Whilst Europe may not be as Christian as it once was its history and very culture have been profoundly influenced by Judeo-Christian ideology.
I don’t think it is appropriate to glibly suggest that because Europe isn’t as Christian as it once was that it can suddenly welcome a country that has little or no commonality with Europe into the fold. Islam still has a poweful hold on Turkey and it literally takes the Turkish army to keep it in check. Moreover, Islam hasn’t exactly been conducive with secular democracies. There hasn’t exactly been much in the way of assimilation in France, Germany or Holland so do we really need to continue this experiment on an even larger scale? There is a lot to be said for at least one common denominator between people to create a foundation for a viable common society.
Immigration is also a legitimate concern as Turkey could act as an easy conduit for a mass movement of people from the Arab world into Europe. I can see the point that entry into the EU may aid Turkey to modernize and move towards a truly free and secular society but what if it doesn’t?
I think the matter is simplified too much if you’re only looking at geographical and cultural conditions, to determine the “Europeanness” of a country as a criterion whether it should be allowed to join. Just one point, EU territory already includes plenty of regions that are a long way out of Europe - namely, the French overseas départements in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean. Those regions are integral parts of France just as any département in mainland France itself, giving the EU a border with Brazil via French Guyana. Of course these regions are tiny little bits compared to mainland France, from which they derive their membership, but they’re not in the least bit less EU territory than, for instance, Copenhagen is.
Let me point out that I’m not arguing the EU should allow as many nations as possible to join, establishing the World Union that has been mentioned here. I just think that mere geography - is the country located within the borders constituted by the Atlantic in the West, the Mediterranean in the South, and the Bosporus, the Caucasus and the Ural in the East? - is of minor importance.
Regarding the clause in the treaties, as well as the draft constitution, that “European” states are eligible for membership, I think Turkey’s Council of Europe membership makes it European enough in the legal sense of those regulations.
It’s hard for an American to keep all these straight . . . According to the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe), the Council of Europe is an organization of 46 states “in the European region,” founded in 1946. Its stated aims are general good-stuff – promoting human rights, democracy, the rule of law. Its institutions include the European Court of Human Rights. But the article says very little about what the COE actually does. Apparently it is not a customs union and economic regulatory system, like the EU, but what is it? What is it for?
The Council of Europe is related to the Rome Treaty aka European Convention on Human Rights. That’s the European equivalent of the US Constitution insofar as basic human rights protection goes. It has its own court in Strassbourg. The Council tries to negotiate for other treaties on a variety of subjects.
The EU also has its own court, in Luxemburg. All EU member states have accepted the ECHR; I don’t believe any new members would be accepted without also signing the ECHR. Also, the EU itself has acceded to the ECHR.
Speaking of the human rights convention, there is some dissent going on between the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which, as has been said, is a Council of Europe body, and the German Federal Constitutional Court (abbreviated BVerfG in German), competent for the interpretation of Germany’s constitution and especially its bill of rights. In 2004, there have been three BVerfG decisions that were ruled as violating the European Convention of Human Rights by the ECHR. Germany has adopted the convention as national law, but only on subconstitutional level. The BVerfG actually ruled that it regarded ECHR decisions as useful tools for the interpretation of the German constitution, but not as binding authority - an unusually harsh statement that has lead to criticism complaining that apparently there are different standards applied to different nations. EU legislation, though, can overrule national law, including national constitutional law.
Well I hope there will be a properly democratic global government one day… then if people have problems they can get their politicians to complain… or if the unhappy people resort to violence then the police are called in so that individuals who break laws can be arrested. i.e. the rule of law rather than the rule of force…
I can’t make up my mind about this issue. From both sides of my background I can argue about issues in favour as much as I can bring up reservations.
In general I have the very strong impression that the EU has -at this moment - no real insight in this puzzle they are engaging themselves with. In my view they still take it - more or less - as an experiment that still can be halted whenever the EU feels Turkey does not “fit in” adequately.
What they should not overlook is that many Turkish citizens seem to have a strong ambition/dream to be part of the EU. When it during the coming years (and we look at 10/15 years before membership of Turkey would be an established fact) would come to a point that this dream stays a dream - for whatever good reason coming from the EU point of view- this shall cause many problems.
On the Arab side of my observation I can only conclude that Turkey gives again reason to be criticized. On the other hand every remark or criticism harbours an inherent historical aversion, caution and an amount of hidden envy.
A concept like the EU Union represents is something Islamic/Arab nations would like to have very much, but are unable to create. We have far too much self-centered and navel staring societies which has its ultimate cause in thousand of years of tribal funded traditions and loyalties.
Not that such traditions are not part of Turkish society. It is one of the factors the EU seems to overlook because they see Turkey as being “secular” in a real Western way of being secular.
