Turkey: The growing power

Turkey is a fast-growing economy with a rising population and is therefore becoming more powerful, but from a low base. And although it has a strategically-important location on the Dardanelles, this position is less important now than the Cold War when Russia was regarded as a sea power hostile to the West. Overall it is not clear to me that Turkey can truly be called a ‘powerful’ country but it undoubtedly is an increasingly impressive place, with Istanbul certainly being in the top rank of European cities alongside London, Paris and Moscow (ahead of Madrid, Rome or Berlin) in my opinion.

The question is not if Turkey is a powerful country, but the extent to which it is a western country. Their position on Libya is a test of this. Either they support the protection of Libyan civilians from the murderous actions of its dictator, or they in-effect side with the dictator out of misplaced solidarity between Arab political elites of which the Turkish political elite feels some bond. Turkey has a to make a choice here, and its claim to still be purseing the Ataturk aspiriation to be a modern westernised secular state will be judged in the light of that decision.

The Turks are however correct to say that the French are overly gungo-ho now in launching military attacks against the regime in Tripoli that they until recently sought to be close to. There is a difference between protecting civilians and seeking regime-change and Turkey is right to criticise France for confusing that distinction.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I thought this was about Europe, not the Near East.

Turkey is changing very fast. 10 years ago it was a bankrupt country with no credibility in the Arab world or in the EU.

It is not like she hasn't got problems today:
Her economic growth is very much dependent on foreign investment and the banking sector. Neither of these factors is the best fuel for sustainable economic growth.
The education standards are still below the EU quality. This hardly help attaining sustainable economic growth.
The ruling political party does occasionally exploit religion to increase popularity. The opposition party is more of a fanatically religious faction; except that their God is Ataturk, their religion is called Laicity&Kemalism, and their Jihads are Military Coups. Against such an impotent opposition, the ruling party is bound to make costly mistakes due to overconfidence.

Much is being made out of Turkey's relationships with Iran and the Arab world. Yet, people seem to overlook the relationship with Russia. The trade volume and technology exchange are ever increasing. By 17th April, Turkey and Russia will remove travel visas. It seems to me that Russia and Turkey are gradually forming their own NEU (Non-European Union). That's fine. But you're dreaming if you think is this new union will not be Anti-EU. With Anti-EU Turkey and Anti-EU Russia, the EU cannot even dream of becoming a global power.

Turkey's 2010 Photo of the Year Award in the News category: a bleeding IDF soldier.

That`s the country that wants entry into the EU.
Fortunately, it never will get it.

@4 Mustafa Yorumcu

"That's fine. But you're dreaming if you think is this new union will not be Anti-EU. With Anti-EU Turkey and Anti-EU Russia, the EU cannot even dream of becoming a global power."

Considering the fact that German GDP alone is way higher than Russian and Turkish GDP combined, your statemend comes off quite odd.
Also, Russia would never choose Turkey over Germany or Poland as a trading partner.

Now let`s start being realistic and consider how insignificant Turkey is for the EU.
Except for one thing: Turkey is allowing asylum seekers to cross the Greek border, but refuses to take them back.

What a positive image this creates.

The historic contempt shall inhibit Turkey joining in the EU and to be perfectly honest I completely am against Turkey’s pursuit of EU membership which gradually became meaningless. Turkey has already discovered a world beyond the EU and based on which the economy of the country is flourishing. Emergence on the regional politics is though “liberation from the jewish influence” over Turkish foreign policy. Yes, we have jewish friends but, we shall no way let them hijack our foreign policy. In other words, Turkish foreign policy has been nationalized.

Hi

Can someone tell me where the idea of the EU as a Christian club comes from? Western Europe is secular. Turkey's muslim heritage is no more an issue for me than the muslim heritage that enriches Spain.

I see no social reason for excluding Turkey from the EU. What is the argument for not allowing then entry? Is the recent history of Turkey really more foreign to the people of the EU than the lives of East Germans were to West Germans prior to re-unification?

The only reasoned argument I have heard against Turkey's membership is that France wants to protect their slice of the EU farming subsidies. This isn't a strong argument unless you are French.

A word about learning languages. Myself and my partner both speak different languages to that spoken in the country where we now reside. We were advised to speak our own languages with our children rather than the local language because it has been shown that when people try and speak their non-mother tongue to their kids it can do grave harm to their language development. The best way for the Turks in Germany to learn good German is to learn Turkish from their parents and then German from the Germans

4. At 19:25pm on 30th Mar 2011, Mustafa Yorumcu wrote:

"...Much is being made out of Turkey's relationships with Iran and the Arab world. Yet, people seem to overlook the relationship with Russia..."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I think a secular union between Turkey and the other Turkic Asian states, along with Russia could be a very stabilising entity.

As you suggest that might well relegate the EU's standing as a world power but need that be such a bad thing?

Turkey isn't a EU member because it doesn't fulfil admission criteria, such as having free democracy and strong human rights for all of its citizen. As long as this isn't the case, Turkey can't protest against the EU on not admitting it to be its member.

One good example of things that has to be get ridden of is article 303 of Turkish law...

"a person who publicly insults the Turkish nation, the State of the Republic of Turkey, or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years" and also that "expressions of thought intended to criticise shall not constitute a crime."

This clearly isn't something that a free country would have, this is pure censorship. If Turkey is really serious about becoming a EU member, they should start by removing this law and do it fast.

Gavin forgets one very, very important fact.

Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) was the colonizing power of the Arab nations, for centuries. Much longer than the European powers, who lasted a mere generation or two.

The Arab world does not exactly trust the Turks. Their memory goes way back.

Gavin should do his homework a bit better. Not unusual, I'm afraid.

Ulkomaalainen (8) asked "I see no social reason for excluding Turkey from the EU. What is the argument for not allowing then entry?"

There is no rationale argument, certainly not on economic grounds. Rather it is the usual unholy alliance between euro-federalists and Franco-German interest. The two reasons from the point of view of these groups are:

1. The EU lacks almost all the common factors (E.g. shared language, history and culture) that contribute to the strong-sense of identity (national-identity) needed to legitimate decision-making by majority. Without that the EU can never be democratic and the euro-federalist dream will be still-born. The only contributing factor to a string-sense of identity which 'Europeans' have in common is a Christian religious heritage. Euro-federalists therefore do not want muslim member-states of the EU or there would be absolutely nothing that 'Europeans' have in common and which might lead to a European identity and 'demos'.

2. Under the Lisbon Treaty voting rules, France & Germany have 30% of the votes (which are based on population size). The blocking threshold is 35% which puts France & Germany always within easy reach of being able to jointly veto proposals from anyway else; a situation no other country or likely combination of countries enjoy. This is what allows France & Germany to dominate the EU agenda. Turkey has a population as large as Germany's and is growing very fast (whereas the population of Germany is declining). This means that if Turkey were to join the EU the Franco-German alliance would quickly lose it's power to dominate EU decision-making.

Turkey however already has the ideal relationship with the EU. It has free-trade with the EU/EEA in everything except agricultural products. And none of the democracy-destroying obligations of EU membership. Turkey would, as a relatively poor country, receive money from EU membership, but only at the cost of losing it's independence. Furthermore, it is currently free of the dead-hand of Brussels over-regulation, which is why it's economy is growing much faster than countries of a similar development level in eastern Europe. Therefore Turks have nothing to gain in the long-run from EU membership and would be well-advised to retain their existing arrangements with the EU/EEA & EFTA. Indeed the UK should aspire to achieve the same relationship (and economic performace) that Turkey currently has.

At 20:05pm on 30th Mar 2011, Ulkomaalainen wrote:

"The best way for the Turks in Germany to learn good German is to learn Turkish from their parents and then German from the Germans"

No. The best way is for the 'Turkish' derived children to learn German, the language of their future, is all day kindergarten from age three.

Your linguistic theory about bi-lingualism is really isn't true.

The "German" Turks are out of choice in Germany and should seek to integrate and give up their Turkish citizenship and should aim to break out of the cultural ghettos they have cocooned themselves into on the back of a generous welfare state.

Hi Blefscu #13

Your linguistic theory about bi-lingualism is really isn't true.

It's hardly my theory. Its the orthodox view espoused by the language teachers in the country where I reside. Their biggest problem is immigrant parents trying to teach their kids the local language. The result is that the kids don't speak any language well and require a large investment of remedial assistance to bring their language up to scratch. If you consult some primary level teachers with experience in teaching immigrants your views might change.

#14 Ulkomaalainen

I do not agree with that. When my parents moved from St. Petersburg to the United States they taught me and my sisters how to speak English. They also worked with us to make sure that we spoke our native language (Russian) well. Now I speak both Russian and English very well, and have also learned a few other languages.

So your point isn't really true. Since I've been through it and can speak my native language and English very well and all because my parents taught me.

"Our children must learn German but they must learn Turkish first."

My God is it me or is this man extremely arogant.

If you immagrate to another country you should learn that countries language first. I'm sick of people that immigrate to other countries legally or illegally who demand that things be translated for them in their native language. Ummm excuse me but you where the ones who decided to move to a different country.

I guess it's because I was brought up in a different time period. My parents told me that I would need to learn English "because you are in a new country, and you cannot expect things to be translated for you."

I bet that if someone say immigrated to Turkey they would have to learn Turkish because the governemnt isn't going to put up signs or such that translate things into their native language since they where the ones who decided to move to a new country.





TheCommunist

“In the era of awakenings, upheavals and revolutions: watch Turkey”

Just witnessed on Al Jazeera “People & Power” programme: a feature on Uzbekistan repression and plight of its exiled dissidents. Seems like Turkey is going to be very busy again soon if this former USSR’s Turkic republic erupt into civil disobedience.

