Turkey is part of Europe. Fear keeps it out of the EU.

[GuestFellow]

The European Union benefits the poor and is a disadvantage to the rich, such as the UK. It's fantastic for the likes of Poland, Slovenia, Bulgaria etc. For us in the UK it makes us think "we lost our men in the world wars for no reason at all. Our soldiers will be turning in their grave!"

I disagree to some extent. The richer countries have more power in decision making and in the voting process for legislation. Thus more likely to make decision that would favour richer countries.

 

[north_malaysian]

why Europeans are so afraid with non-European immigrants?

There are many Europeans migrated to Asia... should we kick them out too?

 

[Blackpool]

I disagree to some extent. The richer countries have more power in decision making and in the voting process for legislation. Thus more likely to make decision that would favour richer countries.

And for that it is costing us £40million a day which goes to the EU which is an annual contribution of £14.6Billion. This is shared out amongst the poor, as it did with Rep. of Ireland a few years ago who very quickly became rich. We're worst off in the EU and I'm totally 100% against the joining of the EU.

why Europeans are so afraid with non-European immigrants?

There are many Europeans migrated to Asia... should we kick them out too?

A clash of culture and the corruption of the middle east is what puts many off non-Europeans. There is also a deep resentment towards the West in the middle East.

 

[north_malaysian]

There is also a deep resentment towards the West in the middle East.

then.. why there are lots of Westerners in cities like Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi?

 

[GuestFellow]

And for that it is costing us £40million a day which goes to the EU which is an annual contribution of £14.6Billion. This is shared out amongst the poor, as it did with Rep. of Ireland a few years ago who very quickly became rich. We're worst off in the EU and I'm totally 100% against the joining of the EU.

Sources please? Just interested looking at the statistics.

We do need the EU for better communications, ease of travel, business trades and so on.

If I was in the European Commission, I would too support the poorer countries. Majority of the citizens in rich countries are far too materialistic. We need to be grateful for the things we have.

 

[Zafran]

That would mean Turkish (Muslim) soldiers fighting alongside non-believers in conflicts like Afghanistan and that would contribute to greater stability in the world but what about verse 3:28?

so joining the EU requires verse 3:28? - and how is it even going to bring greater stability in the world? Joining the EU has very little to do with Afghanistan - thats whats your mind does not mean its on Turkeys mind or the EU - niether does it mean that Turkey has to send troops to Afghanistan.

 

[Thinker]

why Europeans are so afraid with non-European immigrants?

There are many Europeans migrated to Asia... should we kick them out too?

Because the reason they want in to the EU is because they want to migrate to the UK and as soon as they get to the UK they want to change the culture of the country to same culture that caused the country the left to fail. If they would come and integrate and adopt a culture which is a proven success they would be welcome. It’s got nothing to do with colour, race or creed it’s all about culture' the problem is separating Islam from culture because there are aspects of the Islamic culture that are incompatible with a culture focused on prosperity.

 

[Thinker]

so joining the EU requires verse 3:28? - and how is it even going to bring greater stability in the world? Joining the EU has very little to do with Afghanistan - thats whats your mind does not mean its on Turkeys mind or the EU - niether does it mean that Turkey has to send troops to Afghanistan.

You said . . . "Turkey should be allowed in the EU anyway - its a vital asset of Nato"

Nato Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area

If Turkey becomes a part of Nato it would have to subscribe the above which means it would be duty bound to fight alongside Nato troops against any enemy including Muslims. I believe if they would agree to that it would make for a more stable world. Of course you and I know how many ways that would breach Islamic teachings inclusing 3:28.

You might also want to note that Cyprus is now protected by article 5.

 

[alcurad]

^first of all, it's been the Europeans colonizing and attacking everyone else for as long as I can remember, so no worries there, also the article states "Such actions it deems necessary", not requiring the use of force except if the member state wishes to.

 

[Blackpool]

Sources please? Just interested looking at the statistics.

We do need the EU for better communications, ease of travel, business trades and so on.

If I was in the European Commission, I would too support the poorer countries. Majority of the citizens in rich countries are far too materialistic. We need to be grateful for the things we have.

My mistake...

