Is Turkey next as EU spreads to 27 member states?
May 15th, 2007, 05:45 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Turkey next as EU spreads to 27 member states?
I read an article about the change in the vision for the European Union culminating in the expansion to 27 since the Treaty of Rome. It went on to say that the addition of Bulgaria and Romania was a victory for Britain who were for a "widening" of the EU as opposed to France who wanted a "deepening" of the EU.
France opposes the entry of Turkey partly because of its proximity to Iran.
I can understand France's position but having some difficulty with what Britain has to gain by the addition of states that will surely be takers rather than givers.
France opposes the entry of Turkey partly because of its proximity to Iran.
I can understand France's position but having some difficulty with what Britain has to gain by the addition of states that will surely be takers rather than givers.
May 15th, 2007, 05:55 AM
#2
Some countries are only interested in the "Common Market" version of Europe and prefer to ignore the political aspects.
"France" does not oppose the entry of Turkey. The new president of France does (and of course quite a bit of public opinion). He has an idea for an overlapping "Mediterranean Union" which he imagines that France would more or less control due to its continued influence in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia & Lebanon among others. I don't think he has thought this thing through at all.
Anyway, no matter what, Turkey is not "next" -- Croatia, Montenegro, F.Y.R. Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia, Albania, Moldova -- they will all arrive before Turkey.
"France" does not oppose the entry of Turkey. The new president of France does (and of course quite a bit of public opinion). He has an idea for an overlapping "Mediterranean Union" which he imagines that France would more or less control due to its continued influence in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia & Lebanon among others. I don't think he has thought this thing through at all.
Anyway, no matter what, Turkey is not "next" -- Croatia, Montenegro, F.Y.R. Macedonia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia, Albania, Moldova -- they will all arrive before Turkey.
May 15th, 2007, 06:36 AM
#3
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an extraordinary over-simplification to attribute any new or intended membership to one or other current member, and the issues involved in the debate are constantly in flux. As I recall, France was an enthusiastic supporter of Romania's membership
As Kerouac says, apart from anything else differences between French (or British, or German, or...) politicians and policymakers are just as great as they've traditionally been between nations.
The Turkish argument is particularly widely misunderstood, though. You might think any British policymaker who thought Turkish membership is about "broadening" rather than "deepening" would be talking through their hat. Turkey's been in a Customs Union with Europe for at least a decade: Turkish membership wouldn't extend the "Common Market" elements at all, since Turkey's got those elements already. There's a lot more scope for sorting out the EU's less developed Customs Union with the other eastern and southern Mediterranean countries (the "EuroMed" agreements), and Britain is an enthusiastic supporter of doing that sort out.
But Turkish membership WOULD give 70 million Turks theoretically unlimited rights to live, work and vote throughout the rest of the EU. It would also mean the development aid the richer members give the poorer (and farmers in France) would be stretched to another 70 million people (roughly the same number as in the last 14 new members put together). And, as Turkey will have a bigger population by 2030 than Germany, it'd make Turkey the largest single bloc in the EU Parliament.
To many British minds, the joy of all that would be the very prospect of Turkish membership would force the curent members to trim back sharply all the ways the EU drives nations' policies. France might tolerate some dilution of its farmers' subsidies to give a few million Estonians a bit more. Any EU France allowed Turkey to join simply will not be the same EU we see today.
The net of all this, BTW, is that further expansion (except for Croatia, and just possibly for the rest of ex-Yugoslavia) is currently completely off the cards at present, and Britain really isn't trying to get it back on.
As Kerouac says, apart from anything else differences between French (or British, or German, or...) politicians and policymakers are just as great as they've traditionally been between nations.
The Turkish argument is particularly widely misunderstood, though. You might think any British policymaker who thought Turkish membership is about "broadening" rather than "deepening" would be talking through their hat. Turkey's been in a Customs Union with Europe for at least a decade: Turkish membership wouldn't extend the "Common Market" elements at all, since Turkey's got those elements already. There's a lot more scope for sorting out the EU's less developed Customs Union with the other eastern and southern Mediterranean countries (the "EuroMed" agreements), and Britain is an enthusiastic supporter of doing that sort out.
But Turkish membership WOULD give 70 million Turks theoretically unlimited rights to live, work and vote throughout the rest of the EU. It would also mean the development aid the richer members give the poorer (and farmers in France) would be stretched to another 70 million people (roughly the same number as in the last 14 new members put together). And, as Turkey will have a bigger population by 2030 than Germany, it'd make Turkey the largest single bloc in the EU Parliament.
To many British minds, the joy of all that would be the very prospect of Turkish membership would force the curent members to trim back sharply all the ways the EU drives nations' policies. France might tolerate some dilution of its farmers' subsidies to give a few million Estonians a bit more. Any EU France allowed Turkey to join simply will not be the same EU we see today.
The net of all this, BTW, is that further expansion (except for Croatia, and just possibly for the rest of ex-Yugoslavia) is currently completely off the cards at present, and Britain really isn't trying to get it back on.
May 15th, 2007, 06:53 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
A number of European countries have enough problems with immigrants and residents from different cultures (Holland, Germany, France, GB ), refugees from Africa ( Spain ) and influx of workers from newer members from Eastern Europe that I cannot see how they would welcome 70 million people who ,in the view of many Europeans, hardly fit the category.
May 15th, 2007, 07:14 AM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Germany and the Benelux already have substantial communities of immigrants from Turkey and their descendants, of course.
But all this is a long way in the future. First there have to be negotiations over the terms, then, if terms are agreed at governmental level, they and their consequences have to secure whatever forms of ratification each member state and the candidate state requires. Then there's a period of adaptation, since the candidate state will almost certainly have to adapt or adopt all sorts of detailed laws and regulations to bring them into line. There's nothing to stop any of those stages being slowed or stalled by particular issues (in this case, Cyprus is the most immediate, but no-one can tell how committed future Turkish governments might be - for the moment, it's the Islamic party in government that has been keenest, and quite possibly the secularists in the Army who would be most reluctant since they actually stand to lose a lot). So we are not talking about tomorrow!
But all this is a long way in the future. First there have to be negotiations over the terms, then, if terms are agreed at governmental level, they and their consequences have to secure whatever forms of ratification each member state and the candidate state requires. Then there's a period of adaptation, since the candidate state will almost certainly have to adapt or adopt all sorts of detailed laws and regulations to bring them into line. There's nothing to stop any of those stages being slowed or stalled by particular issues (in this case, Cyprus is the most immediate, but no-one can tell how committed future Turkish governments might be - for the moment, it's the Islamic party in government that has been keenest, and quite possibly the secularists in the Army who would be most reluctant since they actually stand to lose a lot). So we are not talking about tomorrow!
May 15th, 2007, 07:32 AM
#7
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All members have a veto on membership: some members also require a national referendum.
The Islamic thing is a bit of a red herring. If there were a country with 70 million people as poor, as deficient in some human rights, as dependent on the army for stability and as likely to get bigger than Germany in a decade or two - but whose every single citizen was a regular communicant at the nearest Christian church - the problem with its being allowed full membership would be the same.
Anyone thinking about it would be just as worried about Russia joining, for pretty much the same reasons.
The Islamic thing is a bit of a red herring. If there were a country with 70 million people as poor, as deficient in some human rights, as dependent on the army for stability and as likely to get bigger than Germany in a decade or two - but whose every single citizen was a regular communicant at the nearest Christian church - the problem with its being allowed full membership would be the same.
Anyone thinking about it would be just as worried about Russia joining, for pretty much the same reasons.
May 15th, 2007, 07:57 AM
#9
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know. I have always had a sneaking suspicion that Russia is the final target.
What Napoleon and Hitler couldn't acheive by force, could be done by stealth.
The Russians are highly educated, and with all those natural resources...
What Napoleon and Hitler couldn't acheive by force, could be done by stealth.