I feel like there's a bit of a historical amnesia with regard to Turkey's role in the Middle East. I'm particularly interested about the idea of how Arab states hail Turkey as a "role model", when not even 100 years ago the Ottomans had been their masters and oppressors. Why do the Arabs turn to the Turks if Turkey has been no better to them than the European colonial powers (and in fact for a much longer period than the Europeans!)?? Please don't tell me that it's because the Turks are acting more "Muslim" than they used to....

Dear Gawin ı m absoulatly agree with you that 'It is all skilfully balanced; on the side of reform but keeping a hand in with the man in power.'...but there is something wrong with you...how you din't mention about kurdish people in turkey,the native people who can not speak their mother language in turkey,because it is forbiden...education with their mother tonuque is forbiden by Mr.Erdoğan...german land isnt turkısh land but still he wants to turkısh language and turkısh education there...but in their country they didn't give permision to people speak their own language in their on lands....why try to anylising turkey position,how you forget to say somethin about it....ı m strongly believe that not turk or arabs,kurdısh people who are under pressure will give shape to middle east democracy...because all arabs and turks have two-faced politics in every where...the human right isnt their bussiness...the pressure and denial are their bussiness...ı m also strongly agree with the friend who commended with name of'the communist'

Turkey's economy growing and EU candidate status helped this alot.
But EU, especially Germany & France clearly showed that Turkey should not depend on the EU membership.
1) EU started talking about privileged membership which is mere fantasy and never mentioned before. EU Turkey agreed on full membership & now EU is the one breaking promises,
2) @DurstigerMann 'Turkey is allowing asylum seekers to cross the Greek border, but refuses to take them back' you said. Turkey and EU signed agreement on this. Turkey to bear the costs for asylum seekers etc. but not in effect because Brussel doesn't agree on full terms. Turkey agrees to pay the costs for asylum seekers enters EU from its borders but asks EU to ease visa restriction on Turkish citizens. That's fair agreement EU does all other candidates but not to Turkey.
3) Libya crisis showed that EU is not and can not be effective in such crisis situations. France took the lead for military operations on EU part, leaving the question, what is EU then ?

Thanks to negligence of the EU big powers and clear ineffectiveness of the EU on such crisis, Turkish government decided to be more opportunistic approach as EU counterparts had been doing. Improved economic ties with Middle East which helped Turkey's growth while EU is main trading partner.
Of course, Turkey has now more than ever economic relations with all the countries around Middle east, has things to say to protect its own interests in the region. EU may like it or not. That doesn't much matter.

14. At 22:22pm on 30th Mar 2011, Ulkomaalainen wrote:

"Hi Blefscu #13

Your linguistic theory about bi-lingualism is really isn't true.

It's hardly my theory. Its the orthodox view espoused by the language teachers in the country where I reside. Their biggest problem is immigrant parents trying to teach their kids the local language. The result is that the kids don't speak any language well and require a large investment of remedial assistance to bring their language up to scratch. If you consult some primary level teachers with experience in teaching immigrants your views might change."
-----------------
You ignore the fact that most Turks (the 'immigrant parents' as you call them above) in Germany are second or third generation already. The fact that the first generations never bothered to learn the language properly and sort of integrate (so although they may be 2nd generation you'd still think they just moved there) is no reason for the same problem to be "propagated" just because nobody wants to step their foot down and say "this is Germany, you have to learn how to speak the language".



"18. At 01:31am on 31st Mar 2011, Thycidides1987 wrote:

I feel like there's a bit of a historical amnesia with regard to Turkey's role in the Middle East. I'm particularly interested about the idea of how Arab states hail Turkey as a "role model", when not even 100 years ago the Ottomans had been their masters and oppressors. Why do the Arabs turn to the Turks if Turkey has been no better to them than the European colonial powers (and in fact for a much longer period than the Europeans!)?? Please don't tell me that it's because the Turks are acting more "Muslim" than they used to...."
------
A very good point and one that Gavin seems to ignore, although Turkey's influence in the region is growing, it is still seen with mis-trust from most of its neighbours.



"Gavin Wrote:

When disputes need to be settled, it offers itself as the mediator."
-----
I do appreciate their initiative, especially with the likes of Iran and the trouble-makers of the region. I would suggest though that they put their house in order, starting with the settlement of their internal disputes as well as the disputes with some of their neighbours before meddling in other countries' internal and external affairs.

"20. At 02:14am on 31st Mar 2011, mehmet zengin wrote:
2) @DurstigerMann 'Turkey is allowing asylum seekers to cross the Greek border, but refuses to take them back' you said. Turkey and EU signed agreement on this. Turkey to bear the costs for asylum seekers etc. but not in effect because Brussel doesn't agree on full terms. Turkey agrees to pay the costs for asylum seekers enters EU from its borders but asks EU to ease visa restriction on Turkish citizens. That's fair agreement EU does all other candidates but not to Turkey."
------
Bearing the costs is not the only thing needed. The fact that in many cases, a free pass is given to immigrants to reach the EU, needs to be corrected. Regarding the visa situation, it is a sound demand and I am glad that Greece is also pushing for it.

I cannot see any reason why Turkey should still want to join the EU ; doing so would heap unecessary restrictions upon her , which she is better off without .
Turkey's improved relationship with middle eastern countries and her association with Russia are much more significant and beneficial . Russia is a huge country , developing fast , that is certainly going to be a major power in the world .

The EU is at a dead end , nearly broke , fading great ambitions , but no clear way forward .
Europe has been a region of principally Christian peoples . Even though largely politically secular today , people still think of themselves as Christians . The EU completely overides democracy , popular opinion ; also in areas of race and religion . I believe that there is a great fear of a huge muslim influx that would swamp Europe , Christianism and centuries of sophisticated European culture .

Multi Culturism does not work !!! When large numbers of people migrate to another country , bring with them their entire culture and customs and have difficulty learning the language , you are going to have unrest and resentments among the indigenous population .
Leaving aside the voting power of France and Germany , I believe France already has severe problems of a large Muslim population , which could be more the reason for their wish to keep Turkey out of the EU .

Ulkomaalainen

The problem for immigrants learning another language , must certainly be having no one to practice it with either at home or in their community . Often the lesser educated immigrate , which compounds their inability to learn .
I immigrated to Italy and speak fluent Italian . My Anglo/American daughter is married to a German and lives in Berlin , she speaks fluent German , She also teaches English at a bilingual infant school , her two children are fluent in both languages .
Language is a great barrier ; I now live in Rural Thailand ; where I have very limited knowledge of the language . I came originally with a Thai/English phrase book , but my wife and all the people here speak in a Thai/Lao dialect . I would have to travel an hour by car to Khon Kaen to go to a language school . Without language , listening , watching body language is very important . Most of all is the will to communicate with the indigenous population . This last is the major problem of mass immigration and multi culturism , the inability and unwillingness to communicate with the native people . I have encountered muslim women wearing the Burka in my local town in Italy . How are these people ever going to integrate ?

I have no racist views towards Turkey , Turkish people , customs and religious practices within Turkey . The EU is trying to create one nation made up of 27 sovereign states and more .
To express my own feeling ; I believe that Turkey's entry to the EU would be greatly resented on a European grass roots level and could be another
" Nail In The Coffin " of the overeaching ambitions of the EU Brussels .

BBC , Moderators !!!

When are you going to rectify the problem of posting . Every day I am having the same problem that I cannot post .
I have to copy , leave the blog , return and paste , each time with the fear that what I have written and paistakingly edited will be lost .

This didn't used to happen before . Please will you get your act together and put it right .

Hi The Communist #15

Your parents taught you English and it went well. But for comparrison did you have a sibling who they neglected to teach English to? I could equally well point to my kids and point out that following the approach recommended to me my kids abilities in the local language significantly exceed those of their monolingual contemporaries. (This is true according to their teachers.) Both the approach used by your parents and the approach that my partner and myself have followed work sometimes. The question is which works better most of the time? The teachers in my country of residence have statistics that back up the effiacy of their approach. Simply put they compared the language test scores of immigrants who spoke the local language at home with those who spoke their parents own language and saw that those who spoke their parent's language at home significantly out-performed the other group. That this result is counterintuitive does not negate its veracity.

Hi ptsa #21

I'm an immigrant in the country where I reside. I speak the local language sufficiently well to work in it, read it, write it etc. I will never speak the language like a native. My kids on the other hand... they speak the language better than their native contemporaries. They might speak the language to their kids. This is the pattern one must expect. The first generation immigrants will have limited language skills. The second generation will be comparable with the locals. The third generation might start to forget the language of their grandparents. In the fourth generation this process will accelerate... etc etc.

Blefuscu@ Germany should accept immigrants as Germans, it was not doing this just 3 years ago! Merkel has power, resources, if she really wants integration, she should put resources on "quality" education, invest in children in a fair nonbiased way, discrimination in Germany is nothing new. Jews were living in Getthos also, even though some of them perfectly integrated into the scoiety, what happened to them? Massacred

If Turkey does not matter that much, why so much attention paid to it? Any basic strategic political, geography class will teach you, it has more power than any country North of it. It is still developing. The only reason West is upset is Turks are speaking their minds and not following the imperialists, basically EU wants Any country near it to shut up and just follow. I am sorry but that kind of world is over. We live in a different world, the faster you get used to it, better it is. we don't live in colonialism anymore.
For Human rights and EU, Who was kissing Kaddafi 2 years ago? trying to sell 2nd rate weapons? trying to get free vacations from Tunisian Dictators? FRANCE, GERMANY, SARKOZY. Now he becomes a champion of democracy? give us a break, only reason he is doing this, he lost the influence in tunisia, egypt by getting caught supporting the dictators, he wants to get back influence and Oil and selling weapons to whoever takes power. Who is supporting Saudis? Bahrain? selling weapons to them, so they can repress their citizens..
Sarkozy and his supporters also doing this action in Libya to take over the public revolutions, and hijack it! Control it somehow and then install their own puppets again, Public will forget it soon enough they are thinking in Europe.
EU countries Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovania, Cyprus have human rights? some of them are MAFIA run countries. and they are in EU. Why?
Also if you really believe in human rights, why this support last 50 years to dictators in Middle east and North Africa, Africa? You cannot claim you support human rights or you have human rights while kissing dictators, supporting them, give logistics to them, conspire with them, and let them put stolen public money in Swiss, French, British etc banks.

