Turkey and the EU
It’s Gül vs. Sarkozy:
Ankara refused on Thursday a proposal to set up a Mediterranean club, floated by new French President Nicolas Sarkozy as an alternative to full membership in the EU, and urged the conservative politician to respect membership agreements signed between Turkey and the bloc.
Sarkozy, who took over office from Jacques Chirac on Wednesday, is a strong opponent of Turkey’s membership in the EU on the basis that much of Turkey’s territory lies in Asia, he has instead proposed a lose grouping of Mediterranean countries in which Turkey could be a key player.
“Cooperation in the Mediterranean and cooperation in the EU are two different things. Turkey is a country that has begun EU talks and is in a negotiation process,” Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül told reporters.”Erecting obstacles to this negotiation process would mean not respecting signatures, commitments previously made. I do not expect this to happen.”
Some European politicians, notably Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, remain publicly opposed to ever admitting Turkey. But Merkel, whose country currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, has said she would honor past commitments made to Turkey and would not block its negotiations.
We have to allow Turkey to join the EU. Turkey truly is a bridge between East and West. Turkey is the world’s only truly democratic secular Muslim country: we must celebrate that and encourage it. Furthermore, it’s also good for our own economies: Turkey’s economy will grow… and grow… and… grow for decades. Sure, Turkey is still a relatively poor country, but it’s potential is enormous: what a market for us (I’m Dutch after all). Also, Turkey has a very rich history: Istanbul, for instance, was the capital of the Byzantine empire. Istanbul, and Turkey, have always been part of Europe, were even at the center of European civilization. There are more reasons, of course, one of them is that if we refuse Turkey, Turkey might stop focusing on the West and might associate more with, say, Iraq, and Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and Jordan, etc. Can we truly afford to lose an ally of Turkey’s strategic importance?
Furthermore, those who say that Turkey should never be allowed to join the EU have, I am afraid, never visited Turkey themselves. Those who have always speak extremely highly of Turkey. If West European cultures would be influenced by Turkish culture this would be a good thing: in Turkey they still understand the concept of respect. And of hospitality. And of warmth. And of friendliness. Of course, there are many things that need to change in Turkey: if it were up to me, Turkish culture would look more at the individual and less at ‘the group’ (be it nation or family), and that will happen if we have open borders. As I see it, it will be a win-win situation: in the West, we might adopt some good aspects of Turkish culture, while in Turkey they might adopt some good aspects of West European culture.
And, in the long run, the economies of all those involved will benefit.
Political leaders in the West should – for once – not give in to the will of the public. Instead, our politicians have to do what they did once, a long time ago: they have to try to convince people that popular opinion is wrong. Politicians don’t do that nowadays anymore, they now look at the polls, “visit the country” and do whatever it is the majority wants. That is a mistake. Why? Because the average Joe doesn’t think things through. But, with a little encouragement, Joe does think more carefully and is willing and able to change his (or her) mind.
Cross posted at my own blog.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “Turkey and the EU”
I have to agree with this. Turkey is a beautiful country with, for the most part, engaging and pro west citizens in my experience.
agreed.
I foudn it to be one of the most beautiful countries in the world, with a warm, modern, western-oriented population.
The role that the army plays in Turkey is unique in the world. It is also one of the primary barriers to Turkey’s eventual membership in the EU.
It is also a chapter in my dissertation. :+) I would caution people against the easy assumption (embraced by the EU, perhaps as a fig leaf for more base types of discrimination against Turkey) that the army’s political role is, by definition, bad.
Jason: I agree and the more I read about it, the more I think that the role of the army isn’t that bad.
Without the army, Turkey would not be secular.
Michael, same here. Of course, the implication of that realization is to call into question the unmitigated wonderfulness of “democracy”, which is, of course, heresy.
Not for me. I am convinced that ‘democracy’ as such isn’t ‘the’ tool to peace and stability and tolerance. Democracy, in essence, means nothing more than majority rule. In a democracy, the majority can oppress the minority.
What matters is the rule of law.
