First, fredouil, I think it is important that you are posing an opinion that clearly states your discomfort with Turkey entering the EU, as I believe it is important to hear all sides on this issue, and have dialogue about it. So thank you, this is valuable. As I reflect on it, I think it is important to be careful about interpreting the meaning of a whole countries' vote, as there are likely as many meanings as there were voters...and, in fact, I think it is a fairly safe statement to make, that a good number of "non" voters weren't even thinking of Turkey when they made their decision, but rather, about a whole number of other "issues", including (but not limited to): feelings about Chirac; feelings about protecting the French social system; feelings about not wanting "elite" politicians making decisions for all of Europe without taking in consideration the real concerns or needs of the people (not just big business); feelings about ageeing on a huge constitution that was attempting to do too much, etc., etc., etc. It seems clear to me that you feel strongly about Turkey not being in the EU, and I'm sure that others do too, which is everyone's right to state their opinion (which is why I'm glad there has been votes, frânkly). I am curious, though, to hear what you feel would be needed to be accomplished by Turkey (or for that matter, any of the other new countries applying for entry into the EU), in order for you to feel comfortable with their entry? Or are you feeling like you don't like the EU idea at all, and/or want to stay/return to France only status, or what? Would be interested to hear more about what you are for, as opposed to what you are against. I get the sense (though I may be wrong) that you are philosophically against the idea of the EU, and prefer to remain a French only nation. Yes?

(Oh, and on your rating system, I couldn't answer, as I feel there needs to be a question like "not sure yet" and "we need more time")

And dvx, I relate to your response to fredouil (selfishly, I admit, as it is closer to my view)...I particularly appreciated a couple of your statements:

Likewise, the EU as presently constituted is in no position to keep adding member states and continue to function effectively. But there is no reason it cannot become so - it's all a matter of political will on the part of the Europeans.

which makes sense to me, in that in a basic practical sense, the non and nee votes basically asked that the process on the EU growth be slowed down, whatever the individual intention of voters may have been. I tend to also hold a more optimistic view that the EU idea is a great one, in that it is a group of countries trying to create a new kind of democracy (and that the idea of what a democracy is, is not solely how America views it or uses it), which I think is necessary. I also believe there can be a balance where the individual nation can remain true to itself, while also cooperating with other nations for the greater good. It's really exciting to see...but it is going to take time to sort out the details of how something like this will work.

Turkey can qualify for Europe. And Europe can become an effective political entity. Why not?

This is more along the lines that I think about the EU and Turkey, myself. Why not? Why can't this great idea work?

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia