[Mowselelex]

Was Tuirkey's membership ever considered a real possibility, LC? The reason you're seeing the threats at all IMO much less the support from the public they recieved is because Turkey has come to the conclusion that they never really had a chance to get into the EU.

[chuviskkk]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Was Tuirkey's membership ever considered a real possibility, LC? Turkey's membership is a really polarizing issue among EU elites. There is a struggle between its supporters and its opponents. Sometimes the supporters get influent enough for Turkey's membership to become closer to reality (such as when the EU officially started membership talks in late 2004 or 2005). Sometimes the opponents get the upper hand.

IMO, Turkey's membership is possible, but only if the Turks win the hearts and minds of Europeans: Turkey's membership is mostly rejected by the European citizenry. According to a poll I saw some time ago, only 45% of the Europeans support Turkey's membership. As it happens, the EU elites consider that the EU must adress its "democracy deficit", and they can't really afford to do something as big and unpopular as letting Turkey in. Especially in an EU where the rule is consensus, not majority rule.

[mudozvonf]

Originally posted by Ecthy
What some people fail to see is there never was an attempted Islamisation in the first place. That's something else I'm interested in; exactly what is so detestable about the AKP? They want to deban the headscarf (which I agree with) and deliberalize marriage law (which I disagree with), but I haven't heard of any policy of theirs more drastic than what you might expect from Christian Democrats.

[avitalporatova]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Has nothing to do with western Christian Democrats. You might want to expand upon that. Both are religiously inspired moderate political movements. Every political culture has its own status quo, and in Turkey the banning of religious symbols (fez, headscarf) in everyday life forms part of the laicist tradition.
So what? Opposing it is still the right thing to do.

[yurawerj]

Originally posted by Ecthy
But my main concern is with policy: how would you know what the right thing to do is in another country? If a consistent and overwhelming majority of the Turkish people support the ban on the headscarf, then unbanning it doesn't seem a proper move to me. I'm sufficiently idealistic to think that individual freedom is a good worth standing for even if the majority is illiberal.

Incidentally, I was of the impression that the headscarf ban was not enjoying widespread popular support. Does anyone have link to an opinion poll or something?

[CialisBestPrice]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Liberal values are not universal. They should be!

But I'm derailing my own thread.

[Cucoulkrory]

Heresson, why are you always wrong?

[Talicoabilk]

They've got their right pinky-toe on the continent of Europe, and for that they should be in the EU?

Bah. They're just lucky they got to keep Istanbul in the dissolution of the OE.

[Dodoerabe]

The EU isn't the Royal Geographical Society

[konanoileaski]

Canada is not of geopolitical or economic interest to the EU unless we want to invade the US.

A free trade agreement with Canada and the EU would make Canada the richest countryon Earth within 2 seconds.

[klubneras]

Ramo, I don't know about that analogy... Wiki definitely supports the one with Christian Dmeocracy. Apparently so does their self definition.

[LSg44PDu]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Canada is not of geopolitical or economic interest to the EU unless we want to invade the US.

A free trade agreement with Canada and the EU would make Canada the richest countryon Earth within 2 seconds. I doubt that, but it certainly wouldnt hurt.

But Turkey already has an FTA with the EU, no? Canada couldnt JOIN the EU, while belonging to NAFTA, since there are inconsistencies between the treaties on trade provisions - to follow one, theyd violate the other. And leaving NAFTA would hurt them far more than joining the EU would help them. We've been over this wrt Quebec, and, in other direction, with the UK. Membership will follow trade, and trade still heavily follows geographic proximity.

[9V4i8xw1]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Not sure but I believe most free trade deals need to be signed by all NAFTA countries. I honestly believe the recent CAFTA and Columbian free trade agreements had all NAFTA states negotiating with the other parties though I haven't looked it up. Im pretty sure the US has signed bi lat FTAs since NAFTA. But the FTAs are written to not contradict anything in NAFTA.