My hope is that Turkey will, slowly but surely, become a democracy in which the rule of law protects everyone / the secular system. As long as Turkey isn’t there (yet), the military has to do it.
“Without the army, Turkey would not be secular.”
THAT’S what worries many of us, actually. The fact that the only thing holding Turkey back from Muslim rule is the threat of military rebellion. It really doesn’t sound like a country ready for the EU to me, though I wish them well.
Oh and there’s the tiny little detail of Turkey being a country that’s contained far more in the Middle East than the small part in Europe. Why not include Australia in the EU, if geography doesn’t matter? Canada?
So, Lynx, your primary argument is that Islam is incompatible with the EU?
Jason, no, my primary argument is that a democracy so fragile that military rebellion is considered a valid and frequently taken action is not robust enough to be in the EU.
Of course I won’t lie, I believe that a an Islamic state is very likely to accept values incompatible with those of the EU. For instance, the EU doesn’t allow discrimination on the basis of religion, gender or sexuality. I really find it hard to imagine that a country whose laws were based on Islam as it is understood today wouldn’t clash against the rest of the EU, time and time again. Hell, Poland is a bona fide EU member and it’s had a lot of trouble because of some really retrograde views on homosexuality, due to it’s conservative Catholic views.
Lynx, the subject of my dissertation chapter is to note how the “military rebellion” take a more and more unique, subtle form over time. I don’t think it is as simple as you suggest.
This puts Turkey in a rather unfair double-bind. If they allow unrestrained democracy, it runs the risk of an Islamic party implementing Shari’a law. The mere existence of that risk is, by your criteria, sufficient to bar Turkey from EU membership. Conversely, if the Turkish military works, even behind the scenes (as it has since 1982), to ensure that that one boundary line (Shari’a law) is not crossed, then Turkey is barred from the EU because that kind of “military rebellion” makes it too “fragile” by your criteria.
On net, it sounds the same as saying “Muslims need not apply”.
Lynx arm is sort of a backup security for the secular system in Turkey. But when you say you are concerned that it is the only thing that is holding Turkey, that is plain wrong. We all saw millions demonstrating against a possible *conservative* president (do we see that here in west?).
They understand the secularism as a nation, and it is very extreme in some cases, military is just there to support it. They dont have “In god we trust” on their bill, their president puts his hand over the constutition (not koran). Same goes with courts, they dont put their hands on the holy book. Their priests, dont have any power to make two person marry; only goverment officials can do that.. So yes, in terms of secularism, they are *WAY* ahead of us. 99% of the population believes in Islam. But they also know how to seperate this with their every day life.. Something that west fails misarably (maybe except France)
With all this begin said, I also don’t see any problem with having Turkish army (notice that it is the 2nd biggest army in NATO after US) to be the protectors of the secular system.
The fact that most part of Turkey not being in Europe is irrelevant. What are you going to say about the Cypruss then? It is certainly not in Europe. But it is in EU right?
The only reason why we will never have Turkey in our christian club is the fact that they are not christian. Economy, life standards, employement rate in Turkey is much better than Romania for instance, but we are ok with having Romania under our arms. Now if only they were christian!
Has the EU become a Christian club?
Cultural argument is a red herring
“Economy, life standards, employement rate in Turkey is much better than Romania for instance, but we are ok with having Romania under our arms. Now if only they were christian!”
Uhmm, I don’t know which “me” you’re talking about here, but I can assure you that plenty of Europeans were in no way pleased with the entry of Romania into the EU, because they aren’t ready. Thanks to that very many countries in the EU have put moratoriums on immigration, allowing for the expulsion of Romanians, despite their supposed EU member status.
I don’t see it as so difficult to understand. They aren’t geographically the EU (and Cyprus is a lousy comparison, never mind it’s tiny, the Canary Islands is further away and still part of Spain), they aren’t culturally a part of the EU (and again, I don’t see why we need to apologize for wanting to defend our cultural origins). As someone so well put it, you have to choose between accepting military intervention into democracy or accepting a democratically Islamic country. Which is fine with me, just not in the EU. If Puerto Rico suddenly became Islamic the idea of making it a state in the US would horrify plenty of people, but since it’s not your country it’s fine right?
