# The EU, Turkey, and... the US? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810 "2004-06-30T01:55:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/41 "2004-07-01T04:28:54Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > And which party did Kohl belong to? The CDU, as in Christian-Democratic Union. And what’s d’Estaing’s party affiliation? That’s right, the UDF, or Union for French Democracy, which according to [The Free Dictionary](http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Union%20for%20French%20Democracy) is, quote: “[UDF] may be compared to the Christian-Democratic Union of Germany in terms of its Christian democrat policies”. > . I totally disagree with this “free dictionnary” statement. The UDF is actually an union of smaller parties. One of these is actually the french christian democrat party (or used to be so) , but it’s so small a party that I suspect 95% of the french people don’t even jnow it exists. The UDF is a liberal party, in the european sense of the word “liberal”. Which means that it supports liberal economic policies (that is : right wing policies) but isn’t conservative concerning social policies. It’s not a conservative, or christian party. Chirac’s RPR would be a much closer match to the christian democrats, being much more conservative concerning traditionnal values. Besides, I really don’t think Valery Giscard d’Estaing is racist, as it has been hinted at. Nor overtly religious, by the way (contrarily, once again to Chirac). I remember quite well the arguments which followed his statement about Turkey (it was an issue in particular because at this time he was heading the convention in charge of frafting the EU constitution). He says that the European Union has to stop somewhere (for instance, Morroco has stated that if Turkey becomes part of the EU, it would apply for membership too). And that a roughly shared culture and history is a good basis to set up these limits. Apart from that, the reasons I can think of at the moment which are compromising Turkey’s membership (in no particular order) : -Human rights record. Though there has been many progresses made, Turkey still doesn’t seem to be at the same level as current EU countries from this point of view. -The history direct involvment of the army in politics. Here also, laws has been passed to supress any legal influence the army could have, but many do not fully trust Turkey from this point of view. -The opposite : the fear that more or less fundamentalist muslims could seize power (I said the opposite because traditionnally the army made sure that they would never come to power). -The religious and cultural differences. It might be an intellectual view that members of the EU should share the same “roots”, like, as I said, V.G. D’Estaing thinks, but it can also be motivated by racism/distrust/fear, at least in part of the electorate. -The size of Turkey. It would be one of the most populated EU country, hence once of the most influential. Which of course doesn’t apeal to many countries (the large one don’t want to lose their “advantages”, the small ones don’t want to be marginalized). -The shape of its economy. Even with the eastern european countries who have joined/ will soon join, Turkey would still be way under the average economical level in Europe, in other way ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/42 "2004-07-01T05:02:12Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > And which party did Kohl belong to? The CDU, as in Christian-Democratic Union. And what’s d’Estaing’s party affiliation? That’s right, the UDF, or Union for French Democracy, which according to [The Free Dictionary](http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Union%20for%20French%20Democracy) is, quote: “[UDF] may be compared to the Christian-Democratic Union of Germany in terms of its Christian democrat policies”. I totally disagree with this “free dictionnary” statement. The UDF is actually an union of smaller parties. One of these is actually the french christian democrat party (or used to be so) , but it’s so small a party that I suspect 95% of the french people don’t even jnow it exists. The UDF is a liberal party, in the european sense of the word “liberal”. Which means that it supports liberal economic policies (that is : right wing policies) but isn’t conservative concerning social policies. It’s not a conservative, or christian party. Chirac’s RPR would be a much closer match to the christian democrats, being much more conservative concerning traditionnal values. Besides, I really don’t think Valery Giscard d’Estaing is racist, as it has been hinted at. Nor overtly religious, by the way (contrarily, once again to Chirac). I remember quite well the arguments which followed his statement about Turkey (it was an issue in particular because at this time he was heading the convention in charge of frafting the EU constitution). He says that the European Union has to stop somewhere (for instance, Morroco has stated that if Turkey becomes part of the EU, it would apply for membership too). And that a roughly shared culture and history is a good basis to set up these limits. Apart from that, the reasons I can think of at the moment which are compromising Turkey’s membership (in no particular order) : -Human rights record. Though there has been many progresses made, Turkey still doesn’t seem to be at the same level as current EU countries from this point of view. -The history direct involvment of the army in politics. Here also, laws has been passed to supress any legal influence the army could have, but many do not fully trust Turkey from this point of view. -The opposite : the fear that more or less fundamentalist muslims could seize power (I said the opposite because traditionnally the army made sure that they would never come to power). -The religious and cultural differences. It might be an