Turkey joining the EU? Disucuss

As I said again, your 31. Pathetic. Their culture is nothing "like ours", what culture do we exactly abide to? And yes Turkey have a culture, but us British have immersed ourselves into those cultures as a lot of us find their restaurants delicious. Yes there are differences but other EU countries have differences which are manageable.

Yeah true. I am not Muslim, but how does their religion merge into this? Obviously, they will have to comprehend that if they do migrate to this country, they will have to abandon their religious abdications (despite being a unreligious country with actually an adequate population of non muslims there). Thus, UK might not be part of the EU then so we probably will have NO immigrants! :2euk48l:

I was just curious as to everyone's opinions of both the outcome and the validity of the claims that Turkey is to achieve its long coveted full EU membership by June? Also do you think its notable absence from the media is due to the fact that it would no doubt have a huge effect on people's decisions in the referendum?

I hope UK leaves EU.

I was just curious as to everyone's opinions of both the outcome and the validity of the claims that Turkey is to achieve its long coveted full EU membership by June? Also do you think its notable absence from the media is due to the fact that it would no doubt have a huge effect on people's decisions in the referendum?

Turkey would actually be the poorest nation within the EU by gdp per capita, much poorer even than the Baltic and Eastern European states.
They are now becoming more despotic by the week - newspaper offices and tv news agencies are being invaded and gagged by Erdogan and his government, and reporters have only recently been arrested and jailed without charge for writing anti-government articles! Hardly the progressive muslim country that some are trying to convince us they are.
Turkey has air power and a huge land army that they are currently using to bomb the Kurds that are actively fighting ISIS. Do you really think it a good idea to allow accession to the EU of a country that would deal oil with ISIS whilst actively hampering attempts to fight the terrorist organisation? I could also mention that despite this huge army, they are unable to secure their border and control the movement of people within Turkey as they have so far allowed over 130,000 "refugees" to cross into Greece illegally. These are not exactly the actions of a nation that has any intention of either 'westernising' or controlling their border with a neighbouring country and, by default, the EU.
I do hope for a Brexit.

Turkey has all sorts of problems like discriminating against Kurds, supporting Islamist rebels in Syria with weapons, periodically shelling the Kurdish YPG in Syria (who have captured large areas of the Turkish border from ISIS), wrongfully detaining journalists and activists under anti terrorism laws, and recent events suggest that they have some major problems with press freedom. And their border with Syria is quite porous, with all sorts of smuggling going on. That country should not be allowed anywhere near EU membership.

That isn't true as they wont be an EU country at that point.

Yep it is, and I'll bet the vast majority of Europeans don't want turkey to be a member.

This contradicts your earlier point that Turkey will be an EU member and therefore returning migrants will be legal

So what? Turkey has to get agreement from NATO and then NATO not to do this for this to be a relevant point.

Yes the EU has encouraged this but they are a border nation and have a duty under international law to take in refugees from countries that boarder it..... That duty stops at Turkey. Anyone crossing from Turkey to the EU is doing so for a better life making them an economic migrant

That's an oxymoron you cant be part of the EU when it doesn't exist yet.

So why can people cross it at will then? Please let us all know how you can police open boarders of thousands of miles in length

What?

So why is their culture vastly different from European cultures?

So what? What about GDP per capita?

Great the accession countries should never have been allowed to join at that point anyway

Well obviously it would as your answers have been crap lol

You argue against Turkey's accession to the EU based largely on foreign policy and defense - areas where sovereignty and competence has not been granted to the EU.

You might as well just be arguing that Turkey, who contributes the second most personnel in NATO after the US as well allow nations to use it's airbases for missions, to be removed from NATO.


You may not like Turkey's positions on a number of issues but at least be honest and say that most of them really have nothing to do with Turkey's accession to the EU.

Turkey should not be allowed in the EU because their foreign policy, poor press freedom and treatment of journalists and activists are completely at odds with the values of the western democracies in the EU.

I really don't understand why "sovereignty and competence has not been granted to the EU" is relevant.

No. The leader is now another dictator. Only a quater of Turkey is in Europe, majority in Asia. They can **** right off

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sure there you go

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf5c1c3a-e21d-11e5-9217-6ae3733a2cd1.html#axzz42RSinxtQ
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/eu-turkey-refugee-deal-contravene-law-unhcr-160308160629966.html

It doesn't matter what Europeans want, they are always stupid.
So democratic. Perhaps you should sod off to a dictatorship then as we live in a democratic society.

The Germans don't rule the EU hence why it has even come to this point they couldn't get the other countries to share the economic migrants.

Yes they have and a weak EU has bended over and pulled down its pants, it doesn't mean the people want it, it doesn't mean its legal, it doesn't mean it will work.

See the previous answer, we would have none of these migrants if they weren't allowed to land their boats on the EU's shores.

You cite a 54 year old example for being part of the EU for an organisation that didn't exist at that time because it has the word European in the title. You are reaching hard.

This comment was about policing boarders not letting refugees into their country, your answer doesn't answer anything about terrorists, arms and oil crossing their boarder daily.

I couldn't care less if they are in NATO and I couldn't care less if they defend us or not it has nothing to do with the European Union.

Everything do you really need examples or are you just continuing to be facetious?

GDP per capita matters hugely to suggest otherwise is a complete joke. When you allow poor countries into the EU for free movement their citizens will simply move here just like the accession countries citizens did for a better life which is what has caused so many issues for the people of Europe, its why we have even got a referendum in the first place!

The accession countries, are the nations that joined the EU shortly after the millennium and more recently.

You haven't countered anything with anything relevant

I hope you read those articles in detail because the plan would not contravene any HR legislation, nor any international law/s.

Returning refugees that come from Turkish refugee camps, and those migrants that have illegally crossed from Turkey into the EU, will not contravene anyone's HR because apparently, Turkey is enough of a safe country to be housing nearly 3 million refugees.



Are you telling me that every voter, well those that bother to turn out to vote that is, make up their minds with rational and logical thought processes and not cast their vote based on a single issue or the incorrect understanding of issues?



I didn't say that the Germans ruled the EU.

The Germans have 96 MEP's (the most out of any other MS) in the in the EU Parliament, the EU institution that votes on which laws should be passed in conjunction with the EU Council. This gives them a massive influence over policy.



It will work and it will be legal.



EU member countries are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, meaning that they must allow such people to stay (whilst receiving food, shelter and education) until an outcome in their asylum process.

Not following the procedure would be a a contravention to international law and subject to grounds of appeal of any and all failed asylum applications.



The citation was in relation to the point made about geographical location or "European borders".



Although the EU has a CFSP and a CSDP in place, MS are free to pursue any actions which they feel is proportionate.



Given the fact that the EU has no supra-national military force and will rely on NATO to respond, it is very much relevant.



Please be more specific. I can't spend my time counter-arguing if you make asinine comments like "Everything".



As I have told you previously, GDP per capita is irrelevant.

Do we accept Macau because they are bringing in $97,000 per person (with a population of 10) or do we accept Turkey who are bringing with it $40,000 per person (but a population of 75 million). Which one is worth more to us? A country that only produces less than a million or a country that would add an extra trillion?



That isn't even a term in use. Why not just use the dedicated term, "Member States"?



Of course you would believe that it's not relevant.

Until Islam undergoes significant reform, no 'Islamic nation' should be allowed in a progressive, liberal union. Despite Ataturk's reforms, the majority of the population are still Muslim.

Great news

Why's that in your opinion?


Posted from TSR Mobile