By the way, if, without military intervention, Islamists would control the government, that must mean that a majority of Turks WANT an Islamic government right? I get that millions don’t, but if they got elected it also means that more do. Oh, and for the record, if there were a country bordering the EU with the same situation, except instead of Islamic the risk would be extreme Catholic rule, or Orthodox Jewish rule, my opinion would be the same.
oops, that should read “which “we” you’re talking about” sorry.
It may not always be wrong to defend “cultural origins”, but I think there are some situations where it is wrong:
1) When the “defense” is against a “threat” that is contrived or based in stereotypes and prejudice.
2) When the “defense” is mounted using inconsistent or self-contradictory standards.
3) When the “defense” causes more problems than it prevents.
I think all three of these apply to the “cultural defense” of the EU states against Turkey.
Michael, I admire your idealism, but admitting Turkey into the EU would effectively mean the end of the EU. Jeez, I don’t know where to start…
First of all, as Sarkozy has repeatedly stated, Turkey is overwhelmingly in Anatolia which is, last time I checked, in Asia Minor. If you wanna fudge the borders of Europe to sneak Turkey in, then why stop there? What about Ukraine, or Armenia or Georgia? Hell, what about Russia? Moscow and St-Petersburg have a hell of a lot more claim to being “European” cities that does Ankara, Antakya or Diyarbakır? But you know what, why not just reconstitute the entire Roman Empire and absorb the old “African” provinces of Rome. I mean, ok, there in “Africa”, d’oh…but teeny tiny detail. At least you’ll have a “united” Mediterranean lake. And just think how fantastic it will be to absorb hundreds of millions of even more unassimilated Muslims. But hey, Europe has a “Civilizing” mission to do, n’est-ce-pas? Why stop at Turkey?? I’m sure the cradle-to-grave European welfare systems and the fantastically competent Eurocrats, EUcrats and European Multicultural elites will have absolutely no trouble coping with that, never mind your everyday, “I’m-a-European-first-rather-than-a-Spaniard/French/Dutch/etc proud EU” citizen. And I’m sure the first thought of a Greek, Italian, German or Pole is “gee, what’s best for the EU?” followed by “gee, what’s best for Turks?”
Furthermore, again, if you believe that Turkish society, AS IT STANDS, is compatible with Europe, then again, Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, as well, have just as much claim to be in the EU. Actually, I’d would argue probably more so as they would be far more assimilative than Turkish or Kurdish “Muslims”. Sad to say, but Europe’s record with its Muslims “citizens” speaks for itself. And their cultures and worldviews are much more aligned with Europeans than with Turks. I suggest you spend at least a generation trying to hopefully and successfully absorb and integrate the Muslims you have, if that is at all even possible, rather than idiotically and foolishly taking in millions more based on hope. Given your present record, which do you think sounds more reasonable and logical, not to mention more in the interests of present EU citizens, which, I hope, should be THE number 1 priority of the EU. Ironically, again, Sarkozy’s policies, if rightly implemented, CAN potentially help French Muslims integrate far more successfully that the failed policies of the past.
And let me be clear, despite the claims, theories and self-delusions of western Multiculturalists, Islamic civilization is indeed a very unique and completely different worldview from what we in America and Europe understand. It is a completely different way of looking at the world with very real, fundamental differences, in terms of “justice”, the “rule of law”, “right and wrong” etc. Whether it is compatible with our notions of individual human rights, separation of church and state, the rule of law as we understand it, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality of the sexes, remains to be seen. It’s up in the air. I honestly don’t know. The record of the 57 Islamic countries in the world leave very much to be desired. In no way in hell would I ever consider moving there permanently in search of a better life, especially as a non-Muslim. And the fact that millions would like to flee these countries were they given the opportunity speaks for itself. It could be a coincidence that on top of being at the bottom or near the bottom (with the possible exception of sub-Saharan Africa) be it economically, socially, culturally, technologically, educationally, etc, these countries happen to be Islamic majority states. Maybe, maybe not.