The UK has paid over to Brussels, net, in every single one of the 3,652 days (including two leap years) of the last ten years, £11 million. Or, £77 million per week.A brand-new, fully-equipped, state-of-the-art, 800-bed city-centre general hospital in the UK costs around £250 million. If, instead of paying that cumulative net contribution of £40 billion (ie £40,000 million) over to Brussels, the government had spent it on brand-new hospitals, we would now be enjoying the facilities of 160 of them, having in total 128,000 beds.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/rebut2.html

 

[GuestFellow]

My mistake...

The UK has paid over to Brussels, net, in every single one of the 3,652 days (including two leap years) of the last ten years, £11 million. Or, £77 million per week.A brand-new, fully-equipped, state-of-the-art, 800-bed city-centre general hospital in the UK costs around £250 million. If, instead of paying that cumulative net contribution of £40 billion (ie £40,000 million) over to Brussels, the government had spent it on brand-new hospitals, we would now be enjoying the facilities of 160 of them, having in total 128,000 beds.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/rebut2.html

Its fine. Thanx for the source.

I do agree money should be disrupted to countries equally, depending on the current economic state and size of the population. Whether for Britain to leave the EU is a decision I believe needs to be taken cautiously and with care. We need to assess future consequences and how this may impact on Britain and its relationships with other countries.

 

[Trumble]

If Turkey becomes a part of Nato it would have to subscribe the above which means it would be duty bound to fight alongside Nato troops against any enemy including Muslims. I believe if they would agree to that it would make for a more stable world. Of course you and I know how many ways that would breach Islamic teachings inclusing 3:28.

Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952!

If, instead of paying that cumulative net contribution of £40 billion (ie £40,000 million) over to Brussels, the government had spent it on brand-new hospitals, we would now be enjoying the facilities of 160 of them, having in total 128,000 beds.

Or at least we might be if we could afford to maintain them, staff them, and buy the drugs for the patients in them. All of which are far, far more expensive than the cost of building them in the first place.

The piece is little-Englander rubbish. $4bn a year is relative peanuts in terms of the overall budget, provides enormous economic benefits far in excess of that they choose to ignore, and the idea the money could somehow be converted directly into building that many hospitals is just plain silly.

 

[Ar-RaYYan]

I don't care, I'm not European. I want a Middle Eastern Union

I agree. Turkey should be part of Middle East rather than Europe

 

[nocturnal]

I agree. Turkey should be part of Middle East rather than Europe

Turkey straddles two continents; there's no reason why it can't have a dual union role. If you're talking about a confederation of exclusively Middle East nations, then id say that the Arab League fulfils that purpose. But if you're talking about an alliance that coheres political, social, economic activities of nation states, then i find it hard to see how a union like that, modelled on the EU, can be established in the Middle East. The US has long forestalled that, because they know that its hard enough dealing with organisations like OPEC, and if this proposal went ahead, it would likely spell problems for American foregin policy in the region. That's why i think they preserve with such tenacity, the dictatorships of the middle east.

 

[crizon]

Nearly always when this issue is discussed, the benefits for turkey and the positive signal for the muslim world is mentioned, and an "indirect thread" that turkey will fall of the west and into a radical "taliban-like" state when they can't join the EU.

That is _not_ the a good way if you wan't to join a _closed_ society.

Turkey should convince the EU how the EU will benefit from it's membership and not the other way around!
They have to argue why states like France, Germany and GB, who are net-payers, should want Turkey to be a member and not threaten and argue with "fear of muslims".


The problem is: There actually is no benefit for the EU to take turkey. I'd say it would cripple the EU.

The EU is already overstrained with all the new members and it will take years and years of financial aid to bring the new members in eastern europe on a comparable level like the founding states.
Turkey is a big country with lots of people and a very poorly developed east.

The EU simply does not have the financial power finance the development of a country like Turkey.

The shear size of Turkey brings another problem: It would have a big voting power, comparable to Germany and France, the moment it joins even though it would receive probably the most money in aid from all member states.
And let's face it: Turkey is a very very nationalistic country. Talking about the Armenian issue is an absolute taboo and only a distorted version of it is though in schools.
Only a few years ago there still was a law forbidding any insult to "Turkishness".

The large voting power combined with the nationalism of Turkey would probably cripple EU's ability to find agreements on important issues like a unified forgein policy (think about the clash of opinion concerning israel between turkey and the rest of the EU).