#12 FBJ
Ah finally you are coming clean. The EU can "never" be democratic.

So, even if it had the best political structures in the world, because

"The EU lacks almost all the common factors (E.g. shared language, history and culture) that contribute to the strong-sense of identity (national-identity) needed to legitimate decision-making by majority"

it can never be a democracy.

Care to explain that to India? They must be deluding themselves.
The United Kingdom? (at least four cultures, and much more separate than common history, including centuries of war between the English and Scots).
Italy (never been united, except as part of the Roman Empire (which doesn't really count for this purpose) until 1860)?
The United States (two quite different cultures, and a third one (hispanic) through more recent immigration?, held together by ruthless violence originally, propaganda afterwards)
Germany? Belgium? Spain? the list is endless, once you start considering it.

Can you actually give one (one!) single example of a "nation-state" that complies with your completely arbitrary and illogical criteria of "shared history, language and culture"? And explain why democracy only exists in that country, and in all others it is a delusion?

You won't accept democracy at EU level, because you have a dogmatic opposition against the EU. It's not about democracy - you're just looking for a stick.

Easy to be "against" something, of course. Never heard you propose a viable or realistic alternative.

Manneken,

When you get angry, your Extreme dislike of the USA becomes scarily apparent...that is your strategy for promoting a United Europe?

Thanks for the information--about your strategy. Now future decisions can be made from a true honest perspective by all--inside And Outside of Europe..important decisions.

Thanks again for the info.

:)

Many former European posters have migrated over to the "American blog"--posters from Russia and other nations outside the EU....I like it here for this blog's civilizing influence ON ME.

I sure hope I don't leave here..as its's neat here to read the varied educated comments.

No offense meant, just pointing out that this is no backwater blog and prejudiced comments don't go unnoticed..Here.

:))

#28 Manneken

The EU is not a " Nation State " .

The nation states you refer to have been developing over centuries .

As a Euro enthusiast , perhaps you can explain to " Non Believers " how the EU is or will become Democratic .

Let us not forget what Benjamin Disraely said about 150 years ago: ''Turkey is the country of the future, and is likely to remain so''.

1. Turkey is not in Europe and should never join the EU (Unless, of course, Britain gets out - in which case I couldn't care less).

2. Cyprus is also not in Europe (being hundreds of miles east of Istanbul).

3. a Prediction: Within the next decade Turkey will either revert to a secular, quasi-democratic state as per Attaturk's vision, or, it will become a fully-fledged Islamic state at the start of a downward spiral. I know that my secular friends in Istanbul and elsewhere in Turkey are greatly concerned - and I wish them luck.

#32 ''Turkey is the country of the future,''

Turkey is the country of the past, too; it was named Lydia, Bythinia, Phrigia, Pontus, Cappadocia, and main important events (for Western people) happened in this lands (more than in Ireland, Scotland or Norway: no offense meant it's only an example).
So I agree with mr. Boris Johnson that Turkey have to join the Eu.

...then I like a lot turkish sweeties.

The matter of Turkey becoming an EU Member State isn't entirely about the opposition of Germany and France. Turkey has to meet certain criteria to become an EU member and has failed on numerous accounts. Turkish politics have always been turbulent with several coups staged by the military over the years. The current political ruling class while bringing greater stability than previous ruling classes have nonetheless brought their own brand of instability - the AKP party has come close to being dissolved and have chosen to take on controversial issues such as lifting a ban on women wearing the hijab in university and imposing a law to outlaw speaking about the Armenian genocide. It has also ratcheted up the war with the Kurdish militant group, the PKK. The European Commission’s progress reports have consistently shown problems in the Turkish reform process with judicial reform and rights of Turkey’s Kurdish population among the major problem areas.

In short, Turkey's judicial process, democratic model, and social policy and welfare (main issue being human rights or lack of) make it's ambition to become a member state virtually impossible without radical reform - it is a criminal offence to be openly gay in Turkey as one glaring example. Granted, most Members that have been granted accession to the EU have failed on various parts of the requirements, however were Turkey to integrate the EU would be tasked with reforming almost every aspect of the Turkish state from the judiciary to her democratic mechanisms.

On a point raised about Turkey's position/involvement in the Libyan crisis - it concerns me that ONLY Turkey is in dialogue with both sides of the conflict. How on earth can a peaceful resolution to the conflict be brought about if NATO will not engage Gadaffi in diplomacy? Even if Turkey only serves to put a question mark over some of the more aggressive stances of say France, then I think that is a benefit. I am much more comfortable with a NATO led initiative, then were France (or any other individual state) to assume leadership.

23 Haimek writes:
"The EU is at a dead end , nearly broke , fading great ambitions , but no clear way forward ."
-----------------------
According to Lists of countries by GDP, the EU comes out FIRST in the world ahead of the USA in both the International Monetary Fund and the CIA World Fact Book and SECOND in the CIA World Factbook behind the USA. FOUR EU countries are in the list of top ten economies in two lists and FIVE including Spain in the other.
What magnificent has-beens!

No matter how hard they try, it wont work.

I do believe we met 600-300 years ago on multiple occasions, though the main occasion that thrusted us into the position we are today ruling the planet for the lack of any better way to say it.

It didnt go to well for the Ottomans, we arent about to sleep with out enemy.

Gavin Hewitt's Europe?

I learned at school Turkey was not a European country (except, geographically, the tiny part aptly called European Turkey) and, as far as I know, it still isn't. Would anyone please explain to me why it is treated as such by the BBC?

Using the current crises as a way to underline Turkey's potential usefulness as a EU member is a clumsy, very much questionable attempt.

Brainwashing, process-forcing?

This constant attempt by European mainstream media to pave the way for people's acceptance of Turkey as a European entity is frankly rather embarrassing in its evident purpose.

Tre trick is simple: you 'teach' people what you want, taking your time, article after article, football game after football game (on European competitions, sporting Turkish and EU flags side by side), car registration plate after car registration plate (many turkish ones show the EU flag), quietly moving Turkey within Europe's invisible boundaries, maybe on atlases too...

When the time comes for the official endorsement, 90% of the work will already be done and you'll find little or no opposition.

The price?
Well, let me think... self-determination for EU people and turkish alike, freedom of choice; or the total upheaval of the reasons for a country to join a multi-state union.
I thought this should be based on geography, common values (more or less), shared history, cultural closeness, but it seems most people think it should only be based on geo-politics.

This has been going on for years, now. There's no point discussing anymore I'm afraid. The Risiko players have made their minds clear and are in no mood to question their resolve.

Go on, then. You'll find us there, on the breach.

Manneken (28): In case you have not noticed, the UK, USA, Germany, Italy are nations, each with a people united by a strong sense of national identity forged by the shared language, historical experience and culture they have in common with fellow nationals, but not with other nationalities.

You ask about India. It is a very good example of the ‘no-demos’ thesis in a non-EU context. When democracy was introduced in 1947 to British India (the territory covering modern-day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh) it was necessary to partition the territory into separate states, because, in the words of the Lord Moutbatten (last viceroy of the departing imperial power) “There can be no question of coercing any large areas in which one community has a majority to live against their will under a government in which another community has a majority. And the only alternative to coercion is partition”.

The one difference between the Indian sub-continent and the European continent is that religion is a much stronger component of national identity in the sub-continent. Therefore religious differences are the main shaper of community, and hence state borders, in the democratic part of the Asia. (The ongoing political violence in Kashmir shows that this is still the case in the sub-continent). Therefore the ‘no-demos’ thesis applies just as perfectly to explaining the borders of India as it does to European state borders, with democracy as we know it (majority voting) only being accepted within the context of the distinct national communities of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, each forged by the strong common bond that unites these distinct peoples themselves but not each other. This is the universal truth on which the euro-federalists project is sinking.

Euro-federalists completely ignore the people that political institutions are supposed to represent and turn their one-blind eye to institutional tinkering instead. They think that if they can only replicate the institutional form of a democratic nation-state at international level, then all the problems of the EU will be fixed. But International organizations can never be democratic themselves (i.e. take decisions by majority) because that leads to “coercing a large areas in which one community has a majority to live against their will under a government in which another community has a majority”. Therefore all international organizations (except the EU) that take serious decisions binding on their member states using decision-making by unanimity to avoid coercing any individual national community. Euro-federalists have however always pushed to replace decision-making by unanimity with mechanisms (like QMV and majority votes in the failed EU-Parliament) despite the lack of any European people that agree to live under a pan-European majority. That is why the crisis of democratic legitimacy only exists in the EU, has manifested itself only since 1992 (when Maastricht first began to weaken decision-making by unanimity in political salient policy areas) and has grown worse with every EU treaty since as federalists have pused further against the grain of human nature.

This is not just my opinion. It is an opinion that exactly describes the formation of state-borders all around the free world, why the EU crisis of legitimacy exists, and why it has grown worse since 1992. And it is the majority opinion within the UK , with an opinion poll published yesterday showing that a pluarity(45%) of Britons agree that “the EU is fundamentally undemocratic”

https://www.comres.co.uk/eureferendumpartypoll30mar11.aspx

You on the other hand have just a minority opinion that a federal Europe could be democratic; an opinion which ignores all historical experience of democracy worldwide, and which is completely incapable of explaining the EU’s worsening legitimacy problem. You can't explain anything, only proposing parrot-like to repeat what has made the problem worse in the past.