I’m on par with Jason here. Lynx, the goverment in Turkey right now is not Islamic. They are *conservative*.
But let’s say they are Islamic and want to implement Sharia law as a secret agenda. First of all, this has to be a secret agenda because otherwise (by their constitution) that party cannot exist.
Second, current conservative goverment of Turkey only got 30% of the votes. Rest of the 70% voted for parties whose secular stand has been very strong. Unfortunately there were 1 or 2 conservative parties and TONs of not conservative (or mild conservative) parties, so 70% of the votes got divided. And they do have rule saying that if you dont get at least 10% of the votes, you can not get any chairs in the parliment. This is the sutiation. It’s far from saying they elected an Islamic goverment that wants to implement Sharia law.
By referring to the cultural difference, you are referring to the religion and that is exactly what I am saying. They are a muslim country and no matter what we try to say other people, its a fact that EU is a christian club and we will never *ever* let them join the EU (regardless how better their economy/life standards etc are compared to some other EU countries)
Whoops, cut myself off…
“We have to allow Turkey to join the EU. Turkey truly is a bridge between East and West. … Egypt, and Jordan, etc. Can we truly afford to lose an ally of Turkey’s strategic importance?”
A few points:
You’re right, it is a relatively secular democratic state. But only because the extremely powerful military has kept the Islamists in check. And only because the man who founded modern Turkey, Ataturk, a staunch Turkish nationalist (and probably by today’s standards an “Islamophobe” par excellence) is revered precisely because he saved Turkey from being dismembered. Ironically, the more the EU insists the military is defanged, the more secular Turks start to get worried about the Islamists. Gee, must be millions of “Islamophobes” in Turkey…or maybe, having lived under Islam, they understand the Muslim mentality better than many so-called “experts” here in the West. I’d like to give the Erdogan’s party the benefit of the doubt, but if I were a secular Turk, I wouldn’t trust them very much either, which means the military’s political check on the Islamists is necessary. At least, not for a while. And that renders the Turkish political situation incompatible with EU norms, I would think.
Istanbul was NOT the capital of the Byzantine Empire and certainly never the center of European civilization. Islamic yes. European, hell no! Ironically though, Istanbul is derived from the Greek “Eis tin polis” which means to the city, or merely the City. Constantinople was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire. Enormous difference. Until its fall, Constantinople spent the better part of nearly 700-800 years acting as a shield and buffer between the Islamic world and what was then known as Christendom. Istanbul spent the better part of its nearly 500 years as imperial capital to the Ottoman Empire trying to conquer and annex the lands of the infidels or the “Dar-al-Harb”. Again, huge difference.
And what a choice, the completely dysfunctional Arab/Muslim world or Europe. Yeah, the Turks would cut off their nose to spite their faces. Sure. They might be exceptionally prideful, but stupid, not so much. Besides, they tried that pan-Islamic, pan-Turkish crap in the 90s. Didn’t pan out so well.
“Furthermore, those who say that Turkey should never be allowed to join the EU have, I am afraid, … Turkey they might adopt some good aspects of West European culture.”
Or, like many of their fellow Muslims, they can import all the bullshit that keeps their countries at the pathetic levels that they are into Europe and radically change or destroy European cultures instead. And then you can all wallow in your miseries together, pining for past glories and blaming America, Israel and the West for all your problems. Given the vigorous defense, love and support many Europeans have for their own cultures, traditions, histories and nations (NOT), which do you think is the more likely outcome?
For the record, I have visited Turkey, spent a few weeks in gorgeous Istanbul among some places. It is a fantastic place as are its people to be sure. Even if you wanna fudge the geography, it is not ready or mature enough as a nation to be allowed anywhere near the EU. At least not for a generation, if not more.
I would move to Turkey without thinking twice about it. Have you ever visited Turkey? Or its biggest cities?
and that’s a shame.