Concerning workforce: Yeah Turkey could offer a lot of man-power, but what the EU-economy needs is highly educated personal and not masses of poorly educated people and we wouldn't need EU-membership for that: We already take any qualified workforce with open arms!

Concerning trade: There are already long established trade-contracts between Turkey and the EU; there wouldn't be much change there.

Concerning signal to muslims: I don't buy it and i think it is the most dishonest argument of them all and actually is more a threat.
People who buy the argument that the EU would deny the Turkish membership simply because of the fact that they are muslim, are not open the arguments anyways and the suicide bombers in the middle east probably don't even know what the EU is!
The "Islam-argument" is just a way for Turkey to pressure their way into the EU and get the financial aid that they want.

So from the perspective of the EU we have:

- large financial burden
- a lot more trouble to find a agreements
- potential trouble because of the geographic location of the borders

I don't see any benefit for the EU to take Turkey.


Right now the EU must be concerned with itself and try to integrate the new member states, which hasn't even really started yet.
In maybe 50 years we can think about this issue again.

 

[alcurad]

^good points, although turkey has better relations with Israel than you think.
I'd say Turkey won't join the EU, but will pressure for benefits etc as a 'semi-member' until the Arab regimes are replaced at least.

 

[Zafran]

You said . . . "Turkey should be allowed in the EU anyway - its a vital asset of Nato"

Nato Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area

If Turkey becomes a part of Nato it would have to subscribe the above which means it would be duty bound to fight alongside Nato troops against any enemy including Muslims. I believe if they would agree to that it would make for a more stable world. Of course you and I know how many ways that would breach Islamic teachings inclusing 3:28.

You might also want to note that Cyprus is now protected by article 5.

1 Turkey is part of Nato
2 - how would sending Turkish troops to Afganistan make it a more stable place??? or even more crazy the world??? Your world maybe but not the real world. More militery means more militery reactions.
3 - nice genralisation - sometimes you seem to brush the "muslims" as the enemy.

Turkish army helps nato quite a bit anyway. Thats well known.

 

[north_malaysian]

they want to migrate to the UK and as soon as they get to the UK they want to change the culture of the country to same culture that caused the country the left to fail. .

How many countries in the world where the immigrants changed the native cultures? .. yeah many... Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Argentina etc. So it's ok for the Westerners to change the natives' cultures?

 

[Amadeus85]

How many countries in the world where the immigrants changed the native cultures? .. yeah many... Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Argentina etc. So it's ok for the Westerners to change the natives' cultures?

Well same can be also said about every non arab muslim country. But its not the point, people can not blame us, europeans, that we want to remain as we are now. It is a natural attitude, common also to a Mexican, Persian, Korean and Turk. All of them want to save their heritage, simply because it is theirs, it belongds to those who died, who are alive and who will be born. Im not suprised that Tariq Ramadan, person influenced by Muslim Brotherhood, has such opinions, he has particular aims behind it, he wants us, europeans to accept the cultural and civilizational change as something normal. But of course, if he was living in his country of origin, let it be Egypt, he would be definitely against multicultural society, as Egypt must be islamic state. But now in Europe he plays liberal, defender of human rights and freedom of religion, which he would condemn with disgust as western, kaafir influence if he stayed in his muslim country of origin. But here we should say firmly, that the blame lays in 90% on us, europeans. The mistake is not letting in immigrants but it's current liberal democracy. Im not suprised why aware and inteligent muslims like Tariq Ramadan or for example Skye on this forum, are in favour of liberal democracy in Europe and USA. They would condemn it fiercely in Egypt or Pakistan, but here in Europe and USA it serves their aims.

 

[Thinker]

1 Turkey is part of Nato
2 - how would sending Turkish troops to Afganistan make it a more stable place??? or even more crazy the world??? Your world maybe but not the real world. More militery means more militery reactions.
3 - nice genralisation - sometimes you seem to brush the "muslims" as the enemy.

Turkish army helps nato quite a bit anyway. Thats well known.

Turkey is a member of Nato – I stand corrected :embarrass And Turkey has troops in Afghanistan . . . .

FM Ismail Cem says in an interview Ankara will deploy 90 special forces troops to Afghanistan. (This will make Turkey the first Muslim nation to join the US-led attacks on the Taliban

I find myself with an overwhelming urge to wave the Turkish flag – well done Turkey :thumbs_up