intellectual view that members of the EU should share the same “roots”, like, as I said, V.G. D’Estaing thinks, but it can also be motivated by racism/distrust/fear, at least in part of the electorate. -The size of Turkey. It would be one of the most populated EU country, hence once of the most influential. Which of course doesn’t apeal to many countries (the large one don’t want to lose their “advantages”, the small ones don’t want to be marginalized). -The shape of its economy. Even with the eastern european countries who have joined/ will soon join, Turkey would still be way under the average economical level in Europe, and not in good shape. In other words, it could be a financial burden, and being a large country, it could be a difficult bit to digest contrarily to other relatively poor but smaller countries which joined in the past. -As a result, fear of massive emigration towards other EU countries (since people can freely settle in other EU countries). For instance, in Germany, Turks are already the largest community of immigrants. -As a second result, something I’m not sure has been mentionned yet : the EU attribute relatively large amounts of money to the development of the poorest EU regions. Which means that if Turkey joins, the share of other countries will be signifanctly reduced. Countries currently benefiting from these “structural funds” are unlikely to be thrilled (for instance the newcomers from central Europe). This has already been an issue in the past, in particular preceding the recent enlargment to central/eastern europe) -As a third result, fear of delocalizations (and the resulting losses of jobs) of some companies to Turkey (smaller wages _and_ no border, tariff, etc… issues). -As mentionned above the EU would inherit the Kurd issue, which is a really serious one. -The EU would also suddenly have a bunch of not that stable countries at its borders (Irak, Iran, Syria, Georgia, etc…) , a prospect which is a nightmare for a lot of politicians, civil servants, governmental agencies, etc… -The political closeness of Turkey to the US doesn’t seem to be a major obstacle, though, probably because Turkey isn’t _that_ close to the US now anymore, and apparently wouldn’t mind being even less dependant on it. So close enough to please the pro-US governments, but not close enough to piss off the anti-US ones. -Also, the disagreements with Greece doesn’t seem to be a serious obstacle anymore, either. Both governments have made a lot of steps towards reconciliation, so it doesn’t seem Greece will necessarily vrto Turkey. Now, the negotiations already have gone very far and lasted for a long time. The EU is supposed to decide soon whether Turkey should enter in the formal process of joining the Union (the situation of, for instance, Romania). However, I’m not convinced at all that they’ll be accepted in, because there are really too many reasons for too many people/parties/governments/countries to oppose Turkey’s membership. And since it would require the unanimity, I personnally think it would be a major feat if they suceeded given the circumstances. Oh! And I forgot a last reason, though it worries only few people. Strong federalists like me are worried that any new country added will make more difficult to advance towards a more closely integrated EU (but there aren’t many of us, so it isn’t a major concern, onthe overall. It’s rather an advantage for Turkey, since some countries would be quite pleased by a less integrated, more “common market-like”, “lowest common denominator” EU (outside the Union, that would probably include the USA). Sorry for the double post, I accidentally hit the “submit” button before I was finished. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/43 "2004-07-01T05:17:07Z")
Thanks for the briefing **clairobscur**. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/44 "2004-07-01T05:22:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > One point nobody on this thread has mentioned yet, and I’ve never heard it discussed elsewhere: **Why** does Turkey want to join the European Union? I know they’ve been hopeful applicants for years, and they keep getting turned down – why is it so important to them? Do they expect massive economic benefits from free trade with Union countries? Do they want a voice in the European Parliament? Do they want to be in a position to protect the rights of Turks living in European nations? Or to stand up for the Turkish Cypriots? Or do they just want to be accepted, dammit, as a modern, civilized nation? I wouldn’t know for sure, but some advantages they’re seeking are : -Fully open borders and a very large market for their exports -The structural funds I mentionned above they would become the largest beneficiary of (something which benefitted a great deal Ireland, Spain and Portugal in the past, for instance). - EU companies delocalizing or non EU companies moving in (to benefit from the cheaper labor while still being installed within the EU) hence more jobs in Turkey -More political influence within (they already are quite dependant and have close ties with the EU, so it would be better to be inside and take part in the decision making than being outside, obviously) and _through_ the EU. -Political/diplomatical or even possibly military back up from the EU I would also suspect a lot of Turks find themselves more civilized/advanced than middle-east countries (anecdotal evidences only) hence think they belong more to a “modern” EU than to a “backward” middle east. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/45 "2004-07-01T05:32:31Z")