Also: Europe lost its Christian foundation a long time ago. It’s not a Christian club. Some countries might be, but quite some are not.
It’s time for Europe to become enlightened it seems to me.
And, o, I’m an immigration and integration critic. I am everything BUT a multiculturalist.
Michael and Jason posit good arguments why the EU should accept Turkey’s membership
Advocacy for that position is good, as it educates.
Looking at what the situation actually is, today, in both Europe and Turkey, though, I wonder why you never ask if the two parties are ready for the wedding ceremony?
Europe is under a lot of strain and anxiety, as it tries to deal with a plethora of problems in a fast changing world. It’s natural that it would view an additional change with trepidation. You can’t fault them for interest in what they perceive as ‘self preservation’.
In the meantime, I’ve seen one documentary and a couple of newsclips presenting the view by some Turks, that they are cooling on the idea of EU membership, as well. Instead of bowing to the damnds for change by outsiders (the EU), they turn to a positionn of national pride and looking for ways to integrate into the world ‘their way’.
It’s odd, that as a not-conservative, I so often argue for the conservative position of advancing slowly and cautiously. In this case, there needs to be a period of familiarization and getting accsustomed to the idea before any dramatic change can be successful.
I . Geography and the slippery slope of expansion
Cyprus was aptly given as an example of a geographically non-European country to counter the arguments of the EU-geographers.
Lynx’s argument that “…Cyprus is a lousy comparison, never mind it’s tiny, the Canary Islands is further away and still part of Spain), they aren’t culturally a part of the EU” is illuminating in that the real argument here is not geography but size.
Phin expands on the geography argument with ” If you wanna fudge the borders of Europe to sneak Turkey in, then why stop there?” This is the slippery slope argument that politicians are particularly fond of because it sounds plausible to those who are disassociated with the facts surrounding a topic. A prime example of how this can lead to policy errors is the Domino Theory and the Vietnam War. In comparison to the
other countries mentioned (“Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Armenia, Moldova, Georgia”), Turkey has been in discussions with the EU as an Associate Member since 1964. In comparison to the other Middle Eastern countries of Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc., Turkey is regularly included in European councils or events whether sports leagues, song contests
or security discussions.
II. Culture (ie religion)
The pre-ceding posts have effectively cut to the heart of the culture argument which is religion. If you have any lingering doubts about this, trying comparing Greek culture to Scandinavian culture and then compare Greek culture to Turkish culture — aside from religion, which ones are more similar?
That “Istanbul spent the better part of its nearly 500 years as imperial capital to the Ottoman Empire trying to conquer and annex the lands of the infidels” does not make Turkey any more or any less European. Europeans had more wars amongst each other trying to annex each others land and colonies. Some may percieve the Ottomon Empire as attacking Christendom, but that fact that the Ottomon Empire was tolerant of its non-Muslim subjects should be an indicator that, like any empire, land and power were the motivating factors before religion.
III. Immigration and Integration
I understand the concern of EU states regarding the matter of immigration. I think immigration is strong argument for delaying full Turkish membership but it is not an argument for ending accession talks with Turkey. This is a key distinction as oftentimes arguments will muddle membership with the path to membership. This is evident when arguments include “Turkey is not ready today…” – indeed its not ready today but the path to membership is the real discussion here. The Turkish government is just as concerned with Turks emigrating abroad en masse as the EU is – it looks bad for and hurts both parties. I don’t expect Turkey to be admitted as a full member until both sides are sufficiently comfortable that immigration will be at a tolerable level.
IV. Secularism and the Turkish Military
Its been rightly pointed out that the role of Turkey’s military in defending the secular order is more complex than simple banana republic coups.
The rise of a religious middle class in Turkey along with its political mobilization has brought this issue to the forefront in recent months. The
conservative politicians of Turkey have realized that the EU is their best friend when it comes to facilitating the political ambitions of conservative
voters. This is part of the reason why Erdogan’s administration has progressed the Turkey-EU relationship as much as it has. In effect, the EU will replace the Turkish military as the guardian of Turkish secularism and in doing so give the conservative Islamic politicians more power to push conservative agendas.