6. At 19:41pm on 30th Mar 2011, DurstigerMann wrote:
@4 Mustafa Yorumcu

"That's fine. But you're dreaming if you think is this new union will not be Anti-EU. With Anti-EU Turkey and Anti-EU Russia, the EU cannot even dream of becoming a global power."

Considering the fact that German GDP alone is way higher than Russian and Turkish GDP combined, your statemend comes off quite odd.
Also, Russia would never choose Turkey over Germany or Poland as a trading partner.

Now let`s start being realistic and consider how insignificant Turkey is for the EU.
Except for one thing: Turkey is allowing asylum seekers to cross the Greek border, but refuses to take them back.

What a positive image this creates.

------------

I was a bit wrong. I didn't mean Russia will do more trade with Turkey than with EU. They will trade with all, and they are idiots if they don't. The same can be said for Turkey. What I meant was that with anti-EU Turkey and anti-EU Russia, the EU will have no influence over Middle East and Central Asia. I am expecting more strategic alliance between Turkey and Russia over the Middle East and Central Asia. It is also a sticky situation that all pipes carrying natural gas to EU is crossing Russia and Turkey.

I am really not sure that Turkey is insignificant for the EU. Looking at it from a EU perspective, I would oppose EU membership before the next 10 years, but I would also be very worried about losing a friendly Turkey.

Now, about the asylum. If a young man is coming all the way from Afghanistan with one intention: to cross to the EU, this is not seeking asylum. This is not even economic migration. This is invasion. This is a problem that the bleeding heart EU liberals created. I don't understand why Turkey should take back an illegal alien that has just left her borders. Would that not be against his human rights? Does Greece do so? Say, if Italy wishes to send back asylum seekers back to Greece, does Greece take them back? I remember very well that France was doing much worse than this by actually encouraging illegal immigrants to cross to UK. Somehow, their positive image was not questioned then.

Hi

After reading all comments here, many said that EU has the best for Democracy, freedom, human rights and so on...

May i remind you all, Srebrenitsa in 1991-1995, who can talk about this? i am sure everyone will say sorry for Bosniak. Also, Western Thrace, Greece, there are officially Turkish (Greek says Muslim) minority, who can NOT identify them selfs, who can NOT talk their own language, who can NOT establish their own associations by their preferred names and so on...

Which EU we are talking about? Turkey has more democracy in many field more then EU and if Turkey is not joining the EU next 10 years, there wont be any EU. i said that because if you looked the Libyan conflict the mediator found the middle way of this conflict against France...

So start from beginning and let Turkey be mediator together with EU over Middle east.

Turkey has not and will never change. Just as they forcefully invaded Cyprus 40 years ago - and still occupy half the country - they will attempt to do the same in Europe through politics. Their policy has always been to expand and take over. That's why they're everywhere!
The country is unstable and that is why they cannot meet the requirements set by the European Union to join. It is remarkable that even after what was done to Cyprus, they were able to join the EU in 2004 and the Turkey has still not been able to do so...

Turkey has to satisfy a bunch of entry criteria and it is not there yet.

The EU would best understand what it is and restabilise its existing situation before it moves to admit Turkey. It has still not settled after the admission of the Eastern European countries and it has other members in severe financial positions. Nationalism is at its highest risk status since WW2 and cultural identity and immigration spark increasing problems. This is not a good time to admit Turkey.

Why we should even be considering allowing Turkey to join the EU is beyond comprehension. Already the influx of people from Eastern European members is stretching our resources to the limit. While most of these immigrants are hard working and seeking only a decent standard of living, we have also imported a great many undesirables and criminals , of which we already have a surplus. The flood of humanity we could expect from the middle east if Turkey is given access would just about sink our health, welfare and judicial systems.

I am struck by the naive desire of some Turks to join the EU as if it were some kind of exclusive club, which their non-membership of indicates them to be of some kind of lower-class. The EU should never be viewed as some kind of gentlemen’s club where the EU leaders sit around in a circle passing the peace-pipe and chanting kumbaya. It is a higher legal order whose body of law is superior to (and replaces) all conflicting law from national parliaments, which only expands in scope, and in doing so shrinks the remaining areas where your vote can change the law and policy towards vanishing point. That is what ‘ever closer union’ means.

Turks should not, through some serious misunderstanding of what the EU is, aspire to EU membership as if it is some kind of status symbol. The EU is an organisation that will hollow-out their democratic institutions and disenfranchise Turkish voters over time. Turkish politicians might aspire to that because of the politicians desire to ‘sit at the top table’ and impose his will on society (preferably through supranational law that his successors cannot easily change). But the Turkish people should never want that.

Turkey is already growing much faster than the EU and especially the poorly-performing eurozone and neighbour Greece. Turks can have a strong economy and democracy, but would see both crushed inside the EU.

@40 Mustafa Yorumcu

"I was a bit wrong. I didn't mean Russia will do more trade with Turkey than with EU. They will trade with all, and they are idiots if they don't. The same can be said for Turkey. What I meant was that with anti-EU Turkey and anti-EU Russia, the EU will have no influence over Middle East and Central Asia. I am expecting more strategic alliance between Turkey and Russia over the Middle East and Central Asia. It is also a sticky situation that all pipes carrying natural gas to EU is crossing Russia and Turkey. "

This makes a lot more sense.
Turkey could become a key-player in that region in the future, that much is for sure.

"I am really not sure that Turkey is insignificant for the EU. Looking at it from a EU perspective, I would oppose EU membership before the next 10 years, but I would also be very worried about losing a friendly Turkey."

On the contrary, Turkey is very significant for the EU.
Millions of Turkish people are living in Germany, Austria and other economically leading nations of Europe.
Their strong nationalist attitude (or "national identity") as well as their religious beliefs and unemployment rates are increasingly coming to the attention of
the autochtonous populations.


When Erdogan comes to Germany to speak in front of "his people", he makes it to the front pages of every big newspaper. Erdogan is openly demanding Germany to become less xenophobic, just to give but one example.
In the face of a big muslim community, European nations are wary of the re-islamisation in Turkey.
What could have been a special relationship between two countries (as most Turks live in Germany, but Austria basically has the exact same problem) has seen a strong increase in tension over the last decade.


Turkey is at the crossroads:
will moderate powers manage to preserve and further the secular ideals of Atatürk and pave the way for Turkey into modernity, or will Turkey revert back to Islam and become something more like an oppressive theocracy?

Turkey as a former colonial power in the middle east and a predominant economic power has the influence to shape the development of the middle east.
And this also has a significant impact on Europe.


"Now, about the asylum. If a young man is coming all the way from Afghanistan with one intention: to cross to the EU, this is not seeking asylum. This is not even economic migration. This is invasion. This is a problem that the bleeding heart EU liberals created. I don't understand why Turkey should take back an illegal alien that has just left her borders. Would that not be against his human rights? Does Greece do so? Say, if Italy wishes to send back asylum seekers back to Greece, does Greece take them back? I remember very well that France was doing much worse than this by actually encouraging illegal immigrants to cross to UK. Somehow, their positive image was not questioned then."

I was mostly talking about visa waiver agreements between Turkey and other nations in the middle east. People from those nations come to Turkey and then just go and cross the border without any resistance.


I absolutely agree with you that Europes massive immigration problem is self-made and not Turkey`s fault.
My point was that what Turkey is doing here is not exactly a good courtship for admittance into the EU.

As I said many times before: Turkic Confederation may be next (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc. All rich with oil/gas)

Wiith its hub in Ankara.

[and not only for oil/gas transit to Europe, but also for wherewithal and technology]

GH: "Now Turkey is committing five or six vessels to police the arms embargo"





What arms embargo???!

No one else but the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton is on the record claming that UN Resolution 1973 supersedes the arms embargo and allows for their delivery to Libyan rebels.

[including al-Qaeda 'freedom fighters' in their midst].


If so, I'm sure Russia's foreign minister Lavrov will then claim that then Russia has a perfect right to deliver weapons to the official government of Libya. :-)

The State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek summed it up: "Everybody has to see Turkey's power."





Of course: Flower Power.


['cicek' means 'flower' in Turkish. :-)]

Turkey joined the Council of Europe in 1949. It joined the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) in 1961, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1973. Turkey's first application, for associate membership in the European Economic Community, was made in 1959. The associate membership agreement made explicit reference to acknowledging the final goal of membership.

Turkey formally applied for membership in 1987, and was recognised as a formal candidate in 1999. It has been a NATO member since 1952, and sent a full brigade to the Korean War.

Basically, a country with a large, young, fairly well-educated population, and a growing economy is hard to ignore. When you consider its geographic location, and its importance re energy supplies, it is harder to ignore. President Lyndon B. Johnson's comment about "Better in the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in" comes to mind.

As for the paranoid idea that if they become an EU member state, 85 million Turks will all move to GB to "milk the benefits system", relax. It is hard to get most Turks to move more than 5km from their mothers. They are less and less likely to move as their economy improves and expands.

#27. olc

"EU countries Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovania, Cyprus...." bla bla human rights bla bla.

Firstly, there is no Slovania on any map. It is Slovenia. Try to find it. Compared to Turkey, and most Western countries, it is so full of human rights that people tend to walk in clockwise circles. The country is one big round-about. Astounding really.

Let us not simplify to the point if incredulity. All the EU countries you mentioned, despite being in the eastern part of Europe, are actually free places. They may criticize the government and not go to jail. They may write about how their countries treat minorities, and they will not go to jail or be blown up on the street. And there is also no "deep state" within the country, one simmering and planning the next military coup when the government begins paying more attention to the Koran and less to the ballot of the citizen.

Sorry, there really is no comparison. Ataturk achieved much, but he could not match the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment, all in one go. You just need more time. That's all.

