Trilarion, I like your style, and I hope cum suspect you see also untied German as a matter of ideal and principle, of Germans needing and belonging together.

And so it should be, even if it still might cost something.

My conviction meanwhile is that Greece was accepted into EU so that it would not fall into political influence of left-winger anarchists, as opposed to coolly objective principles of being an attractive member, and I can understand the sentimental motivation.

From economical point of view, Turkey is a better candidate than East-Germany was to join United Germany and Western Europe, or Greece was to join EU in the first place.

No nation is quite optimal, for sure - where should Turkey progress, in particular - say you?

I cannot see the paradox in the same way as you do - because I do not see EU as driven by ideal of world domination, but as with the ideal of making us prosperous and happy regionally.

Originally EU was founded to prevent WW3 from starting between France and Germany - and to build up war-torn continent.

Global power, de facto, I hope ;-) but not one based on idea of uniformity or imperial domination, also.

I find that the factor that pulls our region together is sense of cultural and ethical belonging with a joy in diversity - not being a single nation. Politically, either European Parliament should be given at least a tangible or significant veto power (which I do not think it has), to my mind, or just be withdrawn from tax-payers expenses, and that's that.

The issue with Turkey in EU might, indeed, be a combo of xeno-phobia in terms of religion with the smaller nations and wish of the current dominant nations (DE, FR) not to share their toys in the sand-box. Turkey would upset the power-balance in the EU - but I think that might not be that bad, provided that the give and take would include certain basic liberties such as freedom of expression to be implemented in parallel.

Edti: repetition.

Ah, well, is it meaningful that Macedonia shall be referred to "Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia" just because a few Greek politicians (I should hope not Greeks in general) have some complex or another about Alexander the Great or such like?

Cyprus is a difficult topic because it is inter-continental type of topic of recent past, but, by, "FYROM," :-p - I trust some Irish feel strongly about Northern Ireland, but it was rather Charles de Gaulle who was decisive obstacle to UK membership.

If FR & DE, plus UK & IT, supported by most others, were positive to Turkey in EU, I suspect Greece would have to consider the concept of political compromise.

I think those fall into the "Many people have felt that certain countries lately have been given an entry to EU zone too easily...". And not just lately. At some point EU seemed to be trying to expand fast (and back then I think there were also more positive feelings about Turkey possibly entering too), but then the EU economic crisis happened which revealed that there may be too different countries in the Euro zone already, and this also affected Turkey's potential membership as now many feel maybe EU shouldn't have expanded so fast. And the other existing points which certain countries may have against the idea (Greece, and the big countries who'd suddenly get one more big country to decide on matters).

And the latest political changes in Turkey hasn't made it easier either. I'm not sure if your point was that the current political climate in Turkey is due to not being accepted into EU in a timely manner? I don't really believe so.

Modern, tolerant, secular, industrialized, peaceful with an rich culture and tradition while religion is more a private matter than a public one. Democratic, low-corruption, independent justice and respecting individual freedom also needs to be added but that goes without saying.

I know this is partly an illusion, there are strong fundamental forces in Turkey and corruption is also quite high. So what will really happen? I don't know.

What I wish for Turkey is basically the same as every western industrialized country, except for a different religion. My guess is that many people in Turkey would like that too while others not. Occasionally we can vote a bit to change the course of history but my feeling is that stronger forces are at work. I will be very curious to see how it plays out.

Historically speaking, the EU's antecedents were definitively strongly influenced by an attempt to move from under the shadow of the US (economically - Marshall plan, etc...) and reclaim a more global role. This goes back to the 50s afterall. Taking this to mean that Europe wanted to have World Domination, to go back to imperialism, is of course an exageration.

You seem to reject the pragmatic realpolitik considerations as invalid or unethical. Let me pushback a bit on that and be my cynical purest.

The EU was a French "manipulation" to prevent Germany from dominating Europe for as long as possible, as its demographic and economic potential otherwise assure. Want to call this preventing WW3? Sure, but read between the lines. Also, do you think it is a coincidence that the idealist rethoric of the kind you are expressing, really only started to be evident after 89? EU expansion in the 90s and 00s was opportunistic - the european idealism you express as fundamental was mostlly rationalization embodied in rethoric.

Now a further provocation. Do you see any argument for Turkey in the EU which would not apply to Russia?

Sorry to provoke, but... Ireland, EU member, does not permit legal abortion due to religious sentiment. That is hardly a private religious matter, is it? Or in reverse, the rest of EU should revise their understanding.

Those who can afford it in IE, can go across the border; the more destitute might have to risk back-alley abortion; and there shall even be an occasional tragedy, as I recall reading the lament of the widower of an Indian expat-lady working in Ìreland who bled to death following untreated miscarriage.

And low corruption?? Why do you think IT, ES, PT, GR are in economic dire straits, but for systematic corruption, made worse by low economic participation of women? Hungary - getting away with aiming to eliminate the freedom of press etc.