V. A Political EU
Sarkozy has said something to the effect that Turkey’s admission would be the end of a political EU and some of the previous posts have hinted to this.
I would be interested in hearing more opinions on this topic. It seems to me this is once again the size argument – Turkey is going to have to much political influence in the pro forma EU for France’s liking. Perhaps it will indeed be the end of the Franco-German dominated EU but is this necessarily a bad thing for the rest of the EU? The internal politics of the EU may not be as attractive to France and Germany but doesn’t the EU gain in external political power. If political power is an extension of military and economic power, then Turkey will clearly give the EU more political muscle.
As an aside on Sarkozy – does anyone else find it ironic that the guy is man named after a 3rd-century saint born in Asia Minor?
Jason – is your dissertation public? I’d be interested in reading it.
Wanker, again, makes good arguments.
Still, for Turkey’s joining the EU fo be successful, there must be a critical mass of Europeans who agree. Today, that’s not the case, and it doesn’t much matter if the reasons for resisting the idea are good or bad. As long as there is substantive resistance, the consequences of the resisstence have to be acknowledged and anticipated.
It may be that Turley needs a good PR program in Europe instead of political debates.
Wanker
I. Geography
You refer to the criticism as a “slippery slope”. First of all, the fact of the matter is that logically, the EU has to have some kind of determined borders. I hope we can at least agree on that. Now, if we are talking about a EUROPEAN Union, then logically, all countries that belong within Europe should be eligible. All of Ukrainian, Belorussian and Moldovian territory lies within Europe. The overwhelming majority of Russia’s population lies in its European area. If one agrees that Turkey belongs within the EU, with barely a fraction of its territory within Europe, than, logically, the other countries have just as much claim, if not more. Period. And if Turkey joins, then there’s no good reason why one shouldn’t consider Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan or even Kazakhstan. Why is Turkey worthy but not these countries? This has absolutely nothing to do with “slippery slope”, but just plain common sense.
Oh and by the way, up until the early 90s, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia and Georgia were all part of the Soviet Union. So ya know, applying for membership in any European type community independently from their masters in Moscow was kinda a teeny tiny non-starter.
II. Culture
I stand by my argument. Islamic civilization, whether you like it or not, is different in many ways from Western civilization. Whether Islam truly is compatible with Western ideas of pluralism, rule of law, equality of rights for all regardless of sex, religion or party affiliation etc. remains to be seen. I don’t know. I truly hope so, more for their own sake than ours really. I do realize than Islam is not even close to being monolithic and there are enormous difference within it. And Turkey, to its credit, is perhaps one of the most advanced Muslim secular democracies, at least in a way that is recognizable and even familiar to most of us. But the starting point for the overwhelming majority of Turks is from an Islamic civilization or viewpoint. The starting point for the overwhelming majority of Greeks, Scandinavians, Germans, Italians, etc is a Judeo-Christian (even post-Christian) or Western type civilization or viewpoint. There is, for the foreseeable future at least, a big difference between the two. Finally, there are hundreds of thousands of Greeks that have emigrated and live within German, French, Scandinavian, Canadian, Australian, American cultures. The overwhelming majority have integrated almost seamlessly within the culture of their adopted nations without having any near the kinds of problems (mostly self-inflicted) that Muslims have had. And that’s just a fact.
III. Immigration
This is a complete non-starter. Sorry. I mean given the enormous difficulties Europeans have had in absorbing the Muslims they have now, the idea that they would allow even more in within the foreseeable future seems laughable. This will only increase the already occurring Balkanization within most European cities and countries, piss off the natives even more and alienate current EuroMuslims even more so than they are already, if that is even possible. This is assuming that terrorist attacks and threats cease or become non-existent, a very improbable outcome for the foreseeable future. If they become even more widespread in the future with greater and greater casualties, then I fear for the future of European Muslims.