, DurstigerMann wrote:
Turkey's 2010 Photo of the Year Award in the News category: a bleeding IDF soldier.

That`s the country that wants entry into the EU.
Fortunately, it never will get it.







Why any sane country would like to join failed EUSSR?

Particularly seeing which direction the economic wind is blowing?

[those EU countries which only 2 years ago were clamouring to enter eurozone, are now elated they haven't joined it]


BTW. Which German land is going to hold elections after Baden-Wuerttenberg?

"Russia would never choose Turkey over Germany or Poland as a trading partner."





Russia will choose Turkey, Iran, Japan, Syria, etc., over Poland anytime.

"The only reasoned argument I have heard against Turkey's membership is that France wants to protect their slice of the EU farming subsidies. This isn't a strong argument unless you are French."






Ulkomaalainen, Turkey not only offers superb quality fruit and veggies, but also cotton. Both in huge quantities.



No French president of any party will ever win an election/re-election without a support of the heavily subsidized (by EU taxpayers) inefficient French farmers.

That's the long and the short of it.

10. At 20:33pm on 30th mar 2011, Jukka Rohila wrote:
Turkey isn't a EU member because it doesn't fulfil admission criteria, such as having free democracy and strong human rights for all of its citizen.






Is that why as late as a year ago president Sarkozy was insisting on admitting such countries like Algieria, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia to new improved, expanded EU?

Inquiring minds want to know.

"The best way is for the 'Turkish' derived children to learn German, the language of their future, is all day kindergarten from age three."







German is definitely not the language of their or anybody else's future.


And that's why there are so many English language German schools and universities in Germany.

#50

macturk;

"As for the paranoid idea that if they become an EU member state, 85 million Turks will all move to GB to "milk the benefits system", relax."

Which post are you referring to , because I cant see one from a Brit that says anything like this.

"Who was kissing Kaddafi 2 years ago? trying to sell 2nd rate weapons?"






And who was kissing Saddam Hussein couple of years earlier and sold him not only weapons but also nuclear reactors?



Wasn't it a French leader (now merely a defendant) known among the French themselves as Jacques Iraq (aka as "Mr. 5%")?


[Not that a certain Italian premier was not kissing and hugging Muammar Qaddafi merely a year ago.]

AKANTART wrote:
Turkey has not and will never change. Just as they forcefully invaded Cyprus 40 years ago








After ENOSIS, which was an attempt to forcefully incorporate Cyprus into Greece...

[how soon thet forget if it suits them. :-)))]

"I absolutely agree with you that Europes massive immigration problem is self-made"





Certain unsavory Muammnar Kadafi/Qaddafi/Gaddafi was a formidable bulwark against a massive illegal immigration from sub-Saharan Africa to Western Europe.



"And what now, my love"? Gonna escape to Lampedusa, perhaps?

turkey can join the eu, when they give freedom to north cyprus and stop killing kurds. of course, this will never happen.......

I think most of the people here are misinformed about how people in turkey feel on joining the EU. They don't particularly care if their in or not, What they do care about is the Blatant discrimination coming from so called developed countries. Weather the french or german public like it or not, turkey is a part of europe and a part of european history.

54 powermeer writes:
"No French president of any party will ever win an election/re-election without a support of the heavily subsidized (by EU taxpayers) inefficient French farmers.
That's the long and the short of it."
------------------------------------------------
"France is the world's second largest exporter of farm and agri-foods products, with €46.6bn turnover in 2007, just behind the USA. The Middle East ranks as France's 10th world client for agribusiness product exports in 2008.

The two main markets in the region for French food & beverage exports are KSA and the UAE, who together represent 57% of this turnover. They have respectively imported for €182m and €148.5m worth over the first 10 months of 2008. Historically French exports to the Middle East were essentially made up of poultry and dairy products. Today however the offering has become much wider, with also significant exports of apples, biscuits and chocolates, mineral water and other beverages.

French food exports to the Middle East massively benefit from the excellent reputation and quality of French food products, as well as the increase of global consumption in the region where a taste for western-style products is growing and the restaurant and fine-dining sector is thriving.

There must be many countries worldwide who would love to be that inefficient!

56 powermeer writes:
"German is definitely not the language of their or anybody else's future.
And that's why there are so many English language German schools and universities in Germany."
----------------------------
"German is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union.
Native speakers 120 million
Non-native speakers 80 million"
Wikipedia
Remember to "Engage brain before putting mouth in gear."

Since euro zone is doing so well, this news should not upset any EUSSR aficionado:



"The Republic of Ireland's banks need an extra 24bn euros (£21.2bn) to survive the financial crisis." (BBC)

mh re excellent quality of French food products, etc.




I remember when there was a particularly bad year for some French red wines, a generic Bulgarian wine was imported in tankers and bottled in France as Bordeaux.

And the French indeed did not complain about its quality/taste. :-)))

[Untile the s..t hit the fan and a major scandal erupted.]

MH:German is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union.
Native speakers 120 million
Non-native speakers 80 million"
Wikipedia
Remember to "Engage brain before putting mouth in gear."




Practicaly nobody speaks/needs German in Africa, Australia, China, India, Middle East, New Zealand, North America, South America, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia...


Nay, due to some historical events, hardly anybody speaks it even in Scotland. :-)


Although there are some elderly refugees in Argentina, Paraguay and Urugway who still prefer their German from the 1930s and '40s to Spanish.

#8 - Ulkomaalainen

"Can someone tell me where the idea of the EU as a Christian club comes from?"

I could not agree more. Sooner or later, the Balkan republics - Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Kosovo - will expect to become members of the club. Forgive me but it is not so long ago that this was part of the game plan. What has changed? We have all gone from being filthy rich to being p**** poor because of a bunch of speculators who decided to milk the Eurozone. Nice work if you can get it and good luck to them but it has nothing whatever to do with Turkish membership.

I have said this before in another context but say it again. The Turks must acknowledge and accept the Armenian tragedy and they must find an accommodation with the Kurdish separatists. I do not say that this is simple but relatively it is. Much more complex are the questions of whether or not Turkey is a secular state and, of course, Cyprus.

If some EU countries insist on their Christian credentials, there will be no endgame because they will have isolated themselves from the wider world. What then happens to their 'righteous' involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere? Cyprus is another matter and it might do no harm to remind the Greek community that their intransigence has as much to do with this as anything the Turks have done. Banging heads together may not always work but in this case?

Take away the religious argument and I can see no logical reason for not allowing Turkey to accede and I think that Merkel and Sarkozy are simply playing a domestic political game that they cannot win.

66 powermeer writes:
"I remember when there was a particularly bad year for some French red wines, a generic Bulgarian wine was imported in tankers and bottled in France as Bordeaux."
----------------------
And that's what your statement at *54 "heavily subsidized (by EU taxpayers) inefficient French farmers" was based on?

MH

You should not take out of your equation the very large number of farmers who have moved to France because they have been priced out of the UK market by absurdly high land values. They have been very successful and all strength to them - I know some of them well - but, while these figures suggest a significant penetration of French produce, it is not necessarily French farmers who are producing it. Such is the nature of integration.

46. At 14:19pm on 31st Mar 2011, DurstigerMann wrote:
@40 Mustafa Yorumcu

"I was a bit wrong. I didn't mean Russia will do more trade with Turkey than with EU. They will trade with all, and they are idiots if they don't. The same can be said for Turkey. What I meant was that with anti-EU Turkey and anti-EU Russia, the EU will have no influence over Middle East and Central Asia. I am expecting more strategic alliance between Turkey and Russia over the Middle East and Central Asia. It is also a sticky situation that all pipes carrying natural gas to EU is crossing Russia and Turkey. "

This makes a lot more sense.
Turkey could become a key-player in that region in the future, that much is for sure.

"I am really not sure that Turkey is insignificant for the EU. Looking at it from a EU perspective, I would oppose EU membership before the next 10 years, but I would also be very worried about losing a friendly Turkey."

On the contrary, Turkey is very significant for the EU.
Millions of Turkish people are living in Germany, Austria and other economically leading nations of Europe.
Their strong nationalist attitude (or "national identity") as well as their religious beliefs and unemployment rates are increasingly coming to the attention of
the autochtonous populations.


When Erdogan comes to Germany to speak in front of "his people", he makes it to the front pages of every big newspaper. Erdogan is openly demanding Germany to become less xenophobic, just to give but one example.
In the face of a big muslim community, European nations are wary of the re-islamisation in Turkey.
What could have been a special relationship between two countries (as most Turks live in Germany, but Austria basically has the exact same problem) has seen a strong increase in tension over the last decade.


Turkey is at the crossroads:
will moderate powers manage to preserve and further the secular ideals of Atatürk and pave the way for Turkey into modernity, or will Turkey revert back to Islam and become something more like an oppressive theocracy?

Turkey as a former colonial power in the middle east and a predominant economic power has the influence to shape the development of the middle east.
And this also has a significant impact on Europe.


"Now, about the asylum. If a young man is coming all the way from Afghanistan with one intention: to cross to the EU, this is not seeking asylum. This is not even economic migration. This is invasion. This is a problem that the bleeding heart EU liberals created. I don't understand why Turkey should take back an illegal alien that has just left her borders. Would that not be against his human rights? Does Greece do so? Say, if Italy wishes to send back asylum seekers back to Greece, does Greece take them back? I remember very well that France was doing much worse than this by actually encouraging illegal immigrants to cross to UK. Somehow, their positive image was not questioned then."

I was mostly talking about visa waiver agreements between Turkey and other nations in the middle east. People from those nations come to Turkey and then just go and cross the border without any resistance.


I absolutely agree with you that Europes massive immigration problem is self-made and not Turkey`s fault.
My point was that what Turkey is doing here is not exactly a good courtship for admittance into the EU.

