Pay attention Ryan - citizens of EU member countries already can do that as I’ve just told you.
Then what would be the problem of Turkey doing the same?
Because it wouldn’t be a two-way thing, and richer EU countries already have enough cheap labour coming from Easter Europe in the next few years.
Yeah I guess that would be a factor as well.
Ryan, am I right in assuming that you have recently spent a pleasurable holiday in Turkey and are looking at the issue through rose-tinted glasses? I have spent a year there and admire the Turks greatly, but the fact remains that they have very little to bring to the table.
You’re hijacking your own thread now by asking in effect why are there any restrictions between population movements between any countries. The answer to that is that all countries need to be able to control who and how many people live there and move across their borders to maintain national security and stability.
The reason why EU member countries allow freedom of movement for citizens of member countries is precisely because they’re all part of the same organisation with similar laws and practices in each country. This is why there are entry requirements for all applicant countries. If you have total porosity of borders you have an unmonitored chaos and open season for smuggling and cross border crime of every kind. Only a certain amount of traffic across any frontier is practically supportable, and that amount depends on a comparison between the conditions either side of that frontier.
No, I’ve actually been reading articles about the membership proposal by Turkey, and was wondering what the benefits would be?
The problem in assessing the benefits and costs of accepting Turkey into the EU is that they don’t meet head on, and that they’re all open to guesswork.
Presumably the Turks feel that the changes they’ve been asked to make would be easier to implement if they had a big cash payout from existing EU members, and that correspondingly they’d then be able to sell the reforms to opponents within Turkey. One of the reasons for its disappointment over the delay is that there may not be as much money available in aid to Turkey after all the other new members have mopped up their allocation.
As you’ve noted, pushing Turkey towards further westernisation might have some important benefits:
[ul][li]They would send a favourable message to other countries with majority Muslim populations; but that’s a wider geopolitical benefit, not one specific to the EU, even though the EU would be expected to carry any negative consequences by itself.[/li][li]A similar benefit is that an EU-member Turkey could be used as a model for future governments of central Asian countries, or even a reformed Iraq, to follow.[/li][li]They would also tend to reduce fears amongst Muslim citizens of existing member countries that European culture is not anti-Islam, and should undermine the arguments of Islamist extremists within the EU. You’ve already hinted at this yourself.[/li][li]Although Turkey is a member of NATO, it has so far refused to allow NATO weapons to be used by Europe’s rapid reaction force, but this restriction would presumably disappear if it was an EU member too.[/li][li]Greece seems to believe that its own difficulties with Turkey might be easier to sort out with Turkey inside rather than outside.[/ul][/li]It seems that EU is determined to force Turkey to carry out as much change as it can from its own resources and to spend EU money introducing easier countries first. Further reforms within Turkey would, of course, benefit the people living there, but it’s open to question how many of those depend on it being inside the EU and how many just depend on good government by the Turks themselves.
Just to clear things up, Turkey is officially an Islamic state, but it’s politics are aggressively secular thanks to Kemal.
One reason many countries are wary of letting Turkey become a member, is its size, both in Area and in population. It’s about 1,5 times bigger than France and with a pop. of (about) 65 million. Since # of seats in the EU parliament is awarded according to population, Turkey would get as many seats as GB, Germany and France have. It would become a major player, with power to wreak havoc on the (IMO insane) agricultural subsidies. estern Turkey is very much like Southern Europe in many respects, but Eastern Turkey is quite underdeveloped.
Human Rights is one thing, but I’m enough of a cynic to “follow the money”. It’s convenient to use the human rights issues as a pretext, while waiting for the country to shape up financially.
In a way, admitting Turkey now, could have a very good effect on the Human Rights, since the rest of the nations could put a totally diferent pressure on Turkey, as part of the community. Since this is not happening, I assume that money’s what the problem is, at this point.
Why would Turkey want to put themselves under the ridiculous economic restrictions of member states in the EU? Sure you get a little scratch in return, but it’s a deal with the devil.
Turkey is the best thing going in that area right now, it has a chance to really shine if it can stay secular and keep moving towards the time when free market and free trade will be vigorously protected, and their economy will flourish.
The EU’s own restrictions will strangle it eventually, there’s no way I’d want to be part of that organization if I was leading a stong, Westernized state on it’s way up the economic ladder.
RexDart, so why do you think the Turkish population and government have an opinion so contrary to yours?
If it was such a strangle hold, then why would anyone bother to join it and adopt a currency if they much better off ‘on thier own’ as you suggest?
Not according to its own Constitution it isn’t.
(Quote for the lazy: “ARTICLE 2. The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular and social State…”)