European level sufficiently.

What you say, that all those things could be also achieved without the EU, well, I mean why do we need a federal state either? Everything could be handled by the states also, coulndt it?

Do understand better just think about Germany before 1850. I mean the German states could achieve everything Germans would have needed through cooperation. Why the need of a Bund? Or another one, why buying a washing-mashine if you could wash your cloth also by hand?

I can somewhat agree to that.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Slarti,


I've been reading up on Romania lately. It seems that Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey all have roughly the same GDP per capita. Serbia has a per capita of 1/3 of Turkey's. So why should Romania and Bulgaria get in before Turkey? Why should Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina get in before Turkey?


Actually, I am sympathetic to the unity problems with the EU. I think Slovenia is a good country to take in (as their per capita GDP is 3 times higher than Turkey and I think they have a "European attitude.") I think it would be wise for you guys to really slow down brining in new countries in general, but when you bring in Bulgaria and Romania, and then if you think about bringing in the Balkans, then apparently the number of countries and tens of millions of people you add is apparently not the issue of what is keeping Turkey out.


WEB

That's a good point and I agree with it. The quick opening to the "eastern" european countries has something to do with the fall of the iron wall. I think there was a general guilty feeling having abandoned this countries half a century.

I don't care about per capita incomes, but I care about "behaviour". As it was stated before, joining the EU is not only advantages, it's a lot of "sacrifices" aswell. But people (governments) think only business. I don't see the point of Montenegro joining EU and at the same time requesting independence from its neighbors. I think those countries will have a very bad surprise in a few years when they'll realize that they denied a tremendous part of their independence when joining the EU. But that's not analyse, just personal feelings.

******************************************

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA !!

__________________

Perhaps I was not clear enough: I dont support the accession of Romania or Bulgaria to the Union, not now. As I dont support the accession of Turkey, now.

Having that said, I dont would set those country asame as you seem to be doing. GDP is not everything, its only one factor among others. Both Romania and Bulgaria are not in a quasi civil war status. They are also not denying the existance of a memberstate of the EU. There are many other things too, but the most important one is, that they both together only make up a total of 29 mio people. Thats not even half of Turkey's population.

And another major point, culture here, culture there, Romania and Bulgaria will have a much more common stance with the other EU members on much more things than Turkey because of its more different set of national interests has. Thats perhaps the most important thing directly next to the question of size.

But still, I am not happy at all, that Bulgaria and Romania join. This alone is in fact allready bad enough to halt the complete enlargment process temporarely at least. Even perhaps for Croatia although its not really of a size that would matter.

Slovenia is allready in, and its wealthier than some of the old members.

But again, Bulgarias and Romanias accession are allready a fact, there is nothing to do about it anymore. Concerning the rest of Balcan, the only canditate currently as far as I know is Croatia. The others are further away from becoming a candidate than before.

But the most significant point is. If you want to stop or halt enlargement, you have to beginn with that somewhere. Your line of argumentation properly applied would oblige us to admitt the whole rest of the world to the Union eventually.


The EU needs borders, and the sooner we will face this issue the better. Of course as long as you want to prevent the political collapse of it, if you think such collapse would be fun, than of course, the EU definitely needs no borders.

And the nice talk of the diversity in Europe is totally fine. I in fact support the diversities we have currently within the EU. We should especially care for the cultural specialities. I am against uniformation on this.
But some seem to think diversity can be infinitely enlarged within a union. Some think one can base a union on diversity. Its the diversities that enrich Europe so much because it has so many common things too. Both together make it so special. But if one pushes the diversities further and further the common things will get fewer and fewer. Thats fine for a purely economic trade union, but its impossible to base much of any poltical union at all on this.
And I am not speaking of vague idiologies here, thats realpolitik. Not some weird sort of Utopia that will never become reality.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Please don't underestimate it though. This 60-years period is quite unique in the history of Europe, quite unique. In your youthful, forwardlooking enthusiasm for new projects and further developments, it's easy to overlook just how strange it historically actually is to see e.g. Germany and France, Italy and Spain, .... cooperating after literally milennia of struggle, competition and war. The awareness of this achievement really should allways remain at the back of one's mind in any discussion on the EU.

Ah, I misunderstood. I understood an academic network as the cooperation of scholars in their fields and the exchange of information between them. Something that most probably is already a fact and achieved through the initiatives of the scientists and their administration themselves.

The system you were actually referring to sounds good. You mentioned the assurance that individuality and diversity are preserved, which is necessary. Harmonization : ok. But Uniformization : never.

Apart from foreign policy, which I'll address separately, there is IMO a flaw in the methodology of the EU concerning the issues you bring forward. I'll take the environmental issue. You seem to consider it would be a good thing if say the alarm levels for pollution would be uniform thoughout the EU. I think not. The specific character, not as much of the participating nations but more of the regions, don't allow that, at least not in a scientifically meaningful way. These levels, if the result of compromising, would be far to high for not yet contaminated places like Slovenia or Poland, allowing the pollution of these regions, but would be totally arresting for regions like the Ruhr or Belgium.
This might be 'efficient' and 'market-oriented' but that's all it is. It's not meaningful to have uniform laws throughout the EU in many topics.
The EU should accomodate an intermediairy level between bilateral and allcomprehensive regulation, i.e. multiple multilateral treaties that cover the whole area. For instance, the region Belgium/Holland/Ruhr/Luxembourg/North of France should address things like pollution together, but independent of e.g. Poland, where the situation is entirely different.
This should be made possible on all subjects actually.
So what I propose is : a political union, yes, with with much less focus on the nations and much more on the regions that have corresponding issues, and the possibility of diverging solutions for these groups.

Everything should be handled by those involved as suggested above. In most cases that would be a fluid groupement of regions.

That's for the Germans to make up their mind about. We can ask them after they took the cup
But you could ask me : how 'bout Belgium? Well, I don't care. If an issue gets blocked by Wallonia that could be resolved in cooperation with the Netherlands, then it should be done thus.
If say a combination of Dutch Limburg, Flemish Limburg, Walloon Liege and Namur and the involved départements of France have a sensible solution for the pollution of the Meuse (river) then that's the level it should be resolved at, regardless of what Greece or Denmark think. (Needless to say they have the same prerogatives ).
'One size fits all' will never work.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Lets quote the example of Swizterland. The Swiss as such only exist as long as you reside outside of Switzerland. As soon as you entere the country you see Berner, Züricher, Unterwalder etc, but not a single Swiss. That does not stop them from having an efficient foreign policy, economic policy etc.

Harmonisation and using the strength of all to reach common goals, does not have to mean uniformization. And the EU especially on the fields of languages does much to care for the treasury it got with its huge diverse heritage.

What shall I say? Lets try that: I disagree! ()

Nature gives a shit about human borders most of the time. Also regions hardly can claim to represent logical enclosed biotopes or stuff like that. What we have is Europe (although even that is far from being somewhat isolated from the rest). Within Europe there are many different natural regions and situations to find. Those natural regions dont have much in common with any poltical ones. Just think about the Alps, the Danube region, or most of the others. There is no logic reason for treating the alpine river on the one side of the Alps in another way than the one on the other side, even the more if both should end up in the same stream.

Thats one point, another one is that it simply does not matter where you are in Europe. Humans should not be exposed to endangering concentrations of any substance anywhere in Europe. No matter where now exactly.

Furthermore can European regulation take into account if there are legitimized differences between certain regions. You can take into considerations that alpine rivers are clearer than rivers that go through metropoles. You can take that all into considerations, but I dont see a reason why a river that has the same environmental factors could be significantly more polluted in one country than in another.

Also concerning a coherent policy in whole Europe its inherent to have a common environmental policy. Take the example of flood prevention where we are just at the start. There is no benifit in the situation of one country building dams everywhere and the next country earn as direct result double as severe floods than before. There has to be solidarity in Europe if certain countries are especially hard hitten through floods or other desasters...

And another example. The electronic waste directive, that was empowered only recently. A directive that has such a huge impact globally that China, Japan and others have allready made equivalent national laws themselves and allthough the US tried to not even ignore it till now will be impacted. Its said 80% of the complete electronic industry in the US will have to go along the new EU directive among them even those who do not even trade with Europe (due to cross relations ...). Europe could set a sign here, no member state alone would have had the power to force the whole global electronic industry to obey to such an rigid new environmental regulation. Together we could do it though.

WRT regions. All this above does not stop regions to have more courageous regulations. It also lets space for the regions to find specialised solutions that fit the best. But it does not allow wasting our environment just because a single region thinks, heavy industry could be a trade in exchange for our all environment. And as you have mentioned pollution so nicely. Pollution really more than even other things does not any borders. There are many pollutants one can meassure to substantial amounts here in Austria, that have their origin the Ruhrgebiet or in regions in Poland etc.

