[Far-Right Sage]

This issue is so outrageously silly. Fasces was correct in the first comment. To discuss Turkey in or out of the European Union is ludicrous, in my view, because it is not a European nation. That is not a disparaging view; I have great respect for Turkey and the Turkic peoples. It's common sense. The nonsense about Istanbul sitting on a geographical European strip is just that - one large city will bring the whole of the Anatolian peasantry into a European consciousness?

[Doomhammer]

Thank you for the detailed response, Fasces.

Returning to Albania and Bosnia - I would call them peripheral European states, and consider their populations to be of peripheral European descent - those ambiguous regions where civilizations meet. But European itself is such a vague and changing term depending on where you are that I would hardly call my definition comprehensive or conclusive. I welcome debate.
I first thought that in your view ethnicity was important too so that's why I asked about these mixed peoples in the periphery of Europe - Bosniaks who mixed with Turks, Russians with Tatars, and Circassians who were mixed with Slavs and many still adhere to Christianity.

This is the main reason why I brought them up (the Albanians and Bosniaks). They have a dubious ethnic background. They are Muslim, fine, but they are of European descent. The implication would be that an important portion of Turkey's population are also of European descent. It is calculated that the Ottoman Empire received about 5-6 million refugees from the Balkans and Russia throughout the 19th century - Albanians, Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Circassians, the Gagauz and so on. Even Ataturk was an Albanian (probably) from Salonika. This is a topic worth exploring. One would not necessarily reach the conclusion that Turks are European but it is worth discussing it nevertheless. It may be possible to find answers to endemic identity crisis that has plagued Turkey since the early Republic era. "Turkish" is as artificial a category as "French" was back in the 18th century.

---

As for Culture? I can't argue with that. Europe is unique in that it is foremost a cultural and political concept. But then there emerges several problems. Europe was founded around the Christian faith, but most European states today at least purport to embody the values of the Enlightenment, values which sometimes contradict the Christian faith. Which is more important for the European identity today?

When you delve into culture at the micro level, even the "core" European nations display a great deal of variance - these are trivial differences to be sure but the Mediterranean are in many respects closer to the Levant than to Northern Europe. Paradoxically, many local and regional cultures today has been transformed by "Western" values such that there is a great deal of uniformity in the modern way of life around the globe. I don't necessarily mean that it happened by imperialism but by a diffusion of economic ideas and technology. To be more precise, many countries have come to resemble the United States (yes, it is "European," but still)- this includes "Europe" as well.

Aside from a common history of battling Muslims invaders, and themselves, even religion and other values don't appear to be outstanding. On further scrutiny even the common history of resisting Muslims appears shaky - you have the long standing Franco-Ottoman alliance, the complicated relationship between Venice and the Ottomans, the Ottoman-Swedish alliance which collapsed as suddenly as it appeared, the German-Ottoman "alliance" that was conceived in the late 19th century, and the Ottoman support for Protestants during the Thirty Years War.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I would say "European values" are the sum of economic, political and social values that have developed over the past three centuries in the "Western" world. "Europe" in my definition is composed of the following:

- "European values" as I conceptualized above
- A shared history of fighting among selves and against others

So, in other words, I agree with you.

---

(as they defined Europe in the same way the Greeks did, where Europe referred to northern Greece and lands beyond, but not Greece itself)

For the record, Western Anatolia was also considered to be a part of Europa according to the Greeks and Romans.

more European than peripheral, but closer to the periphery than, say, Austria.

With Austria being the frontier defense of the Holy Roman Empire against and in view of its enormous contributions to the arts, Austria and "periphery" should not even appear in the same sentence when Europe is being discussed.

I also wouldn't claim European civilization is superior to others

I don't like dividing the entire "human experience" based on arbitrary, and in some respects trivial, socio-economic-political categories. If we must, however, then I would claim that European or Western civilization IS superior to others. And I can probably get away with saying that without fear of invoking racist taboos. Of course it is entirely an subjective category and not having experienced any other significantly different civilization contexts people can rightly question me. The best civilization would be the one that dominates politically and military; that endeavors to improve the human condition, to maximize freedoms, and uphold human rights; and dominates intellectual currents. Other 'civilizations' may purport to saving the souls of their members and to maximizing happiness and family values or all that hippie crap I don't care for. Well, good for them. They still suck IMO.