> [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > The religion thing that some have proposed as an obstacle shouldn’t be one. Turkey was founded on a secular ideal, and nowhere in the literature of the ECSC, ECM, EC, or EU has it ever said anything about religion (besides “freedom of”) But several countries (and particularily Poland, but also Italy, Spain…) recently insisted a lot on including a reference to the christian roots of the EU members in the proposed “constitution”… ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/46 "2004-07-01T05:36:49Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > Question: What is a special limited EU membership? Are you talking about the EEA? If so, note that the EEA is not going to be expanded. I’ve never heard about this. > . I don’t know what the poster you were responding to meant, but that could include : Turkish citizens not allowed to freely move in the EU for a given duration, no or not as much agriculture subventions than other EU countries are benefitting from, etc…Such temporary restrictions had beeen included in the negociations with Poland, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/47 "2004-07-01T05:48:13Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > **Brutus** : > > Brutus: > Quote: > Once again, Chirac missed a “good opportunity to remain quiet.” > > You misspelled “Bush”. > > . Actually, \*\* Brutus \*\* is refering to a Chirac 's quote, when some central europe EU candidates voiced they support to Bush policies in Irak just while the EU countries were trying to come to a common official statement on this very issue. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/48 "2004-07-01T05:50:10Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > If Turkey was to be a member of the EU, wouldn’t it have to clean up its act considerably? Wouldn’t that serve the interests of the US in several ways? What kind of acts which would presumably hurt the US are you thinking about? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/49 "2004-07-01T05:57:26Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > As I understood it, France’s primary objection to Turkey is that they are poor. ). Actually, France didn’t state (even unofficially) that it was opposed to Turkey joining the EU. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/50 "2004-07-01T06:06:33Z")
> [@Karmagun](#): > > Those who do not want Turkey in the EU hide their racism behind the human rights issue. > .[/SIZE] Of course. And people who criticize Israel are just trying to hide their antisemitism … :rolleyes: You might disagree with them but actually, there are many reasons to be opposed to Turkey membership bedides racism. Besides, I would say that on the overall, this really isn’t an issue people feel concerned about over here. It’s discussed, but mostly amongst the politicians, the intellectuals, etc…Never at the corner of the street cafe. French people already don’t feel very concerned with the EU generally speaking, let alone with theorical future members. It might be different in other EU countries, and it might become different if Turkey is someday about to join. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/51 "2004-07-01T06:12:08Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > 1. You see Europe as Christian. But even though Europe is a continent with a Christian heritage, very few people see themselves as Christians. In a recent survey in my home country only 4% said they were Christians, down from 15% ten years ago (in a similar survey in the US about 60% regarded themselves as Christians). This is also the reason why the traditionally strong center-right Christian parties in Europe today has much less support than they used to have. People might not perceive themselves as christians, but they also definitely perceive themselve as not being muslims. And they view themselves as Europeans, not “arabs/turks/watever”. Also, christianism is still alive and well in some EU countries. And they will all have to agree. > [@](#): > > To answer your question, if Turkey was a state with a Christian heritage and everything else were equal, then no, I don’t think it would be any easier for Turkey to become an EU member, simply because EU membership is about trade, not culture, see below. . Honbestly, I believe it would make it easier to join. Though once again, it isn’t the only issue by a long shot. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/52 "2004-07-01T06:24:48Z")
> [@tschild](#): > > That means that fully two thirds of resident aliens (the human sort) could get naturalized at any time if they so chose. Judging by the numbers most of them are reluctant to do so, which seems to indicate that e.g. the disadvantages of not being a citizen in Turkey outweigh the disadvantages of not being a citizen in Germany to them. One factor may be that in most countries of origin aliens may not own real estate, which is a consideration if you stand to inherit the family home/farm. It’s probably obvious, but people don’t think only in terms of advantages/ disadvantages. Renouncing to one’s citizenship might be a big step to take for some people (going back to visit your family and being there a foreigner???). I would suspect that the number of algerians people aplying for french citizenship would drop significantly if they had to renounce to their algerian citizenship. Probably particulary true if you’re living in a country which doesn’t fully accept you, whether or not you’re a citizen (aply to both Turks in Germany and Algerians in France) and where, justy by looking at your face or your name people will think “immigrant”, even though you might be a citizen and born in the country. However, it’s true that Germany made a lot of progress to give an easier access to German citizenship (while at the same time, France did the reverse, making much harder to become a french citizen). ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/53 "2004-07-01T06:36:26Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Another thing – people keep talking about anti-Turkish “racism” – do Europeans really view Turks as a different “race”? Definitely. They’re…well, Turkish…Middle-eastern people, more or less like the arabs, etc…There’s definitely a significant level of racism (though not too much in France since Turkey isn’t a major country of immigration. Maximum racism level is reserved to the “arabs”). they definitely “do not belong”. And one can relatively often identify Turkish people (or at least some of them) by their physical appearance, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/54 "2004-07-01T06:43:42Z")