Ok, thats the stuff from the top of my head, I could do some research too (if you provoke it )

The common environmental policy is a great achievement as long as it is handled in a way that it secures the environment. Of course if it should be abused to force environmental damage down on the members it looses its legitimation.

PS:
There has been allready proven the benefit of it btw. The east enlargement caused the the largest environmental investment wave ever in Europe if not worldwide. Huge amounts of money have been invested there in all different kind of stuff that helps cleaning up the rivers, the air, the earth etc. And we can see allready now the results of it, there is a significant improvement, an improvement that even has impact on the old member states.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

If you say that Romania and Bulgaria have a more similar culture, I could buy that, as you guys are all Christian. I don't know what you mean by "different set of national interests."

I meant Croatia. Still gotta work on my southern/central European geography.

I have not yet presented a line of argumentation. I asked questions mainly.

lol It's funny the way you say that. I'm on your side, Slarti. Except for Japan which I wish to slip into the ocean, I'm on everyone's side, Slarti. I don't want to see the EU fail. Did my handle change to jviehe or something?

Well I think it's not unreasonable to keep Turkey out of the EU. I just would like to know why.

I think that Turkey's problems with its human rights record is a major problem. However, if people really mean to say that they are Muslim and the EU should be for geographic European countries only, then they should just say that.


WEB

Naturally Turkey has on many political fields diverging interests from the majority of the Union. Thats not only because it would be the poorest member but also because of simple facts like their location in a very unstable region, while the rest of Europe has quite a safe environment. Moreover there are significant differences in public opinion on certain points between continental Europeans and Turks. But the most important thing is, that I dont have got the impression that Turks are really aware what a membership would really mean. As far as I can see, there would not be a majority of Turks in favour of the enlargement if the really would know what obligations come with the benefits. And I predict that as soon as they are in, there enthusiasm will faster cease than you can say "Istanbul". Thats what I see, and its not good, its worrying me indeed.

Religion may play an important part in the opinion of many people here. But I dont really see it as much of a problem. Its just another factor of more diversity. If the EU becomes too diverse however it will poltically fail. You dont have to be a scientist to see that.

Having that said, I want to add that if a stable fundament is built, where the EU bases on and can serve with an efficient decission making process that is also enlargeable up to 500 Mio inhabitants and above 30 member countries, than I would be optimistic about an admission of Turkey as long as they show their will to be Europeans. If the fundaments are strong, it also can cope with more diversity. But as it is now, one can only say, you cant built a skyscraper into the swamp. You can compare the EU with the tower of Pisa. Its stands yet, but what should we do? Add another level (enlargment), or get the fundament straight first? (internal reform)


Yes Croatia will not make much problems economically. As long as they get rid of their ultra nationalists or succeed in fighting them back their wont be much problems at all with them, due to their relatively high wealth and small size.


Sorry then. A misconeption on my side.

In fact, it may be strategically not too intelligent to add your share towards the fall of the EU. That means sabotaging it through refusing to negotiate with the EU as a whole and foster bilateral talks etc.

Ther might come a time, when you would be happy to have a western allie left on your side. I mean all the quarrel can not hide the fact that Europe and the US still share much much more than they would with any other region on earth.


Yes, I forgott to mention the human rights record. After all you should not have the bad luck to be born as Kurd, or you should not be so stupid as to mention the "genocide on the Armenians". That could bring you faster to jail due to "unturkish behavior" than you can say "freedom of speech".

But those problems with human rights are something I am rather optimistic, yet. I think its not the largest of the problems as it seems possible that Turkey can tackle and resolve them.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

what valid points ?, i am just saying what i think


agreed on this, but i still do not believe that EU's motive is that innocent.


if what i have taught as the south and the east of Diyarbakir is the same as you were, then it does. As regards Turkish goverment, do i sound like their advocate ? This opinion i have expressed will be more and more popular among Turks in the coming years.

There is only one political party, the pro-Kurdish party, that advocates more rights for Kurds and gets only 1/4 of Kurdish votes, in other words 3/4 of Kurds dont seem to have any problem or demand for new rights. However i might agree that this is not an excuse ignore this 1/4 part and prevent them from having more rights, which i consider to be more symbolic than practical.

i dont agree on this, pkk gets it power from Kurdish nationalism and there is no way of getting rid of it till a permanent seperation. However it is true that Turkey's bigotted policies helped them to get stronger.

i am glad you liked it

i have read the link you gave, it is clearly biased and some of its claims are just demonstrable nonsense, likes these :

For example, until 1991, the use of the Kurdish language--although widespread--was illegal. To this day, any talk that hints of Kurdish nationalism is deemed separatism, and grounds for imprisonment.

well whoever wrote this article may add the fact that untill the military coup of early 1980s, there were publications in kurdish language. it was the 1982 constititon that brought some severe restrictions, not only for kurds but to every citizen of Turkey. This article clearly ommits to mention anything sympathic to Turkey, for instance 1 out of every 3 MPs in the Turkish assembly has Kurdish origin, today there are 7 members of the cabinet who are Kurdish, including the ministry of interior.



Adding to the grievances of Turkey's Kurds is the economic underdevelopment of the southeast. The Ankara government has systematically withheld resources from the Kurdish region.

this is a prima facie absurdity. GAP, the bigest investment project in the history of Turkish republic was being carried out in that region, while the region is 9 % of Turkey's population, it gets 18% from the budget.


i could go on but i am short of time.

And what i meant was not anything concerning the innosence of Turkey. Turkey does have human rights viloations and needs to solve it. However there are other countries who have serious viloations but are overlooked and allowed to join. As you might read in the first artice Turkey did have Kurdish presidents and prime ministers, however when Greece got the European membership a Turk was not even allowed to be a driver since Greek Laws forbade them to buy a car or a House or anything significant.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/gree....htm#TopOfPage


The government’s refusal to accept the minority’s Turkish identity has ranged from banning civic organizations bearing the adjective “Turkish” in their titles to prosecuting individuals who publicly identified the minority as “Turkish.”39 Greek courts have outlawed the use of the word "Turkish" to describe the Turkish minority. In November 1987, the Greek High Court affirmed a 1986 decision by the Court of Appeals of Thrace in which the Union of Turkish Teachers of Western Thrace and the Union of Turkish Youth of Komotini were dissolved. The court held that the word "Turkish" referred to citizens of Turkey and could not be used to describe citizens of Greece, and that the use of the word "Turkish" to describe Greek Muslims endangered public order.40 More recently, in August 1996, Mr. Rasim Hid, a teacher at a minority primary school, was transferred by the state-appointed secretary general of the region from the city of Xanthi to a mountain region of Rodopi for using the term “Turkish school” in a teachers’ meeting.41 In June 1997, twelve ethnic Turkish teachers were given a suspended sentence of eight months, pending appeal, because they signed a union document that included the term, “Turkish Teachers of Western Thrace.”42 They had been indicted under Articles 188 (“participating in an association the aims of which are contrary to criminal provisions”) and 192 (“inciting citizens to commit acts of violence upon each other”) of the Greek Penal Code.43

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/gree...htm#P225_36797

here is another one:

Recent reports indicate that last year; around 150 Roma (Gypsy) women were forcefully sterilized in Slovakia. (In most countries of East-Central Europe, the Roma are treated dismally, cast off to modern ghettos).

http://wwwc.house.gov/international_.../cag100103.htm


Ignoring this shamefull events, most of our european friends continue to claim or imply with superb arrogance that these events can not be seen in EU countries.

Even amnesty international named EU hypocrite.So tell me do you really believe that the motive behind refusing Turkey is her human rights record ?
When this is the case , what exactly do you call this situation ? smokescreen ? or Biologization of human rights that gives a monopoly to a certain group to decide who is victim and oppressor ?

I'd say the following cases in point show that Turkey can never be a member of the European Union:

1) Turkey isn't geographically considered a part of Europe.
2) Turkey isn't culturally a part of Europe
3) Turkey cannot become Western
4) Turkey is predominantly Muslim
5) Turkey is as far as ever from fulfilling any of the Copenhagen criteria
6) Military isn't under parliamentary control
7) Turkey treats its own minorities like shit
8) Turkey treats its own people like shit
9) Turkey has an institutionalized personality cult around Atatürk similiar to Kim Il-Song and Lenin
10) Turkey is at best a middel-income, medium modernized country with too low a score on most indexes (HDI, HPDI etc.).
11) Turkey isn't a democracy.
12) Turkish membership would include so many specific rules (CAP, Single Market) that membership would only be an empty shell
13) Populations of the EU are all against Turkish membership
14) The EU has a lot other important things to do right now.