---------

Just a few points.
Erdogan is wrong in the way he is trying to exert influence over the Turkish minority in Germany and Austria. He is wrong, plain and simple. He is taking advantage of the situation. He is playing "tits for tats" against Merkel's and Sarkozy's resistance against Turkish EU membership. Well, this is wrong, but, really, not so much different from German and French MPs trying to exert influence over the Kurdish minority in Turkey.

I am afraid Turkey is free to enter into visa waiver agreements with ANY COUNTRY. In addition, neither Turkey nor any other EU neighbour country has the obligation to act as buffer zones or to spend resources to stop people from illegally entering into EU. I am sure you will agree with this.

#67 - powermeerkat
#64 - margaret howard

Oh yes, that was the other thing - the German language.

Strangely, I had this conversation with a Hungarian colleague today. Germany had two disastrous wars as a result of which they ended up with no colonial empire. The German language (which I speak fluently) is therefore very valuable in Europe but of no value elsewhere. Spanish and Portuguese are the important languages in the west - Russian, Arabic and a form of Chinese in the east. Sadly for those who loathe the English with passion, English is rapidly becoming the universal language of choice.

powermeerkat wrote:
After ENOSIS, which was an attempt to forcefully incorporate Cyprus into Greece...

[how soon thet forget if it suits them. :-)))]

It's not about forgetting. Yes, Greece did try to incorporate Cyprus when they were under a jounta. This led to a division within the country and certain incidents to occur that involved violence. However, there was no invasion of Greek military and Greece is not occupying 37% of Cyprus in 2011...

"27. At 08:07am on 31st Mar 2011, olc wrote:
EU countries Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovania, Cyprus have human rights? some of them are MAFIA run countries. and they are in EU. Why?"
----
The only Cyprus I know that is MAFIA run, as you say, is the Northern part which is still under foreign military occupation. There are also articles out there confirming that, as well as the fact that it has become a safe place for international criminals wanted by Interpol etc.

As for Bulgaria, Romania etc, things have improved greatly and still are.




"33. At 09:44am on 31st Mar 2011, MaxSceptic wrote:

2. Cyprus is also not in Europe (being hundreds of miles east of Istanbul)."
--------
Geographically it isn't, but it is an island where the majority of the population (around 80% before the illegal settlers from mainland Turkey came in) are ethnic Greeks. If it hadn't been for the British occupation of the island and all the fighting that occurred, it would now be an island/country closely associated with Greece, like your overseas territories or parts of other countries that are miles away from mainland Europe but are still considered EU territory. So yeah, it may not be within the geographical boundaries of Europe but because of its population it is.




"40. At 12:19pm on 31st Mar 2011, Mustafa Yorumcu wrote:
Now, about the asylum. If a young man is coming all the way from Afghanistan with one intention: to cross to the EU, this is not seeking asylum. This is not even economic migration. This is invasion. This is a problem that the bleeding heart EU liberals created. I don't understand why Turkey should take back an illegal alien that has just left her borders. Would that not be against his human rights? Does Greece do so? Say, if Italy wishes to send back asylum seekers back to Greece, does Greece take them back? I remember very well that France was doing much worse than this by actually encouraging illegal immigrants to cross to UK. Somehow, their positive image was not questioned then."
--------
Actually if you ever visit Athens these days you will see how big the problem is with illegal immigration. Until recently, all EU countries would send caught illegals back to Greece, some of them now stopped because there is no more space in Greek detention centers and the country cannot process the 300+ asylum applications per day that are filed. And thanks for pointing out that most of the asylum cases are BS and that this is an invasion. We have illegals here that don't even wanna be here, they are just stuck in Greece which has now become the humanitarian dumpster of the EU. And now they have also found a new way to "expedite" the issuing of their papers, go on hunger strikes and blackmail the Greek government.




"41. At 12:27pm on 31st Mar 2011, cc7460 wrote:
Also, Western Thrace, Greece, there are officially Turkish (Greek says Muslim) minority, who can NOT identify them selfs, who can NOT talk their own language, who can NOT establish their own associations by their preferred names and so on..."

Umm, I am red-flagging this one. Point 1: the muslim minority in N.Greece has flourished since the exchange of the populations between Turkey and Greece and has been increasing in size accordingly. Care to tell us what has happened to the 200,000+ Greek minority that was left in Turkey (Istanbul, Imvros, Tenedos). More than 95% of them have fled under pogroms (Istanbul), limited rights as citizens and constant oppression. So, how come the "oppressed" Muslim minority in W.Thrace is still there, I don't understand!
Point 2: people in W.Thrace can be Muslim, they do speak Turkish if they want, they have Turkish schools (and were lately pressing for Turkish-only schools - in Greece!), Turkish names, Turkish libraries, Turkish newspapers, Turkish TV and they even have their representatives in the Parliament. I know people from our offices in Istanbul, born and raised in Greece (Alexandropolis) that cannot even speak Greek. I am pretty sure they do speak Turkish though and very well! The only thing they cannot have is their muftis because their decisions clash with Greek/EU law - including human rights. So yeah, they cannot do "whatever they want", there are some things called "Laws" that people have to follow, whether they are Muslim, Christian or Buddhist if they live in the same country.
Care to be more specific as to how they are exactly oppressed? Compare them with the Kurds and then come back to me with that.





"56. At 16:23pm on 31st Mar 2011, powermeerkat wrote:
"The best way is for the 'Turkish' derived children to learn German, the language of their future, is all day kindergarten from age three."
German is definitely not the language of their or anybody else's future.
And that's why there are so many English language German schools and universities in Germany."
------
If they do not like German (the language of the country they live in OUT OF CHOICE) they may as well move to another country where they feel that the language and culture suits them and their future better.




"59. At 16:40pm on 31st Mar 2011, powermeerkat wrote:
AKANTART wrote:
Turkey has not and will never change. Just as they forcefully invaded Cyprus 40 years ago

After ENOSIS, which was an attempt to forcefully incorporate Cyprus into Greece...
[how soon thet forget if it suits them. :-)))]"
------
So back then over 80% of the population (Turkish Cypriots as well - back then they would rather be part of Greece than Turkey) who fought for the independence from the British wished to join what they then considered their "motherland" but this is bad why???
It seems funny that you jump to your anti-Greek blabber all the time. You would refuse the people of an island to join the country they wanna be part of (like the Falklanders want to be part of the UK, they chose and they are) but yet when it comes to the self-determination of some other countries based on the stealing of history you are completely fine. Care to really share an unbiased opinion in any of the discussions?

#69 Margaret Howard
Your comments about French agriculture appear to infer they are not heavily subsidized by the EU. Is this your position?

I think Turkey and Europe has a lot in common culturally historically; Colonialism, ethnic cleansing, forced assimilation, unilateral militarism. I think, they are slightly needing improvement in hypocrisy in order to meet European standards. Nevertheless, I truly believe they belong with Europe..

The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan once said “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”...

The current Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has called assimilation of Turks living in Germany into German society a "crime against humanity".

Now, how might having 80 million Turks (disproportionately-young, and a lot less secular than the Turkish constitution) with freedom of movement around Europe, listening to PM Erdogan's advice, not help fulfil former PM Erbakan's wish?

And what would be the cost to the EU taxpayer of absorbing a relatively-poor country with a greater population than the 10 Eastern EU states combined? A taxpayer already having to pay for the 10 new EU members, and probably due to pay for the high-debt PIIGS states that will soon need bailing-out?

And added to that - with Turkey in the Schengen Zone, Mainland Europe's new "neighbours from across the border" will be the likes of Iran, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon...

Is it just me, or are the Eurocrats once again pursuing their "European dream" - at the expense of Europeans?

@67 powermeerkat

"Practicaly nobody speaks/needs German in Africa, Australia, China, India, Middle East, New Zealand, North America, South America, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia...


Nay, due to some historical events, hardly anybody speaks it even in Scotland. :-)"


Practically nobody needs African, Asian, American or whatever languages in Germany.
Due to some historical events, there is only one language you will ever need in Germany: German.

Same goes for Japan or China (increasingly).
Nobody in Japan cares about your English, you need to speak Japanese in order to be integrated into society and to find a job.
Same goes for China, expatriats and people who can pay a translator excluded.


Not everybody is a manager who can get a job anywhere regardless of the native language. In fact, most certainly the majority of people isn`t. True story.

#29
Anti-American? Whatever gave you that idea?

Was there a civil war in the US, the bloodiest war in history up to that moment? Did the North practice reconstruction or not? Stating that the US has at least two nations, and that it tries to suppress this by propaganda ("one nation under god") is not anti-American, it's a simple observation of fact.

I'm not anti-American. I love the American people. As every nation, they have given great things to the world, and done some horrible acts. I don't believe in their exceptionalism, and I don't buy their mythology, but that's just having a critical mind, and applying it.

I kinda like the description that "after having exhausted all other possibilities, in the end the US will do the right thing in foreign policy".

I do disagree with a number of their policies, but that is not being anti-American. I don't call you anti-European either, do I? I understand you're just anti-EU integration. That's your right (even though I believe you are wrong) - but it is an essential part of our EU-based democracy that you are entitled to say so.

# 39
You have a scary lack of historical knowledge.

Italy never had a unified language until well after the unification. Today, about half the population speaks their local language next to "Italian". Italy is an artificial construct, if ever there was one. There is no common history, language or culture prior to unification. To the extent these exist today, they are constructs of the late 19th and 20th century.

Germany had at least three or four languages in 1870, and was never a unified country before that. It never had a unified culture, and was the battlefield of religious wars for decades. By the way, ever heard of Austria?

And let's not mention Belgium, Luxembourg, or even France, with at least six languages well into the 20th century.

All current nation-states are artificial constructs, and all their democratic institutions are constructed.