IV. Secularism and the Turkish Military
I pretty much agree with you here. I would also add that many secular Turks are hoping that EU institutions would give them a measure of protection against not only the Islamists but the military itself, so that the EU would effectively become the guardian of Turkish secularism and to an extent Kemalism, or the logical progression of Kemalism, which the military, however revered, was/is unable to take past a certain point. I don’t know how this will turn out, but I sympathize in many ways with both sides. That said, many of the “conservative” elements within the AKP, I along with millions of secular Turks I might add, find completely distasteful, not least of which is the headscarf (or whatever other silly name they choose to call it), which is much more a (backward) cultural symbol rather than any type of religious symbol, regardless of what so-called pious and religious Muslims would have you believe.
That said, until all this is sorted out, until one is free to insult/criticize “Turkishness”, to insult/criticize any religion or political belief, including Islam, Muhammad, and even the revered Ataturk, until one is free to practice any religion, switch to any religion without fear of being killed, etc; until all of this and much more is firmly established and accepted by the overwhelming majority of Turkish citizens, then and only then can one start to entertain the notion of whether or not Europe’s borders ought to be fudged to allow this country in. Until then, all this is moot, because as it stands, regardless of geography, Turkey has a hell of a long way to go before it matures into the kind of liberal democracy that is fit to join the EU much less be accepted by other EU citizens. Period.
V. A Political EU
I think again this is about limits and geographic limits, which I have addressed are important. That said, it’s damn hard enough to manage the present members of the EU. The EUcrats, Eurocrats and Euro elites in general have done a hell of a job in making the EU as unpopular, as unaccountable and as illegitimate as ever. From a political point of view, this is unsustainable in the long term. The EU will not last without the support of the citizens it purports to represent. Not for long.
It seems to me that, logically and for its own long term health, it should try and consolidate its present gains first, make them work as efficiently as possible with the genuine approval and support of EU citizens, and make itself relatively accountable and accessible to its citizenry.
With regards to Turkey, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens are against membership. There’s no way around that. You can’t just ignore that. And this will most likely persist. That is as long as Islam is perceived as a genuine threat, incidentally one that cannot be solved simply by removing certain words from the public domain, pretending the problem isn’t real, accusing critics of “Islamophobia”, piously mouthing soothing words about how Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace and/or Tolerance etc, in short by denying the problem even exists and shifting the blame from Muslims themselves to ignorant Westerners or “Islamophobes”. The biggest enablers of this foolishness incidentally, apart from Islamists themselves, are many of the idiot Euro/Multicultural morons that had the brilliant idea of bringing in more or less “alien” cultures into Europe while systematically doing their level best to destroy their own. Ironically, their idiotic policies are mostly to blame for the problems that Europe faces now, especially with regards to EuroMuslims. But I digress. The problem will persist as long as Muslim immigrants are perceived to be extremely difficult or unable to successfully assimilate/integrate into European societies (see previous mini-rant). It will persist as long as the specter of Islamic terrorism continues to be a real threat. But most importantly, it will persist and get even worse if the economic situation in Europe begins to deteriorate and if the weight of the cradle-to-grave welfare systems begin to drag the economies down, especially as the boomers begin to retire. At this point, it won’t matter what ethnicity or religion potential immigrants might possess.
So in short:
I. Euros need to decide where the geographic limits of Europe reside. If one accepts a Turkish candidacy down the line, then one must also be willing to accept a potential Ukrainian, Belorussian, Moldovian, Russian, Georgian, Armenian, etc candidacy as well, provided the required criteria are achieved and met. Be consistent. If Turkey is acceptable than so are these countries.
II. If Turkey is geograhically acceptable, than she must also fulfill the required legal, social, religious, cultural, economic criteria in order to be eligible, with little to no exceptions.
III. This has to be done with the blessing of EU citizens. If you can’t honestly sell them on the merits and make a genuine case, then sorry but too bad. The EU has to do what’s in the best interests of EU citizens, not Turks, not Muslims worldwide, not Americans, BUT EU CITIZENS. They must absolutely come first.