Turkey has a very long way to go on every possible issue where the EU has formulated its demands and objections. At the moment I can’t see how they shall manage to clean up their house and backyard sufficiently. Ask any Kurd or any other member of a minority what they think about it and you shall find that scepticism rules.
It was a joke. Anyway rule of law is rule of force. And we already have one world organisation. It’s called UN. And it’s as impotent as a 103 old senile man in a wheelchair. There is a great deal of concern that the EU, if it becomes too big and unwieldy, should itself become likewise impotent and unable to make any decisions. Also there’s the EU in different tempi, which, if followed through, could render the EU a mere shell without importance. Others fear Turkey and Germany, both “large” countries, should group together and run the show, much by themselves. The Frogs of course fear a further watering down of influence in what they consider their EU.
Turkey is a large country which will have a comparable influence. In what direction do they intent to turn the EU? What would be Turkey’s opinion on important topics? I have no idea. If they elect an Islamist government, can we chuck them out? I doubt it.
Well at the moment countries can just ignore international law if they feel like it. If you’re ruled over by the government, you’d obey the law most of the time and if you disobey it you’d try to make sure the government doesn’t find out. Trying to enforce international law involves large-scale military operations… on the other hand, within governments, if you want to take a corrupt official to court you only usually need some police.
It’s not a properly democratic world government though… in proper democracies you don’t have 5 members that can veto decisions. And its decisions often aren’t put into action - with no real consequences - e.g. America disobeys the UN quite a bit I think.
I agree.
In democracies basically the majority wins and that’s final. (or there could be an upper house if necessary) There shouldn’t be lots of members capable of vetos.
Well in Australia, it looks like the house of representitives gives states a certain number of politicians each depending on its population… but it looks like the states get the same number of senators each. So in one house, the states are equal, in the other the states with more people have an advantage, but laws have to pass through both houses. In Ken Keyes’s “Planethood” book, which has lots of quotes from famous leaders supporting a proper global government (with no nations) I think he proposes 3 houses - one based on the wealth of places, another on population, and maybe another on the military power or something. (I can’t find the page at the moment)
Assuming that the EU currently just has one house that is based on the countries populations, maybe they could have two houses where the upper house has an equal number of senators per nation. (or there could be a better solution) While Germany doesn’t have a majority they could try passing those changes.
BTW, the supporters of democratic global government have a site here: World Federalist Movement (wfm.org)
I think the EU would make an excellent world government, considering its nature. It has been called a “soft empire.” Unless the military, dynastic, colonial, religious, or ideological empires of the past, the EU was formed by voluntary accession of all its member states; has no ruling dynasty, aristocracy, or political-partisan ruling elite; and does not have a dominant national culture suppressing the languages and customs of the subject nations. No new member is allowed to join without consent of all existing members. The national governments retain most of their pre-membership functions and sovereignty; the European Parliament mostly enacts general economic regulations. The EU is a general customs union with open borders and where no member state wages war on any other; any applicant with hostile relations to any EU member state would never get in. There is no Union Army that might force the Union’s will on recalcitrant member states, and a situation requiring that is unlikely ever to arise: Any member state could secede if it chose, but the advantages of membership are so great that nobody wants to secede and many bordering states are clamoring to get in. And no state gets in without reaching a certain level of stability, democratic government, rule of law and respect for human rights – which provides aspirant members with an incentive to clean up their act, if they want to reap the economic benefits of membership.
If Turkey and all the other applicant nations were to meet the membership criteria, then talks could start with Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. If Russia became a real democracy and an EU member, that would extend the Union all the way to the Pacific. Then opening membership talks with Japan – already an industrialized democracy and a G-8 country – would be a real possibility. Then the EU would be a union mostly of European and (historically) Christian states, but also including Turkey, which is Islamic and only marginally “European”; and Japan, which is not Christian and not “European” in any sense. At that point they might have to call a new constitutional convention and re-name it the “International Union” – and then dedicate themselves to indefinite expansion. First, offer membership to countries already democratic and more or less industrialized – the U.S. (political conditions here would, of course, have to change enormously before it could be considered), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa. That warrants another constitutional convention – in fact, it might be written into the constitution that there will be a new convention every 20 years, its proposals submitted to the peoples of the Union states for ratification by referendum. And then, the Union could dedicated itself to pro-actively helping other countries ready themselves for membership – e.g., the IU could give massive aid to Mexico, to bring its economy up to the point where its border with the U.S. could be opened without threatening an unprecedently vast flood of impoverished immigrants. And also give aid to the countries bordering South Africa. And so on until every country is a member, and then the IU could simply be merged with, or take over, other organizations of international government such as the UN, WTO and World Bank. The process might take more than a century to complete – but it could (and must) all be done without any wars of conquest. And then we have lasting world peace, open borders everywhere, and a democratically elected global parliament – while the pre-existing nation-states still tick along as going concerns. What’s wrong with that?