Your romantic portraying of history is very dangerous in its ignorance. Typically, proto-fascist parties tend to take advantage of that kind of ignorance (I'm not saying you're a fascist, I'm saying you make their work easier, because you don't bother to check what you write, and your views support their framing).

It also points to an unbearable lightness of argument.

Hi DurstigerMann #78

In one of the meetings I attended at work today there were two Swedes, two Finns, a Dutchman, a German and myself. The meeting language was English. Any German wishing to build a career in a German firm with international ambitions must speak English...at least according to the Germans I meet in the type of meeting I had today.

#78 - DurstigerMann


"Practically nobody needs African, Asian, American or whatever languages in Germany.
Due to some historical events, there is only one language you will ever need in Germany: German".

Exactly the point. German - wonderful though the language may be - is a regional, not an international language. I am sure you would be very offended if I were to suggest that Germany is very useful if you want to get quickly from south Europe to north Europe but there is an element of truth in it.

@Mustafa Yorumcu: The main opposition party's religion is not Atuturk, nor approves military coups. This very comment shows our country's (Turkey) new problem: intolerance and division.

Today a number of journalists are under arrest. One of them is just there because of his un-published book. Further adding to drama, the un-published book's copies has been collected and destroyed by police. A new court order has been prepared to disallow publication of this book in any form.

Not suprisingly, the book is about a Islamic religious group, which have, according to book, control over police.

As this example demonstrates, our country is far from democracy, and I fear that it is even going further. Yes, the current government made big progress on some of EU recommendations, but I fear that they just did because it suits their agenda. For example, it is a well known fact that government and religious groups dislike army, and government reduced army's political power. This is a good thing only if there wasn't a growing religious police force on the other side. It has been proven that police has created false evidence on a number of occasions, especially lawsuits involving military officers and government opposing journalists.

I think we should have some common values shared with EU, democracy, freedom, free minds etc. However, this is not the case and the difference is growing everyday. Current and near future Turkey can not be an organic part of EU.

64. At 17:25pm on 31st Mar 2011, margaret howard wrote:

56 powermeer writes:
"German is definitely not the language of their or anybody else's future.
And that's why there are so many English language German schools and universities in Germany."
----------------------------
"German is one of the world's major languages and the most widely spoken first language in the European Union.
Native speakers 120 million
Non-native speakers 80 million"
Wikipedia
Remember to "Engage brain before putting mouth in gear."




Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... fragrant lady excelling again at absurdum ad nauseum in a statement about the Nation she has lived in for 40 years based (WILL SHE EVER LEARN!?) on very poor research & blatant prejudice.

I.e. Wikipedia article: 'Languages of the European Union'

"The most widely spoken mother tongue in the EU is German, while 51% of adults in the EU can understand English..."

United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta - - English as native language

13% - - English As Mother Tongue (Percentage of EU Population)

38% - - English As language other than Mother Tongue (Percentage of EU Population)

51% - - the Percentage of EU Population SPEAKING ENGLISH

51% = 265,000,000+ of the EU Population.

Though a trivial point, for anyone in 2011 to be writing the German Language (18% as Native Language & 32% of EU Population Speaking Language) is more used & is more familiar within the EU than 'English' is to exhibit an impoverishment of comprehension that is as accurate an example of FAILING to "Engage brain before putting mouth in gear," that could be found!

#78. At 20:20pm on 31st Mar 2011, DurstigerMann wrote:

"Practically nobody needs African, Asian, American or whatever languages in Germany.
Due to some historical events, there is only one language you will ever need in Germany: German."

That sounds so much like languages are being used to stop non native speakers being employed, I've seen this tactic alongside harmonisation of qualifications in Belgium as well, where most job adds ask for French and Dutch even though the working language is stated to be English. In Belgium it is the hard line Flemish nationalists that force this, maybe you can tell us who in Germany is insisting that only German be used now, as it was not the case when I worked there a decade ago. In the UK there are translators everywhere to help migrants but if you need one in Belgium and Germany then you have to be able to afford one yourself, what a very easy way to make life and integration difficult.

#80 - Ulkomaalainen

I had a similar meeting involving Americans, Irish, Brazilians, Portuguese, Hungarians and Mexicans plus me - the Brit. The only language in which we were all comfortable was English.

#84 - Buzet23

This is difficult to explain without appearing arrogant - which is the last thing I want to do - but my work comes from the fact that I am a native English speaker. Of course, living where I do, I have to use other languages but the basis of my business is that people need English. Like it or loathe it, it has become necessary.

"80. At 21:26pm on 31st Mar 2011, Ulkomaalainen wrote:

Hi DurstigerMann #78

In one of the meetings I attended at work today there were two Swedes, two Finns, a Dutchman, a German and myself. The meeting language was English. Any German wishing to build a career in a German firm with international ambitions must speak English...at least according to the Germans I meet in the type of meeting I had today."
------
Ulkomaalainen , you are confusing many things regarding the language.

1) We are talking about immigrants (like people that go there to live PERMANENTLY and not short-term expat employees or business meetings). As an expat, if I chose to live in Germany temporarily for 1-2 years maybe I wouldn't be required to become fluent in German out of the blue, especially if I already spoke perfect English which is adequate for the business environment. I would try though to learn the basics because I would consider myself rude if I didn't. If you move to a country permanently and two generations down you are still not assimilated as far as language goes, then it is your fault, not the fault of your new home country. If you think German is irrelevant to your life or your future, don't take the decision to move permanently to Germany, nobody has put a gun to your head to make you move there.

I am also not a fan of comparing Western countries with the East because we like to consider ourselves as with higher standards than some Muslim countries but try and move to Turkey (maybe the most progressive of them all) - permanently - without learning the local language and let me know how it goes. I have friends and family living there and they are all fluent because they have to, otherwise you cannot deal with anything there. Even fresh or short-term expats are "encouraged" by their employers to learn Turkish to be able to communicate both at and outside work.

2) I stated it before but you are still ignoring the fact that we are talking about second and third generations of immigrants not being able to speak the language of the country they live in. I would be more relaxed towards the older generations that moved at an older age, thus becoming fluent in a new language is harder. But I find it unacceptable for people that have lived there all their lives to still refuse to pick up even the basic characteristic of their home country, which is the language, whether that is Turks in Germany, Greeks in Belgium or Spanish in the Netherlands.

72 threnodio writes:
"Germany had two disastrous wars as a result of which they ended up with no colonial empire. The German language (which I speak fluently) is therefore very valuable in Europe but of no value elsewhere. "
---------------------------
I gave the number of German speakers in reply to powermeer at *56 when he replied to a contributor who suggested that Turkish children living in Germany should learn the language if they wanted to integrate:
"German is definitely not the language of their or anybody else's future.
And that's why there are so many English language German schools and universities in Germany."
------------------------
I don't believe the loss of empire had anything to do with it. All remaining empires collapsed after WW2 and Germany never had much of an empire anyway - according do an episode of Blackadder "..the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika..."
Right up to the 18th century all educated people in Europe communicated and wrote in Latin as the lingua franca. Newton for instance wrote all his works in Latin so he could be understood without having to be translated. I believe America adopting the English language rather than Spanish, which was at one time more widely spoken in many parts of the Americas, settled the spread of English across the world.
And of course post WW2 it was American youth culture (?) which conquered the globe and influenced a whole generation. And now with television, the spread of the internet and general international communications if became imperative that the world communicated in one language.

Manneken (79): If the German language is a product of a German state that did not exist until the 19th century, how was it possible for a bible to be printed in German on Guttenburg's newly invented printing presses in 1466?

https://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa030600a.htm

If Italian culture is the product of an Italian state that did not exist until the 19th century, then how was there an 'Italian Rennaissance' in the 13th to 15th centuries?

Does the Egyptian nation not exist with a language, history and culture that can be traced back 7000 years, despite only achieving a democratic nation-state in 2011? The components of national identity clearly pre-date, by a very long-time, any state in existence today.

Euro-federalists try to imagine away nations. But your attempt is a word-game that relies on  two different meanings of the word 'imagine' as (1) something originally created by the human mind and (2) something that does not really exist in the real-world. All the components of national identity are 'imagined' as per meaning (1) but they certainly exist in the real-world. They are also extremely resistant to change, developing a self-reinforcing life of their own than spans generations and which no euro-federalist can 'unimagine'. Neither languages, cultures nor nations are disappearing. Indeed more and more nations are achieving the natural desire for their own democratic nation-state, the number of which is rising in the world.

82. At 21:59pm on 31st Mar 2011, Ahmet Cengiz wrote:
@Mustafa Yorumcu: The main opposition party's religion is not Atuturk, nor approves military coups. This very comment shows our country's (Turkey) new problem: intolerance and division.

Today a number of journalists are under arrest. One of them is just there because of his un-published book. Further adding to drama, the un-published book's copies has been collected and destroyed by police. A new court order has been prepared to disallow publication of this book in any form.

Not suprisingly, the book is about a Islamic religious group, which have, according to book, control over police.

As this example demonstrates, our country is far from democracy, and I fear that it is even going further. Yes, the current government made big progress on some of EU recommendations, but I fear that they just did because it suits their agenda. For example, it is a well known fact that government and religious groups dislike army, and government reduced army's political power. This is a good thing only if there wasn't a growing religious police force on the other side. It has been proven that police has created false evidence on a number of occasions, especially lawsuits involving military officers and government opposing journalists.

I think we should have some common values shared with EU, democracy, freedom, free minds etc. However, this is not the case and the difference is growing everyday. Current and near future Turkey can not be an organic part of EU.

---

Turkey needs a credible opposition party more than ever. A good start would be that CHP commences some self-criticism and soul-searching. For the last decade, this party has based her policies only on the fear of religious fanaticism, laicity, the Great Ataturk, The Mighty Leader (what does "yuce, ulu" mean in Turkish?) Ataturk, The Ancestor Ataturk, republic, secularity, modernity, The Teachings of Ataturk, and so on and so forth. They must confess that they have exploited the memories of Ataturk for political gains. And then, they must come up with credible policies (something more than free 600 TL salary for each family; why?!).

People do not believe in CHP anymore. They cried "wolf" (i.e., religious fanaticism) way too many times.
Only 3 months ago, a CHP MP was blaming the Army for not taking action and for being a "Paper Tiger".
Until CHP starts facing herself, she won't be taken seriously by the majority.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Actually ..Manneken (good name creation),

I'm Pro EU (as it were, so to speak)

It's just that I agree mostly with anti-EU expressed opinions. I WANT EU to succeed in some reasonable fashion.

I even do not care if there are no nation states except the EU--as opposed to other Americans whom would/might feel insecure about that EU future.

BUT, it has to be of democratic (not in the strict sense--but in the similar to democracy sense--as democracy, the word, here, is much debated).

And I wish for a European superpower to be ..um...European, reflecting all nationalities (and culture/languages). I fear for its nearness to hotspots of instability, but not for its economic long term situation.

Also, your name creation, I say, is well done as it reflects "ken of man?"

I just do not have much of intellectual content to express here on EU "ideas." And often I'm left at a loss for words...I guess I've previously spoken all ..my ...words of any "intellect." But, I'm just moving on with my life, not abandoning this nice blog.

:)))

David

#89 Freeborn John

"If Italian culture is the product of an Italian state that did not exist until the 19th century, then how was there an 'Italian Rennaissance' in the 13th to 15th centuries?"

You are confusing issues here . Italy did not become a unified state until the mid 19th century .

The Renaisance was strictly regional and confined to places like Florence and Tuscany , together with the Popes in Rome . Several generations of the Medici family based in Florence were the founder/sponsors of the Renaisance . They had many properties and influence in other parts , but that did not carry the Renaisance to a state of Italy .

Hey Chaps , aren't we getting a little beside the point here . As I see it the problem is of immigrants , who may be little educated , moving to a European country and not being able to speak any language but their own . Further they may have educative difficulty in learning a new language , the more so if they have come with a large group of their own nationals and have nobody to practice the new language with .

In Italy , I used to give conversation lessons to a businessman , who was the buyer of German precision surgical instruments for Italy . His English was good and he had no problem in his professional work . Periodically he would be invited to conferences in Germany , where the common language for a large international group of representatives was English . In the evening they would all have drinks and dinner together ; he felt that his English was not fast enough ; that he might be sitting silent listening to the others . My friend who is a well educated man wanted to be at the heart of the conversation , full of witty repartee , able to quickly understand all the jokes and laugh with everyone else . We used to meet about twice a week , with a bottle of good wine ; it is surprising how that can get the conversation flowing .

I perfected my Italian by watching political and talk shows on television , wearing headphones , to exclude extraneous sounds . I was able to attend cocktail party/fork suppers , circulate and talk and joke with everyone ; I have many Italian friends in Florence , my home was in a Chianti hill village , where I was the only English person , so had to communicate with the natives .

Actually, no offense..the topic is Turkey's power--used for good or ill?

And the reason its important as a question is it looking to capitalize on Europes lack of Influence in the ME and "Turkey's near abroad"?

But, per usual, the Europeans are talking,

while others ARE ACTING, BUT now, it's Turkey whom is acting! And taking advantage??? Of Europe's naval gazing???

#89
Because the Luther bible was printed in one of the local German languages, which, over a period of 500 years, then became the norm.
Other languages (platdeutsch, saxon, etc., etc.) died out or were marginalised, mostly in the 19th-20th century. Really, do you have any knowledge about history at all?
The "Italian renaissance" (a wrong label, since it was neither Italian nor a renaissance) is an expression dating from the 18-19th century (or did you think people in 1100 said: "oh, we like these middle ages"). "Italy" was the name for the peninsula, like "Iberia".
Your example of Egypt is so ridiculous I'm not even starting to unravel it.

You really ought to read some books. On political history, and the concept of the nation-state, which you so freely use, without understanding it or its history.

#92
David,
It's always problematic to project ideas and opinions on others - that's the point I wanted to make. Thanks for the clarification.
"Manneken" refers of course to "Manneken Pis" the little statue of Brussels.
It represents "taking the p.." in a slightly absurd, surreal and non-deferential way. It explains part of the Belgian/Brussels culture. I find it appropriate.

#92 Stevenson

If you are Alice's beloved David , why are you now calling yourself Stevenson ?

I think I can speak for most Eurosceptics and say that we are not against a Union of European peoples . Eurosceptics are against the form that the EU has taken ; that it is way down the track in the wrong direction . From the beginning there has been no expression of the will of the people ; as time passes and resistence to the EU is shown , there is a deliberate blocking of any show of democracy . The current form of EU is being thrust upon the people whether we like it or not .

I do not believe it is workable in its present form , neither do I believe it will become a Federal Nation State . The economics of the Eurozone have been ill conceived and advice of economists ignored . The EU is up "Against the Buffers", with practically , if not all , every nation state in Debt ; all borrowing money to lend to the ECB to prop up other countries that are in danger of collapse .
A loose confederation of nation states would have avoided the present internal problems and conflicts and EUwide insolvency .

I cannot see why Americans should want to have a Federal European Single Nation State across the Atlantic .
I can only think that US news feeds misguiding information and still arouses the long past cold war fears . I believe Americans are ignorant of world affairs , even worse , that the US economy is effectively bankrupt to the point of no return .

Obama is , in my opinion , right to Embrace Russia and become friendly with Medvedev and Putin . When , heaven forbid , the world is becoming Global , we have to go out and meet even those we may fear .
I do not believe that the emerging countries , like Russia , China , India , mid and southeast Asia are seeking to take over the world , or want to see a USA/Europe collapse . Trying to be big is no protection !!! " They Put Good Scent In Little Bottles " I believe Europe will manage itself better as individual states , than as a massive block .

I believe you have made comparisons between this blog and Mark Mardell's on BBC America .
I have looked up the latter sometimes , but for the most part the comments are not very interesting or well thought out . Americans have a lazy colloquial way of expressing themselves , starting a sentence half way through . The result doesn't make very interesting reading .

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#97
I've given examples before about the democratic nature of the EU. In terms of checks and balances, independence of judiciary, guarantees of human rights and rights of minorities, the EU is at least as democratic, if not more, than most of its member-states (the Scandinavians typically performing a bit better, all the rest a bit worse).

In terms of connecting with the "popular" debate, and the usual political slagging in the mainstream media, the EU does not so well, that is true.

The responsibility here is mixed. Part is "Brussels", which tends to see the world through rose-tinted EU glasses and frames debate as pro- or anti- integration. That should shift to a debate on the actual issues decided at EU level (it's happening, but very slowly). Examples are whether the EU really should crack down on excessive roaming charges, as they did. There are many other examples.
As I've said repeatedly, let's make the votes in the counsel public, so the member-states have to stop their current hypocrisy ("Brussels made us do it.. Then why did you vote in favor in the counsel?").

Part of it is the fact that the debate is less simplistic. Coalitions shift, and the debate is often at different levels at the same time (EU, member states, sometimes local political entities).

Part of it is the media, who follow the old guard of the EU-crowd in framing pro- or anti- EU. Gavin is a good example. I presume, as usual, because as a simplistic debate, it makes it easier to sell advertising space.

As the EU level gets more and more power (and that process shows no signs of slowing down), it will be held to ever more scrutiny. It seems unfair that Merkel would decide on economic policy of Ireland as part of the Eurozone, without the Irish having a say, as citizens of the Eurozone, on this.

This debate is currently held, and it's interesting. The financial crisis seems likely to push for a lot deeper integration, causing justified demands for more accountability.

Finally, there is the fact that the EU budget is tiny compared to the overall GDP of the EU (about 1%). Most countries have budgets around 40 % of GDP. With a civil service smaller than that of the city of Liverpool, the EU punches well above its weight, actually. The best solution here is direct, federal taxation. Which, in turn, will need more accountability and EU-wide, federal, elections. Again, the debate for the coming years.

As for the UK: they never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to weigh in on the debate. In the end, I guess, it will come down to an in/out vote. Don't forget that in the real world, if UKIP would poll anywhere near double figures, it would trigger an in/out referendum already. They don't need a majority, far from. My guess is that 15% for UKIP (in elections at national level, not EP elections) would immediately trigger a UK referendum on membership. That threshold may be much lower, at anywhere between 9-11%. For EP elections, the threshold is probably significantly higher, and may only start at around 15%.

The good news here is of course that the UK, as any other member, is free to leave whenever they want. That does not give them the right to stop others that want to integrate more, from doing so.

Hi ptsa@87

The point I was making was that local languages alone are often not enough in this modern world. Companies often require proficiency in both the local language and English.

This is not just true of management positions. The meeting I mentioned; nobody there had any supervisory duties. We were all scientists and engineers. Two of the people at the meeting were not graduates but for even an entry level lab technicians job fluency in both the local language and English are required.

ptsa; you have accepted that first generation immigrants are permitted to have limited language skills. If the second generation immigrants attend the local school in the local language then there will be no problem with the second generation of immigrants in terms of their language skills. This is my experience of languages and immigration. I don't know of any kids growing upin my vicinity who do not speak the local language even though the local parents are a really polygot bunch; Thais Iraquis, English, Finns, Romanians, Bulgarians, Germans, French, Icelanders, Croats, Sri Lankans.... etc etc. (It is often joked that I live in a slum with all the other foreigners.) I'm somewhat bemused by the idea of kids growing up in a country and not speaking the local language. Does this actually happen often enough that it is a social problem somewhere?