The Russians are highly educated, and with all those natural resources...
May 15th, 2007, 09:34 AM
#11
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine Europe stretching from the Irish sea to the Sea of Japan, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean!
Just think of all those bureaucrats in Brussels, rubbing their hands in glee. So many regulations to invent...
Just think of all those bureaucrats in Brussels, rubbing their hands in glee. So many regulations to invent...
May 15th, 2007, 10:06 AM
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I have thought that Europe's rise in economic strength is directly attributable to the EU - not that this rise hasn't resulted in a little levelling off of the playing field.
Some feel that unless the US abandons its solitary stance to form a NA union, they won't be able to compete.
Some feel that unless the US abandons its solitary stance to form a NA union, they won't be able to compete.
May 15th, 2007, 10:21 AM
#14
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does moving from a nearly free trade area to a political union improve America's competitiveness?
Mexicans can't make T-shirts as cheaply as Chinese. Let them move legally from south of the border to Los Angeles, and you'll just get higher-paid Mexicans making even less competitive T shirts.
While giving the Nortemamericanos a whole new pile of social and political problems to distract them from the serious business of working out how you DO compete with the rest of the world.
Mexicans can't make T-shirts as cheaply as Chinese. Let them move legally from south of the border to Los Angeles, and you'll just get higher-paid Mexicans making even less competitive T shirts.
While giving the Nortemamericanos a whole new pile of social and political problems to distract them from the serious business of working out how you DO compete with the rest of the world.
May 15th, 2007, 02:43 PM
#16
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prickly point.
Is Europe a geographic region, or a cultural, historic and religious "zone"?
There is much opposition to Turkey's entry, as you say, simply because "they aren't European".
Is Europe a geographic region, or a cultural, historic and religious "zone"?
There is much opposition to Turkey's entry, as you say, simply because "they aren't European".
May 16th, 2007, 12:51 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 938
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big question is what kind of an EU we want. If it's about a free trade zone, things aren't complicated. As someone already noted, the EU and Turkey already form a custom union.
But the EU also has a second, political dimension. Already with the current size and number of members states, we have serious problems to move forward. The EU will need years for sure to sort out its internal problems as it is now. New large member states with different aims would complicate things. I'm sure that a Turkey of the size of Greece would already be in the EU.
waring: As for bureaucrats in Brussels and all this: I work in the field of logistics. Every company I've ever worked for was a multi-national in the sense of doing large parts of its business outside of its home country and I think that this is getting more and more common. Because of that, I'm very happy that we have standardization.
If the EU introduces regulations, they might sound ridiculous but more often than not they replace 20 as ridiculous regulations the member nations had before. So the next time you ridicule the EU for defining for example what a Grade A cucumber is, ask yourself whether you'd prefer companies active in the whole of Europe to deal instead with 20 different definitions of a Grade A cucumber and whether you want to pay the additional costs resulting from it. In my opinion, if we want unhindered trade, we also need common regulations which allow the free flow of goods without bureaucratic hurdles every time the goods cross a border.
But the EU also has a second, political dimension. Already with the current size and number of members states, we have serious problems to move forward. The EU will need years for sure to sort out its internal problems as it is now. New large member states with different aims would complicate things. I'm sure that a Turkey of the size of Greece would already be in the EU.
waring: As for bureaucrats in Brussels and all this: I work in the field of logistics. Every company I've ever worked for was a multi-national in the sense of doing large parts of its business outside of its home country and I think that this is getting more and more common. Because of that, I'm very happy that we have standardization.
If the EU introduces regulations, they might sound ridiculous but more often than not they replace 20 as ridiculous regulations the member nations had before. So the next time you ridicule the EU for defining for example what a Grade A cucumber is, ask yourself whether you'd prefer companies active in the whole of Europe to deal instead with 20 different definitions of a Grade A cucumber and whether you want to pay the additional costs resulting from it. In my opinion, if we want unhindered trade, we also need common regulations which allow the free flow of goods without bureaucratic hurdles every time the goods cross a border.