[Baff]

So, if I say "that individual is of European descent", you honestly cannot give me a guess on certain traits that individual may hold?

Not to any great degree of accuracy in this day and age.

I could play the odds and go for white skin etc. Nominally Christian religion, democratic political philosophy and so on.
But times have changed. There is room for a strong margin of error in that sort of social stereotyping.

I do not think these stereotypes define what it is "european" so much as I think they describe it.

[Fasces]

When you delve into culture at the micro level, even the "core" European nations display a great deal of variance - these are trivial differences to be sure but the Mediterranean are in many respects closer to the Levant than to Northern Europe.

Likely true, which shows just how fluid the entire concept is. It is far easier to decide what isn't "Europe" than define what is.

For the record, Western Anatolia was also considered to be a part of Europa according to the Greeks and Romans.

Not Asia Minor?

With Austria being the frontier defense of the Holy Roman Empire against and in view of its enormous contributions to the arts, Austria and "periphery" should not even appear in the same sentence when Europe is being discussed.

I was using Austria as an example of a "core" European society.

I could play the odds and go for white skin etc. Nominally Christian religion, democratic political philosophy and so on.
But times have changed. There is room for a strong margin of error in that sort of social stereotyping.

I do not think these stereotypes define what it is "european" so much as I think they describe it.

Yes, but they are a proof of concept - when I say "European" you have an idea of what is meant, and what that implies in terms of characteristics.

[Baff]

Only because I have read a few of your posts before.

If I read a random person write about "European", I would not be making the same assumptions but rather the ones I have previously described about geographic location.
While I recognise the stereotypes that you are alluding to exist, they aren't ones I commonly use myself. This would not be my own default understanding/usuage of the word European.

[Istanbuller]

They are not a European peoples. They are invaders from central Asia whose history and identity are based on conflict with European civilization.

I always say same things and this is a historical fact. We had fought against a united Europe for more than 700 years.

But you all should accept that Turkish people should have right to stay in Europe far more than fucking Asians ,and Latinos. I'm far more European than a South American

[Baff]

Foreigners should have whatever rights to stay in a country that it's domestics offer them. And no more.
Anything else and it's reasonable to expect violence.

[Istanbuller]

Foreigners should have whatever rights to stay in a country that it's domestics offer them. And no more.
Anything else and it's reasonable to expect violence.

We don't care your opinions. We Turks are nonobservant people

[Bertram]

Good morning, I will present three arguments for why Turkey should be part of the European Union.

Turkey has long been a player in European and international politics. It was one of the earliest nations to join NATO, in 1952, and in 1949 was one of the founding members of the Council of Europe. Turkey was involved in the European Economic Community since its beginnings and was soon added in 1963, with the intent to have stronger bonds between Turkey and the rest of Europe. Turkey first attempted to join the EU as a full member in 1987. Cyprus is currently the stick in Turkey's side with its veto power over admission. Turkey isn't perfect, but even nations surrounding it with similar problems have been admitted into the EU. the reasons that Turkey is not a member state are the result of political injustices rather than actual problems in Turkey. Atatürk's views of merging with the west which is country is geographically bound to have propelled Turkey into being a modern western country, much more so perhaps than some of the nations that are less deserving in their ascension to EU states. They have strong cultural bonds with the rest of Europe in practice, but the only thing separating them is status. Turkey is no longer the center of the sick man of Europe, but perhaps the doctor that can aid in the restoration of Europe in these modern times.


1. Allowing Turkey to join the EU will help develop the economy of the European Union.
2. Turkey is geographically and historically part of Europe.
3. Turkey being part of the EU will benefit Europe's security both militarily and energy wise.