Turkey's recent move to the "hard religious right" (as I would understand Islamist movement) is regrettable, but also not without parallels in Western World.

Why are we talking about Turkey and the European Union now? Thanksgiving isn't until November.

Turkey applied to EU in 1987. I mean, this was Madonna and "Whose that Girl"!! Just think of it, really.

Ah well, let us not forget this is actually the aftermath of the American sub-prime crises where poor lending policies in the US caused a lot of harm in the real economy (ie actual production and exchange of goods and services) - still acutely felt some six years on here in Europe. But we not feel retributive about that, mostly?

The point being that when it goes poorly, solidarity to my mind would be more needed than ever, but in shorter supply.

In terms of Middle-Eastern crises, I do not see what credible moderate political alternatives we have given to Turkey - but surely lot of cannon fodder for extremists.

I can only say: I see the logical end point of Atatrürk's ideals with EU, and I love Istanbul as the richest European capital as of now, because what was done to Pantheon (etc) in Rome has not been done as of yet to Hagia Sophia (etc) fully in Istanbul. But I certainly love Rome too, yet I wish there had been a more subtle conquering attitude, to preserve what was there before and in parallel.

See the point about Istanbul and Rome in the post below (edit above), and reflect which Thanksgiving more resembles, and maybe you will know why. :-)

Sorry I cannot snippet, if someone wants to PM me "copy paste templates for Dummies in capital D" pray do!


Russia vs Turkey bit: Turkey identifies with Europe, Russia does not. TR opened the gambit on 1987, Russia will never.

Then: we did have the anti-Marshall plan in the reverse by sub-prime, indeed - so why not wish for bit of a joint responsible cum independent ground for change?

As to WW3: well, it will not start between France and Germany, so hey-ho, what say you - is not realpolitik about ends, not means?

And, yup - I can see you might be more "We are Slavic* (ESC14) than "Insieme: 1992" (ESC90). I could re-iterate a charmingly topical and acidic tweet from a Finnish media personality, but I desist .;-)

I actually think it's great idea to unify some of the little things that divide your countries. Though I would not like to do the same with some of my fellow countrymen in other states. Like someone mentioned cars a few days ago and you have several different requirements in different countries....we have the same, California Requirements has stricter regulations for smog and emissions tests, some states make you have a vehicle safety check every year, some states have very liberal tinting laws, some require rear and front license plates, some have a property tax applied to the vehicle every year. Then there are different state income and sales taxes, NYC has an additional buroughs tax.

Though, in most of the things that matter like our money we are the same. Everyone pretty much speaks the same language, except for Southern CA, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana. Anyone is free to travel between states and are unsupervised and undocumented (for the most part). I can work in one state and live in another. Federal Tax system is the same (just lots of loopholes for the wealthy).

havent read all the stuff that has been said, but the answer is easy: they are too different from us. if more cultures different from ours join the EU i fear theres gonna be world war 3 pretty soon, as you can see in the french elections. A LOT of people are getting fed up with it all.

putting a whole bunch of different cultures forcefully together into one empire/country has failed most of the time. its basic nature. and the EU is already under a lot of strain right now with eastern/western europe. if we now add an islamic country ot the mix (which i dont even know why its politically considered to be in europe, if like 98% lies in asia), then its just gonna get worse. then people wont feel like the EU is a union of people with similar culture and heritage, but just something that the big industry bosses forced upon the people so their companies can make more money and have cheap labor. as a result, they are going to hate the EU even more.

and judging how erdogan has behaved the last couple of months, i dont think turkey will join the eu any time soon.

You MIGHT be right on the first point. but therein lies the problem: the politicians and industry are just worried about the economic point of view. but based on the last election, hopefully that will give the social/cultural point of view more focus. and the social aspect is what the people of europe really care about.

your second point where turkey should progress? i think it should progress towards the middle east and take a leading role in helping other islamic states to become more modern like turkey is right now. there it can take a leading role.

phew, didnt intend to write so much, but that is a topic that gets me going...

Never understood the logic behind "different cultures don't mix well together". What should we do? Behave all in the same way?

People should not confuse what people want with what their leaders want. Just because the latest polls show that that nut from North Korea is the most loved one in North Korea it doesn't really mean it is true.

I'll PM you as well :)

My only point, which I'm not sure you disagree or not at a logical level, is that there are valid pragmatic reasons to reject Turkey joining the EU. Assuming xenophobia is dogmatic and extremist.

A perfect example of the chasm separating our thought processes is your assumption that because we disagree my ends are the suspect element. When actually our ends are similar in the abstract (at least as far as I can evaluate your intentions from the communication i nthe thread) whereas the means to achieve them are what is different.

Do you really imagine me as a mustache twirling villain because I advocate machiavelian realpolitik, whereas you propose some idealist elitist "intervention"? By the way, ironically very neo conish isn't it?

Rethorical question, did you support the Iraq invasion? ;)