As EU is on decline now the time has passed for Turkey to join EU benefically. If it would happen 15 or 20 years earlier it would be wise but now it sure is not. EU would just suck the blood of Turkey. Sorry we can not let that happen. Russia - China - Iran block is getting powerful and more powerful day by day. Turkey should get closer to that block. Indeed it was always better for Turkey to get closer to Russia but past political strategies failed to do so. And now it is even more obvious where Turkey should reside. Also unfortunately we buy a huge amount of natural gas from Russia and Iran. A conflict with them will be disastrous for Turkey.

But it is a difficult task to achieve as Turkey's politics are indeed controlled from overseas. First Turkey should get its political independence someway. I dont know how but it is a must. It is not even allowed a clever man to rule Turkey. Erdogan is so stupid that even he is beginning to harm USA who got him there.

Just some more thoughts:

1. The 3000+ illegal immigrants who arrived in Italy last week during one day show how desirable living in the EU seems ... to people from outside. People from inside probably just have different problems and therefore different views. Nationalists were lately quite strong in France, UK and some other countries (not Germany, Italy or Spain though) and the funny thing is that they are all quite united (de facto international) in their national goals. I find that so ironic and I'm really curious how it will play out.

2. There are 4 possible solutions for the EU:
a) scattering into small nations (again)
This means going back to the roots with all good and evil attached. For example less free movement and working and less weight in the world, maybe even european hostilities. Nevertheless french and british voters seem to favor it.

b) a loose trade association
Should give some advantages in trade but that's it.

c) a tight integration confederation
That's probably the ideal that the EU founders had it mind. A democratic, functioning, balanced approach consisting of small scale and big scale elements. No reason why Turkey should not be part of such a confederation.

d) a united central state
Like China or US or Russia or India. A central hand to keep them all together.

Now history will tell where people fared better. In many small scattered nations, in confederations of small to medium sized nations or in big central states? The big question of our time.

You're right, although there are still different levels of corruption and different levels of dire straits. There is obviously not much the EU can do to punish members of it when they do not live up to the ideal, like Hungary or others. In that case you would either wish that the EU was stronger or non-existent so you could force them or ignore them. Actually this would call for a mechanism to exclude ill-behaving members.

The EU itself might also have to make compromises in order to remain at a big enough size. So if the price for keeping Ireland in is that Irish women have to travel somewhere else for an abortion which they probably also would have to do if Ireland wouldn't be part...

What would you do? Exclude Hungary from the EU and ignore them for the next 20 years or call for a strong central hand to clean out the hungarian political elitist scum (no offense meant)?

I would imagine this will change sooner rather than later, the voters preventing change are an older generation who's withered loins preclude them from actually having a "dog in this fight", but they are still allowed to vote and are doing so from beliefs hammered into them by what was in their days and all pervasive religious idealism that even banned jazz music ffs.

Sorry for interrupting :)

So what do you feel e.g. Germany favors? If it is c) or d), why then does Germany seem so unwilling to let "EU" control and regulate German banks? Why did Germany earlier break the EU deficit targets without ramifications?

Germany favors EU integration as long as they are in the controls. All EU countries have their own national agenda in EU, including Germany.

I cannot say what Germany favors, only what I favor and I am for c. I have also nothing against EU wide bank regulation. And with hindsight I can say that Germany breaking the EU deficit targets was not the worst thing economically.

Possible reasons why the EU wide bank regulation was refused early on were fear of being liable to losses of banks from other regions. Maybe they also feared that other controls are not that effective or are favoring different kind of securities than are common here. But in the end now that there is a regulated and accepted way of letting banks getting bankrupt (first the shareholders and investors, then the national protection, then the EU protection, then the customers) I think there is much less resistance. It was more a question how to do it right.

As for the breaking of the deficit targets: compared to what happened to other countries it was pretty mild. On the other hand it was good keynesian politics to spend a bit more when private economy is suffering. Together with stringent reforms as early as possible this is a top quality recipe for recovery.

My idea is that the stability criterion should include more parameters. If you are strong overall you should be allowed to run a higher deficit than someone who is weak because the weak guys have to save more in order to become stronger later. Maybe it's too difficult to put it in words now. But looking at the data now doesn't say much about the future. Spains government had a big surplus in 2004-2007 and still they took an extremely strong hit. Something was wrong with them, but what? It looked good but underneath it was very bad and getting worse. We have to find out more about the real criteria of stability. Probably trade surplus/deficit and private debt have to added. Including private sector wealth/debt there never was a real deficit here but there was a big one in Spain and Ireland.

But apart from that of course rules should be valid for everyone. So yes, we started it but they all followed us and did even worse.

Remembering how I got my US drivers' license just driving around a huge block, I am not quite so sure! ;-p

I do not wonder, actually, about EU, the way we behaved - Finland from mid 1990's onwards only, mind you, lol. But also Islamist theocracy seems like a deep violation to what Turkey was, is, and should be.

What is the preferred cum realistic alternative for Turkey in your view? I do not think this can be isolation, really?

Actually, my OP started off rather naïve, I realise it now - based on certain shared ideals, cultural riches etc.

The issue with EU is not "swallowing" Turkey whole at all, I think - but Germany especially, and FR, GB, IT by extension. fearing that there might be a political heavy-weight to compromise with. (Thx Trilarion)

Then again, Turkey cannot swallow Eu either.

On the flip side... what do you think is there?