1. Turkey, unlike much of Europe, actually has quite a successful economy. It's annual GDP growth rate in 2011 was 8.5%, and 9.2% in 2010. Growth rates that are better than Germany with 3.0% and 3.7% respectively. The growth rate is MUCH better than Spain which is 0.7% in 2011 and -.01% 2010; Greece: -6.9 and -3.5 respectively. [The World Bank] Turkey's workforce is young and highly skilled. One of the biggest increases is in the financial sector. Also, having a young population means that Turkey is in the opposite situation of much of Europe, which has a declining population. 26% of Turkey's population is under the age of 15, the mean respectively in Europe is only 15% [The World Factbook], this means that Europe is going to have an older workforce in coming years, to add to it's population decline. According to a population projection on Europa, the population of the EU is expected to begin declining by 2015 (Wherein deaths will outnumber births) and by 2060 the population aged 65 or older will have increased from 17.1% in 2008 to 30%! After 2015, migration will be the the only population growth factor, and after 2035 positive migration will no longer be able to counter the population decline. This aging European Union population will result in the EU producing less, and adding to that, more resources will be devoted to caring for the elderly. This can drag on GDP, ". It estimated that the ageing-induced drag on GDP per capita in France and Germany (and Japan) would be on average -0.2 to -0.3 percentage points of growth per annum during the next half century." -The economic impact of ageing populations in the EU25 Member States - 2005 p. 15 (2.4 - Overall conclusions)

An increasing population, specifically a young, but skilled work force is a strong indicator that Turkey would help the EU's economy, especially seeing that the EU's (natural) population will peak in several years. Future Europe will be in dire need of a young workforce in the coming years. Allowing new countries to join the EU is the only way they can avoid declining, especially when competing against up and coming emerging markets such as Brazil, India, China, and Russia. The EU accounts for 75% of foreign investment in Turkey, and about half of its exports and inward tourism, so the benefits that Turkey would bring to Europe would certainly be requited. Comparing the short and long term economic conditions in Europe and Turkey, Turkey has the underhand in the long term, and indications of this growth are shown in short term data. Many of you say that because of Turkey's economic growth that it is not in it's best interest to be part of the European Union. But Europe's problems stem quite deep, and allowing Turkey to be part of the EU, can only help the EU economy. Hell, even if it doesn't adopt the Euro, which given it's current conditions would be a bad idea, it can still enjoy the open trade borders which will propel the Turkish economy even farther, and can only help the EU.



2. Turkey is what divides Europe from Asia. While not all of Turkey is technically in Europe part of it is in Europe. So not only is it very European in the sense of democratic ideas, and extensively western culture, it is in Europe. Istanbul is located in Europe. “Every country on the European continent after having completed all the necessary preparations has the right to join the EU.” [EU focus: a community of values]
Even if my opposition wins on points such as Turkey is culturally not part of Europe, or that it’s more Asian than European geographically, it is still, at least partially, on the European continent, which makes it eligible to join the European Union.
Historically, Turkey’s predecessors of the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire were surely European powers. Why should we reject Turkey the same right? Since the end of First World War Turkey has made huge efforts to modernize including incorporating a secular government that exists to this day, replacing its theocracy. It replaced its system based on Islamic law with that based on Swiss civil law. This is a great feat given the nations demographics! Their efforts of European incorporation should be rewarded, instead of continually marginalizing the scope of their achievement.



3. Allowing Turkey to join the EU would bring a plethora of strategic benefits to EU and Turkey. In present day, Turkey is an important regional power. It has a lot of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia. On top of that, it’s a member of NATO (like much of the rest of Europe). Why might you ask? Well just take a glance at your nearest map! Turkey is in a immensely strategic geographic situation because of its location. It is the border between Europe and Asia. Historically this made Turkey vial for trade, but to hell with everything else. Today it’s all about oil. It’s strategically close to oil and gas fields that the advanced economies of the European Union depend on. The EU energy minister, Günther Oettinger, stated that “Turkey comes first in these countries for cooperation” that is because of it’s location. Not only is it strategically close to the oil and gas fields (Which is why the United States has an Airbase there), but it’s an important transit point for oil coming through the Bosporus from the Caspian Sea, and Russia for gas. Turkey is a bridge to both the Caspian and the Gulf, which creates a second option when importing oil to the EU that can circumnavigate the use of Russian pipelines when necessary. Russian disputes with Belarus and Ukraine have shown that to be a problem when trying to transport energy as a result of cut offs. Allowing Turkey to join the EU would allow for more projects such as the Nabucco pipeline, which can undo the grip the Russians have over oil and shatter Russia’s monopoly over pipelines brining energy to Europe.

