Turkey has been knocking on the EU’s door practically since its inception. Their first official application dates back to 1963, the first of a long series, and we have kept telling them to come back in a decade or two each and every time. So no Erik, we can’t yet again give them an elusive answer by making the shimmering semi promise of a possible but distant membership, because that would simply be treating them like fools. (Economic aid to Turkey is already flowing through Euromed btw, the extended free-trade area on certain products for the non-European Mediterranean countries, coupled with the promise of incentives in exchange for better results as regards their human right records and democracy. It's working quite well). So time has come to say yes or no, and personally I woul say no to Turkey’s membership for a few simple and obvious reasons, regardless of whether it finally meets membership criteria (notably its treatment of the Kurdish minority and the total demise of the army from the political scene)
Turkey is in Asia, not in Europe. Before you say that Cyprus isn't either, let's put things into perspective. Cyprus is a tiny island who objectively doesn't change the EU equilibrium. Turkey however is a 70 million odd inhabitants country with a young, growing population which in a matter of two decades would make it the biggest member state. Were Turkey in the EU today, it'd already have as many MEP’s as Germany. Morocco among others has already made it clear that the day Turkey joins, it will apply for membership as well. This poses the question of what the EU’s objectives and boundaries actually are. Do we want a definite regional entity of 30 odd members with a similar enough social, economic, cultural and religious background as to be able to further integrate, or do we want an ever expanding free-trade area that, given its size and sheer diversity, will never be able to be little more than a UN replica? Should Israel join the EU? Should Russia? India? Do we want expansion to the detriment of cohesion or do we want to optimise the current geopolitical block we have created ? I of course am strongly inclinded to favour the latter option, which is in line with the ideals of the visionary minds (Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman) that launched the idea half a century ago.
I also have to shake my head at Paolo Montero’s assertion that the EU has never worked. Firstly, despite the recent impasse regarding the Constitutional Treaty, which would deserve a thread on its own, the European project has never backtracked. It has had its bad moments and standstills, but it never came back on its steps once it had taken them. And the benefits are for all to see and far, FAR outweigh the few drawbacks. The EU is a unique, unprecedented experiment in the history of civilisation. It has made war impossible between nations that had been tearing each other apart for centuries. It has greatly helped reshape countries that were brutal dictatorships into modern, prosperous democracies in a matter of just one generation (Spain is of course the best example of this). A country like Ireland had a GDP pro capita worth 60% of the EU average before membership. Today, thanks to pertinent aid and development policies (and intelligent use of EU funds by the national gov’t, I wish we could do the same with Italy's South btw) it hs reached 120%. The same impressive leap forward is to be expected from the newly arrived Eastern European members. This, and many, many more things, is what the EU has achieved, and there isn't a single country that hasn't to some degree drawn tangible advantages from membership. Sure, a lot remains to be done, and the functioning of the institutions badly needs to be re-thought, especially after enlargment, and I could name a thousand flaws that need to be adressed, but while it is good that the EU citizens keep a critical attitude towards the EU, I think this newfound anti-EUist bandwagonism pervading Europe is at best ignorant and at worst counterproductive and harmful.
Turkey is in Asia, not in Europe. Before you say that Cyprus isn't either, let's put things into perspective. Cyprus is a tiny island who objectively doesn't change the EU equilibrium. Turkey however is a 70 million odd inhabitants country with a young, growing population which in a matter of two decades would make it the biggest member state. Were Turkey in the EU today, it'd already have as many MEP’s as Germany. Morocco among others has already made it clear that the day Turkey joins, it will apply for membership as well. This poses the question of what the EU’s objectives and boundaries actually are. Do we want a definite regional entity of 30 odd members with a similar enough social, economic, cultural and religious background as to be able to further integrate, or do we want an ever expanding free-trade area that, given its size and sheer diversity, will never be able to be little more than a UN replica? Should Israel join the EU? Should Russia? India? Do we want expansion to the detriment of cohesion or do we want to optimise the current geopolitical block we have created ? I of course am strongly inclinded to favour the latter option, which is in line with the ideals of the visionary minds (Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman) that launched the idea half a century ago.
I also have to shake my head at Paolo Montero’s assertion that the EU has never worked. Firstly, despite the recent impasse regarding the Constitutional Treaty, which would deserve a thread on its own, the European project has never backtracked. It has had its bad moments and standstills, but it never came back on its steps once it had taken them. And the benefits are for all to see and far, FAR outweigh the few drawbacks. The EU is a unique, unprecedented experiment in the history of civilisation. It has made war impossible between nations that had been tearing each other apart for centuries. It has greatly helped reshape countries that were brutal dictatorships into modern, prosperous democracies in a matter of just one generation (Spain is of course the best example of this). A country like Ireland had a GDP pro capita worth 60% of the EU average before membership. Today, thanks to pertinent aid and development policies (and intelligent use of EU funds by the national gov’t, I wish we could do the same with Italy's South btw) it hs reached 120%. The same impressive leap forward is to be expected from the newly arrived Eastern European members. This, and many, many more things, is what the EU has achieved, and there isn't a single country that hasn't to some degree drawn tangible advantages from membership. Sure, a lot remains to be done, and the functioning of the institutions badly needs to be re-thought, especially after enlargment, and I could name a thousand flaws that need to be adressed, but while it is good that the EU citizens keep a critical attitude towards the EU, I think this newfound anti-EUist bandwagonism pervading Europe is at best ignorant and at worst counterproductive and harmful.
Buy on AliExpress.com