> [@tschild](#): > > No, they are not. If I wanted to distinguish Turkish and other European people on the street I’d go by cultural indicators, in dress and, mainly, accents. I would disagree with that. Your average Turk can usually be told apart from your average european. [/quote] Anyway, In Germany and I think large parts of Europe it’s taboo to refer to people’s race. Talk about ethnicity all you want (in a non-disparaging way) but don’t mention race. When I first came upon an example of an US employee database in a database tutorial I was flabbergasted: they use a field for a _racial classification_? Unthinkable in most of Europe, I think. [/quote] Might be true in Germany, but not in France. people will refer to race or ethnic origin, and except if you’re totally insulated, you’re going to hear disparaging comments about “arabs” (not Turks, but only because there aren’t enough of them). The part about mentionning the ethnicity of someone on a document is a big no-no in France too, though. And forbidden by law, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/55 "2004-07-01T16:07:16Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I totally disagree with this “free dictionnary” statement. The UDF is actually an union of smaller parties. One of these is actually the french christian democrat party (or used to be so) , but it’s so small a party that I suspect 95% of the french people don’t even jnow it exists. The UDF is a liberal party, in the european sense of the word “liberal”. Which means that it supports liberal economic policies (that is : right wing policies) but isn’t conservative concerning social policies. It’s not a conservative, or christian party. Chirac’s RPR would be a much closer match to the christian democrats, being much more conservative concerning traditionnal values. This is a nitpick. I’m aware that UDF is made up by smaller parties. And if you hadn’t just skimmed the thread, you’d also see that the sentence was “UDF may be compared to the Christian-Democratic Union of Germany _in terms of_ its Christian democrat policies”. Not in terms of all of it’s policies. We only goot into this discussion because I asked for an impartial cite that … oh, forget it, read the thread if you want. The free dictionary links btw: > **[Union for French Democracy](https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Union%20for%20French%20Democracy)** > > Wikipedia article about Union for French Democracy > **[Valéry Giscard d'Estaing](https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Val%E9ry%20Giscard%20d'Estaing)** > > Wikipedia article about Valéry Giscard d'Estaing > [@clairobscur](#): > > Besides, I really don’t think Valery Giscard d’Estaing is racist, as it has been hinted at. Nor overtly religious, by the way (contrarily, once again to Chirac). I remember quite well the arguments which followed his statement about Turkey (it was an issue in particular because at this time he was heading the convention in charge of frafting the EU constitution). **He says that the European Union has to stop somewhere (for instance, Morroco has stated that if Turkey becomes part of the EU, it would apply for membership too). And that a roughly shared culture and history is a good basis to set up these limits.** My bolding. This is more to the heart of the matter. After the end of the cold war, criterias for EU’s “enlargement strategy” shifted from geographical, economical and cultural as in _western european_ - meaning only a number of countries in Western Europe should become members - to a project were geography meant little. This was evident during and after the Helsinki summit in 1999 (?), and meant a gret deal for the process ending with the inclusion of 10 new members this year. Currently Turkey. Bulgaria and Romania are formally recognized as applicants. Bulgaria and Romania may be admitted around 2007-2008. Croatia has also applied, and will probably be part of a wave of Balkan nation states admitted between 2010 and 2015. Turkey is somewhere inbetween these two enlargements, and will probably be admitted either as the first country in the “Balkan enlargement” or by it’s own in 2009-2010. Further, one of the strategies of the EU is to create a strong relationship with nations along the EU border, meaning Ukraine, Belarus, and the countries to the east of Turkey. This may eventually lead to the inclusion of some of those countries as well, someday in the future. You mentioned Morocco in North Africa, which is interesting because there are voices within EU who claims that EU shouldn’t stop by the Mediterranean Sea, though personally I think that’s more of a longshot. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Apart from that, the reasons I can think of at the moment which are compromising Turkey’s membership (in no particular order) : > … > … Just adding one: You’re forgetting one of the more important points: Turkey’s military experience and strategical importance in a possible future European military project. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/56 "2004-07-01T16:14:03Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > People might not perceive themselves as christians, but they also definitely perceive themselve as not being muslims. And they view themselves as Europeans, not “arabs/turks/watever”. Also, christianism is still alive and well in some EU countries. And they will all have to agree. > > Honbestly, I believe it would make it easier to join. Though once again, it isn’t the only issue by a long shot. Once again, you’re nitpicking or not reading the whole thing. The paragraph ended with: _“… However, it would have silenced some of the opponents of Turkish membership in the Christian community, so in that regard you might say it would be easier.”