In Conclusion, Turkey has not only gone beyond its cultural bonds to become European in nature, it’s an economic powerhouse and a strategic goldmine. No technicality or foreign interest can undermine Turkey’s true value to Europe and vice versa. The European Union should accept Turkey with open arms.

[Decky]

1. Allowing Turkey to join the EU will help develop the economy of the European Union.

Develop it it into what? Develop is a loaded word, it implies that whatever change that will occur is good.

2. Turkey is geographically... part of Europe.

Only Constantinople, the rest is Asia.

and historically part of Europe.

Are you joking? Europe spent a hell of a lot of time trying to keep the Ottomans out (with varying levels of successes).

3. Turkey being part of the EU will benefit Europe's security both militarily and energy wise.

It might contribute solders but it will also contribute trouble. You have a border with Syria for god sake. Do you really think the EU wants it's own personal gateway to the Middle East? If we had that we really would need the extra military power.

As for energy, we can buy that if you are in the EU or if you aren't. It makes little difference.

[Baff]

[baff] Foreigners should have whatever rights to stay in a country that it's domestics offer them. And no more.
Anything else and it's reasonable to expect violence. [/baff]

We don't care your opinions. We Turks are nonobservant people

All the Turks I know are most welcome here.

But for people who refuse to care, violence is natures way to make an nonobservant person highly observant.
The more willfully nonobservant of other peopls wishes you are, the more violence from them you should expect to receive.

[Istanbuller]

All the Turks I know are most welcome here.

But for people who refuse to care, violence is natures way to make an nonobservant person highly observant.
The more willfully nonobservant of other peopls wishes you are, the more violence from them you should expect to receive.

You don't need to welcome anyone, Baff. Britain is for Britons. Turkey is for Turks. That's simple

[Doomhammer]

You don't need to welcome anyone, Baff. Britain is for Britons. Turkey is for Turks. That's simple

Define "Britons" and define "Turks."

I don't advocate an overtly liberal multicultural society choking in PC-discourse but the opposite - what you say - is an equally undesirable arrangement that has no basis in reality.

[Far-Right Sage]

What exactly is wrong with the notion of Britain for Britons and Turkey for Turks? Istanbuller has it quite right.

No one has a right to even step foot in a nation which is not their own; even tourism is a privilege.

[Doomhammer]

No one has a right to even step foot in a nation which is not their own; even tourism is a privilege.

I will not deny the importance of borders, but aside from preventing criminal activities no state should conjure policies to hamper tourism or the free, innocent, passage of people and goods through borders. Arbitrarily constructed identities and institutions should not prevent us from travelling the world and enjoying something as simple as wildlife, or geological formations, or experiencing new cultures.

What exactly is wrong with the notion of Britain for Britons and Turkey for Turks? Istanbuller has it quite right.

My problem is that one cannot adequately define these "races." Even if one could define these concepts, it is easy to manipulate them to achieve certain social-economic goals that privilege a small segment of society.




Remember, even Fredrick the Great remarked that he would "build a mosque in Berlin if it attracted useful immigrants."

[Darryl]

iran and iraq will be our neighbours if the kurds dont get a seperate homeland so no turkey shouldnt join the eu and i dont think they want to anyway because half of the turkish population of the eu are heading home to turkey because their economy has got better and might one day be better than the eu`s.

[Varax]

Reasons why Turkey shouldn't join the EU: They are not a European peoples. They are invaders from central Asia whose history and identity are based on conflict with European civilization.

This is essentially my view as well. I don't say this to be disparaging towards Turks - it's just that Turkey is too different to really be able to mesh with the EU. Just look at the trouble the EU is having now getting various parts of Europe to fit together - particularly the Northern and Southern members of the Eurozone. Adding Turkey would just be inviting disaster.

Also why would Turkey want to join the EU at this point? It's a bit like jumping onto a sinking ship.

No one has a right to even step foot in a nation which is not their own; even tourism is a privilege.

I know a lot of people will disparage this for being too 'extreme' but that is rather a nice way to look at it. If one treats tourism like a privilege it reminds them that they are guests within the nation. Thus they should be respectful towards their hosts and mindful of their customs and traditions. If more people thought that way then perhaps tourists would have a better reputation.

[Far-Right Sage]

Yes, I agree.

Chinese tourists in the United States have a terrible reputation, American tourists in France are infamous, British tourists in Germany and Spain often reviled, etc. The problem enters the scene the moment a foreign national in a country that is not his or her own believes that he or she is entitled to set foot in and traipse around any nation he or she so chooses. So many treat this as alarmist nonsense or a setup for some "clash of civilizations" narrative, when in reality it is just a matter of sovereignty and basic common sense. For Christ's sake, Bhutan even has occasional problems with the Nepalese. No nation is immune to this issue.

On the matter of Turkey's acceptance into the European Union, anyone with reasonable clarity on this subject seems to agree that it would be negative. Negative for Europe and negative for Turkey. Does a supranational organization seeking to build a sovereign, federalist Europe need Iraq, Syria, and Iran at its borders? No, it most definitely does not. This would be bad for any nation involved, and the idea shouldn't be allowed to be promoted on the false grounds that Turkey is a European nation when it is clearly not. Turks are not white, Islam is not a religion that has ever held dominance over European affairs outside of the Balkans and Iberia, and the nation is simply not culturally European.

[Doomhammer]

iran and iraq will be our neighbours if the kurds dont get a seperate homeland so no turkey shouldnt join the eu

Being neighbors with a hypothetical Kurdish state is somehow better than being "neighbors" with Iran and Iraq? How do you qualify your statement?

I know a lot of people will disparage this for being too 'extreme' but that is rather a nice way to look at it. If one treats tourism like a privilege it reminds them that they are guests within the nation. Thus they should be respectful towards their hosts and mindful of their customs and traditions. If more people thought that way then perhaps tourists would have a better reputation.

There are very annoying and disrespectful tourists, I'll give you that. Yet, it seems that locals often denigrate foreigners simply because they are foreigners. It's just biological impulses and xenophobic sentiments born out of ignorance and conservatism. Condoning these primitve "impulses" is detrimental to the development of a cosmopolitan society. I don't like the boisterous chavs that frequent Turkey's Aegean coast in the summer, but I wouldn't want to deny them entry. Locals-conservatives need to acquire some measure of tolerance and understanding. You cannot expect every foreigner to know the local customs. The whole point of them traveling is to become inured in the environment of a different country. Plus, the locals benefit from tourists through economic exchanges and they too experience the privilege of meeting people from a different country.

British tourists in Germany and Spain often reviled

Germans (and to an extent the French) are conscious of history and live with the shame of living in the shadow of the "Anglos." Though I did indicate above that Britain can conjure up some of the most unpleasant tourists fathomable.

Turks are not white, Islam is not a religion that has ever held dominance over European affairs outside of the Balkans and Iberia

Ah yes, all the debate here culminates in this logical conclusion: "you're dark and Muslim."

[Far-Right Sage]

Germans (and to an extent the French) are conscious of history and live with the shame of living in the shadow of the "Anglos." Though I did indicate above that Britain can conjure up some of the most unpleasant tourists fathomable.

What does any theoretical German complex have to do with the lack of civility and boorish behavior on the part of many British tourists? It is not just in Germany, but this complaint comes from many countries, from Spain to Turkey.

Ah yes, all the debate here culminates in this logical conclusion: "you're dark and Muslim."

Why would you be surprised to find that race and religion, along with culture and history, matter greatly when contemplating such an issue?