I've been following the Turkey diaries as well, and I can't recall that anyone has advocated membership as a solution to a "hypothetical clash of civilizations".

But be that as it may:

I agree that neither Turkey nor the EU are ready for each other - at present. But if Turkey keeps making progress, then membership in 15 to 20 years looks more feasible. It's a matter of political will on the part of the Turks.

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.

Your quote from Clair Berlinski respecting the nation state:

The nation includes those who share a particular historical, linguistic and cultural heritage.

overlooks, IMO, the arbitrary nature of the "nation". At what point do people decide they have more sameness than differences? In the case of France, when did people stop thinking of themselves as Acquitainians and Burgundians (both groups with greatly different "linguistic heritages", IIRC) and consider themselves French. More recently, the idea of the "German nation" practically didn't exist before the Napoleonic Wars, and the invention of the Italian nation under the King of Savoy came even later.

Consequently, Berlinski's assertion:

Unsurprisingly, it is difficult to cobble nation-states together into a grand transnational entity.

is not entirely accurate historically: that is just what the "Germans" and the "Italians" chose to do.

BTW, I find Berlinski's explanation for the French rejection of the EU constitutional treaties disingenuous:

All of European history - all of world history - argues against a federation with no force to back it up and no way to impose its will on member states.

So that is why they voted against a measure that would strengthen the central authority?

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

You speak of ...the Europe i dream, the identity i want, affinity i need. Perhaps you could describe these?

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

Something tells me that you wouldn't vote for Turkey if it was transformed overnight into a replica of Marseilles.

As an American I don't have a say in this, nor any direct personal concerns about it one way or the other. It is a curious situation to compare, say, Hawaii to Maine. Hawaii is an Island paradise (except Honolulu) with a tropical climate, plenty of brown-skinned Hawaiians and Asians, and a relaxed culture. Maine is a wilderness (except Portland) of untamed forest, with a nasty climate 10 months of the year, an almost entirely caucasian population, and a work ethic based on "if you don't work now while it's warm, you'll freeze to death this winter."

On the other hand, both states have McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Chevrolet/Toyota SUVs, similar tax systems, similar attitudes towards politics, and everybody watches the same TV programs and pays the same interest rate for loans.

We're heterogeneous in some ways, and homogeneous in others. We pretty much all speak the same language, we use the same money, we vote in the same national elections. We can move freely from one state or another, but I bet that 99% of Mainiacs would not even consider moving to Hawaii, nor 99% of Hawaiians to Maine.

So in our federal system there is still a big contrast between states, and freedom of movement, but that movement has already pretty much taken place. (Exception: A general slow migration towards the southwest.)

What would it take to get France and Turkey "equalized" in such a fashion?

Assuming everything goes well Turkey is due to join in ten or twelve years. Hmmh. Care to cast your mind back on Spain or Portugal a dozen years before membership? You know, just emerging from dictatorship with still considerable irredentist right wing blocks along with large and powerful communist parties.  Places which were basically rich third world countries whose citizens were just ending a tradition of emigration to South America in search of a better life.  Greece and Ireland were also incredibly poor.  Hell, have you been to southern Italy even now?

Or to name a place I am personally familiar with - Poland. I remember my phone back in the early nineties; a phone which had a mind of its own.  Some days it worked pretty well. Most days, however, were... interesting.  The days when there was simply no dial tone were perhaps the best. Much better than the times the phone fixated on some random number, no matter what you actually dialed (I remember one morning when I needed to call in sick and the phone insisted on calling some increasingly iritated hungover guy) or the ones when it dialed all sorts of numbers, any number, just not the one you were calling.  Rules and regulations - you've got to be kidding me. The bazaars sold anything and everything. Mostly dirt cheap and horrible quality food and clothing, but also guns, porn, id's, pirated music and movies, illegal cigarettes, prostitutes... everything, right in the open in broad daylight. Getting around by car at night was fun - the streetlights in Warsaw all turned off around 11 - enjoy the free for all.Or the police force - hah.   And the poverty - sweet god. Poland is still an incredibly poor place by Western standards in the countryside and the small towns, but back then it was worse and even the cities were destitute. Doctors and engineers travelling to Western Europe to earn money as casual labourers.

So sorry, I don't think much of the article.