The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Turkey is already a member of NATO, so the "we've got your back" promises are effectively made already.
No-one has put forward a non-nefarious reason that didn't apply to other states who have already joined, which is the test to my mind.
RE: NATO, that's with the US having their back too, so it is not as much of a burden for Europe. It's not an internal worry.
You know, for someone sensitive to anti-American comments, you're quite casual with the anti-European propaganda that we're freeriders...
<ducks and runs> In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Don't tell me NATO and the EU have nothing to do with each other. All the former communist candidates for accession thought you could not have one without the other. [Still waiting for Marek's diary on Atlanticism]
I know it is a significant decision and I don't know what the right answer is.
To talk about a "gray area" implies that Europe and the Middle East are somehow poles in some relationship. I don't think that's the case. There are more ways to look at Turkey. The Ottoman empire was its own thing, and it inherited as much from the Caliphate as it did from the Byzantine empire. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
I'm sure that if you ask people opposed to Turkish membership if they would take Japan in the EU, they would be much more inclined to say yes.
The geographic argument would suddenly shatter, to reveal the reality beneath it: that it's essentially the fear of Islam and perceived third-worldness that fuel the "no to Turkey" mindset. No one is afraid of Buddhism, Zen, etc. And Japan, wow ... all those cute little mangas, and all that sense of honour & respect ... wow wow wow.
See, this is how I learn things.
I guess I just want to ask the everyone here to realize that I, like much of the world, do not actually live in Europe, so if I ask ignorant questions, maybe you need to just be happy I care and kindly explain to me the situation and not snarky about the fact that I got something wrong. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
As for the EU's military side, check out European Defence Agency and Common Foreign and Security Policy. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
It may be implicit to you, as a European, of what should constitute a European Union. But to an outsider, it is not clear. It's obviously not clear to a lot of people in Europe, either. Be aware that there is a difference between honest inquiry and agenda pushing. I have no agenda. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I'd be perfectly happy with an EU that included the countries around the Mediterranean that have been linked to Europe for a long time. Some want in, some don't. I'd also be happy with overlapping supra-national organisations so long as the requirements were compatible. It'd be challenging but the idea that you can only belong to one club is predicated on a system where the clubs are in competition.
What about Spain and Latvia?
I don't advocate exluding people on the basis of race or creed but if they whole world decided it wanted to join the EU, on what grounds would you deny them admission? Or would you prefer everyone were allowed in? And if so, would you continue to call it "The European Union?" Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Currently: (1) not having adopted the full legal framework, (2) failing to win the support of the populace of members that have referendum on the issue, (3) being caught up in the EU's institutional bottleneck (e.g. the EU structures are currently set up for a maximum of 27 members, which we reach next year, only a new framework like the one proposed in the Constitution can allow more). The rules may change. Conservatives certainly want so, adding cultural, religious or geographical criteria. There is a broader opinion to add time and size limitations based on the EU's ability to cope with assimilating new members.
if they whole world decided it wanted to join the EU, on what grounds would you deny them admission?
See above. Currently, the EU could theoretically grow to encompass the whole world.
Or would you prefer everyone were allowed in?
Personally, I would very much endorse an explicitely open-ended EU, albeit one growing slowly (say, integrating the current 27 in the next ten years, absorbing ex-Yugoslavia and Turkey over the following ten, Ukraine and Morocco over another ten, Russia, Syria, Lebanon, a peace-agreed Israel/Palestine over the twenty years thereafter...)
But another possibility I would like is one Colman hinted at, that EU-like organisations start to grow elsewhere. I note there are some already: ASEAN and the African Union were in part modelled on the EU, they look like earlier stages of European integration, and could develop into something similar to what we have now over decades. If such organs of regional integration develop, it would be best if instead of confrontation, there could be some overlap, say Morocco being a member of both the EU and the African Union. This would be nothing radically new: think for example of Norway, which is part of a a closer Scandinavian cooperation and customs union, but not an EU member.
And if so, would you continue to call it "The European Union?"
I don't think names matter that much. It could be changed to "Euro-Mediterranean Union", "Eurasian Union", "Yellow Stars On Blue Union"... Such a name change wouldn't be the first: after all, the EU is called the EU only for one-and-a-half decades, before there were names like European Community, the Common Market, Montanunion... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
As to regional organisations, don't forget Mercosur. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
3) As opposed to a historically and culturally grey area between Western and Eastern Europe? Or between Sweden and Greece?
It's perfectly legitimate to be anti-expansion, but to suggest that Europe is not a cultural grey area in itself is a lie that needs resisting.
But if they did, you don't think it would be a request worthy of some debate? Don't get me wrong. I don't have a horse in this race. It just seems that ... I guess I don't know what you'd accept as a good reason for not being a admitted the EU. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Regarding Russia in the EU, before the joining of the last 10, there was some serious discussion (on the Russians' part!) about partial EU membership: meaning the Kaliningrad district, which found itself with the prospect of separation from the motherland by two Schengen borders. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Oui - Dec 5 9 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Dec 9
by Oui - Dec 95 comments
by Oui - Dec 815 comments
by Oui - Dec 620 comments
by Oui - Dec 612 comments
by Oui - Dec 59 comments
by Oui - Dec 44 comments
by Oui - Dec 21 comment
by Oui - Dec 169 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2713 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 243 comments
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments