I wish to start off this thread because I am incensed to read that it would be "laughable" for Turkey to be considered for "Europe."

I am proud to say Finland at high political level has always supported Turkey to part of Europe- and I personally feel Turkey would be a great asset for Europe and upon Herself.

Which cities can claim a more meaningful upon history upon us than Jerusalem, Athens, Istanbul..? And maybe Tangier and London, for Modesty Blaise. ;-)

Why would you have or not have Turkey in the European Union?

No need to have Turkey in the EU as most of them are already here.

Well, it makes sense to me, but I have no horse in this race. Byzantines (aka Eastern Roman Empire, iirc), Ottomans, or whatever, the region seems fairly 'European' to me throughout history. At least their politics had a pretty great impact on Europe as a whole historically. However, with most issues in politics, it possibly has more to do with economics (real or perceived) than actual merit?

Regardless, as an ignorant Yank, I am curious about the entire European vote situation over there. Was the issue of Turkey becoming part of the EU on the ballot in some way? Also, what is the deal with the Eurosceptics and such; is it just over the economy or is there more of an anti-EU trend forming? All I know is what I have seen on BBC World, which, likely, has a fair amount of spin attached.

And why as an Australian might you state so? Because you are jealous of the European belonging to a greater whole, or..? ... maybe you dislike Turkey?

Mind you - Willie Garvin went walk about to find a worthy opal for the Princess, and I saw Dame Edna on her final day of the farewell tour.

Superficial affections, maybe - but what deeper shall you have for or against Turkey, as such?

It's wordplay. In English, if you call someone a turkey, it's similar to calling them a fool. So, no need to add another turkey to the EU, he says - they've already got enough.

EDIT: unless I'm wrong and it's a statement regarding immigration, but I have no idea about that. I'm sticking with my first guess, though.

Ah, well, a more superficial question is, really: why should California and New Mexico, and maybe Arizona, be part of the US as opposed to ... Mexico.

Pray tell me, ignorant Yank, or alternatively how your ignorance might be improved! :-p

As to Turkey joining the EU, I think this has one part of not being intimidated by religious difference, and second part of wishing to come together by heritage.

Heck, we settled that a while ago. Manifest Destiny was the bee's knees, dontcha know?! Ack! We don't have all day! ;) That makes sense. I have some friends in Denmark, and they haven't been too wild about some recent immigrants to their country. I think that is what DAlancole was driving at with that 'most of them are already here' comment. I am reasonably certain this sort of opinion is what is behind UKIP success in the UK and the National Front success in France, for instance. They are both fairly isolationist parties with roots in some fairly anti-immigration stances (correct me if I am wrong).

Historically Turkey (or at least the Ottoman Empire) was considered a European power, and the foreign politics of the major European powers always considered it part of Europe. Geographically Turkey has both a European and Asian part, much like there's a "European" and "Asian" part of Russia, I think a lot of the angst against Turkish EU membership is racially motivated.

I prefer to assume DAlancole is a little more earnest and fair in laying out the arguments than that - but in case a cheap dig is needed, why should anyone feel bothered?

Go for it, my clever fella or gal, and enjoy it.

Queen Victoria meanwhile has afforded a magnificent diamond studded "Most noble order of" (ie Christian) type of decoration to the Ottoman ruler of her time - and it is displayed as of today in Topkapi Palace.

We might assume such a courtesy ...still today. It existed earlier, so why not now?

In Europe, we do, actually have more than a day selectively, Northern hemisphere and all that.

And your Danish friends, I somehow recognize them from the newspaper reports - but should they like to be seen so too, as such? I have rather a high opinion of the Danish, as a nice nation, but should they wish to isolate themselves - just be earnest about it, and ally with others.

Denmark, where shall you go? Shall you hate even your Scandinavian brethren shall they seem less well off than you, possibly?

And mind you, this was the nation that was so admirable about spiriting away a persecuted part of their countrymen during WWII... Should this not been have so, maybe, for the sake of maximum yield..?

I think there has been a general negative impact to those wishes due to:

- Latest political changes in Turkey, ie. it seems to be going towards islamistic direction (Turkey has or at least used to have strong secular tradition), rather than more liberal and more democratic "European" direction.

- Many people have felt that certain countries lately have been given an entry to EU zone too easily, and these thoughts affect also Turkey. EU and euro has a dilemma already now because different countries are in such different situations. For instance, is Euro currency too strong, or too weak? Depends if you are talking about an EU country which depends a lot on export outside of EU zone, or one which is in high debt.

To my understanding Eurosceptics mostly oppose the idea of EU laws going over national laws more and more. They'd rather keep EU as a free trade zone, not something where laws are laid upon you somewhere else by the bigger EU countries.

It starts from small things, e.g. many regulations coming from EU are suitable mostly for southern and middle Europe, not necessarily e.g. to north Europe. For instance, there was some pretty recent EU regulation concerning the stud-less winter tires which is maybe more useful to southern parts of Europe with wet winters, but unsuitable to e.g. colder Finnish winters.

It just gives the impression that the big EU countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc.) tend to forget there's life outside their turf as well. Maybe things like these should not be regulated EU wide?

The Union is (in the best case) a community of people with similar interests and respect towards each other. We should therefore make membership dependent on principles.

However my personal opinion is that I would very much like to have half of Turkey in the EU. The half that demonstrated in Taksim Park last year. But of course you cannot do such things only in half. So I would better wait a bit more until whole Turkey has progressed a bit more. But from my side the door is open.

can you give more info about that?


im for turkey being part of EU. as long as they can sot their own shit first.

There are more dimensions involved. Here many people would probably not object to not only a free trade zone, but also a united defense system and a united foreign policy (could have helped with Crimea maybe), or a common climate policy (see CO2 emission trading) and a free exchange of labour or free travel is seen as positive. Even the common currency has its advantages.

For free trade you need some extent of regulation and harmonization of rules, otherwise trade is inefficient. But overregulation is surely a rather negative point. And possible gridlock with so many countries probably too.

But the biggest problem with the EU here currently is the fear that it might also be social transfer system included. That's what we don't want. Solidarity currently should be limited to within the nations. While this is the case in the official papers, people fear that implicitly a liability is already included because the EU is too tightly integrated. That's what the EU sceptics argument here.