_ So what do we disagree about?`My argument was only that Turkey’s affiliation with Islam will not make it difficult for them to become EU members, because those who think this way _among EU politicians_ (who are those deciding this issue) are few and in minority. There are other much more important issues. The people on the street in the rest of Europe doesn’t care squat about Turkey or no Turkey in the EU, this will all be decided in Brussel. Correction: In the prvious post about the strategical importance of Turkey in a possible future european military project, that was meant as an advantage for Turkey, not something compromising their membership application. ---
**Author:** ![Alien](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/57b2e6/32.png) [@Alien](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/57 "2004-07-01T16:15:47Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Definitely. They’re…well, Turkish…Middle-eastern people, more or less like the arabs, etc…There’s definitely a significant level of racism (though not too much in France since Turkey isn’t a major country of immigration. Maximum racism level is reserved to the “arabs”). they definitely “do not belong”. > > And one can relatively often identify Turkish people (or at least some of them) by their physical appearance, indeed. I will let this one stand on your own account. And while we’re sliding into the sphere of racial profiling, care to explain the difference between Greeks (EU member), Albanians and Turks? On second thought, let’s not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/58 "2004-07-01T22:30:20Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I wouldn’t know for sure, but some advantages they’re seeking are : > > \ > > - EU companies delocalizing or non EU companies moving in (to benefit from the cheaper labor while still being installed within the EU) hence more jobs in Turkey Which, from the European point of view, means less economic pressure for Turks to relocated to European countries. > [@clairobscur](#): > > I would also suspect a lot of Turks find themselves more civilized/advanced than middle-east countries (anecdotal evidences only) hence think they belong more to a “modern” EU than to a “backward” middle east. That raises another issue: If Turkey, an Islamic country, is admitted to the EU, that raises the possibility (distant, to be sure), that the nations of North Africa might also be admitted, if they can improve their own records on democracy and human rights, and develop their economies to something close to Turkey’s level. After all, all these countries were within the European orbit well into the 1950s – as imperial colonies, a situation they clearly resented, and fought to end. But as EU members they would be full and equal members of the European economic and political community. It would be like the Roman Empire, but much more heterogeneous, decentralized and democratic. Would that not be a good thing? A common market for the whole Mediterranean world? And if Russia ever joins the EU – eventually, it might be followed by the contiguous Islamic states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, if they can clean up their own records, etc. Then there would be a zone running from Dublin to Vladivostok, from Archangel to the Upper Nile, of free democratic nations using a common currency, and trading freely with each other, and in a state of perpetual peace and friendliness with each other, and all electing representatives to a common Parliament. Is that a vision or what? ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/59 "2004-07-01T22:49:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That raises another issue: If Turkey, an Islamic country, is admitted to the EU, that raises the possibility (distant, to be sure), that the nations of North Africa might also be admitted, if they can improve their own records on democracy and human rights, and develop their economies to something close to Turkey’s level. After all, all these countries were within the European orbit well into the 1950s – as imperial colonies, a situation they clearly resented, and fought to end. Egypt? Morocco? Surely not Libya! It would be curious to see the whole “European” concept become more and more dilluted. Slippery slope! However, you have to remember that many of those countries want very little to do with Europe, having had enough of their colonization for one century. > [@](#): > > And if Russia ever joins the EU If it happens in our lifetimes, I’ll eat my _shopka_. > [@](#): > > eventually, it might be followed by the contiguous Islamic states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, if they can clean up their own records, etc. What, Armenia and Azerbaijan and Georgia? They would have to do a helluva lot of polishing to make themselves presentable… though they do have a lot of vital resources. I don’t see the -stans being introduced ever, for many reasons that I won’t go into here and now (the least of which is not that they don’t want it). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810/60 "2004-07-02T00:08:30Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > However, you have to remember that many of those countries want very little to do with Europe, having had enough of their colonization for one century. Perfectly true, but that’s my point – EU membership wouldn’t be colonization, it would a relationship of (roughly) equal partnership. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-eu-turkey-and-the-us/252810.md?page=2)