Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    I think you misunderstand most euro-sceptics; most are fine with widening the EU, but are not in favour with going deeper in. The key part of the word is sceptic: doubtful of the effects.

    Not all euro-sceptics are for withdrawal completely, just withdrawal of Brussels power.
    Aye. Traditionally, many eurosceptics have supported the widening of the eu because the greater differences between member states make political integration less feasible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    France, Austria and Germany need to stop being absolute *******s and genuinely give Turkey the opportunity to prove themselves. Cameron is right, Turkey should be joining the European Union and when they have met the accession criteria, they should be members and the European Union should help them do that; If Britain helps them more, we can attempt to develop stronger relations with them.
    Why does Europe need a greater number of Muslims? How many Muslim countries would you like to live in? European countries already has assimiliation problems with the present Muslim populations.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...te-crimes.html

    http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Persec...of_Homosexuals
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    Why does Europe need a greater number of Muslims? How many Muslim countries would you like to live in? European countries already has assimiliation problems with the present Muslim populations.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...te-crimes.html

    http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Persec...of_Homosexuals
    So what you are saying is that your argument is entirely based on prejudice against Muslims rather than any other argument?

    Nice to know.

    EDIT: In regards to your question about Muslim countries, I would live in none, but not because of the fact they are Muslim but because I have no real interest in leaving Britain...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    First Britain was the "Junior" to America during WWII, now the so called Conservatives, synonymous with a foreign policy of isolation in European affairs, want Turkey in the EU. Has Cameron even seen what has happened with the Turks abusing the German immigration system. The last thing we need is them having access to our country aswell, we're full up as it is.
    For someone Eton educated he sure is an untactful idiot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    So what you are saying is that your argument is entirely based on prejudice against Muslims rather than any other argument?

    Nice to know.

    EDIT: In regards to your question about Muslim countries, I would live in none, but not because of the fact they are Muslim but because I have no real interest in leaving Britain...
    That is only part of my concern, but the reduced social capital from incompatible cultures is in itself sufficient justification (I see you gloss over the increased anti-semitic and homophobic violence from increased Muslim populations).

    As I noted above, the EU wants Turkey's military to get out of politics. But it has only been the threat of a coup by the resolutely secular army that has kept Islamic fundamentalism in check in Turkey.

    Turkey is, by Muslim standards, a successful nation-state. And that's another argument against Turkey submerging itself in the transnationalist European Union: Turkish nationalism provides a role model that should not be extinguished.

    Economically, it is also a bad idea. Admitting Turkey to the European Union would be very like admitting Mexico to the United States.

    * Turkey's population is 69 million compared to Mexico's 105 million.


    * Turkey's per capita GDP is $6,700 compared to Mexico's $9,000.

    A significant portion of the population are unskilled and are likely to be a net drain on resources if they migrate.

    Also, the average level of cognitive ability is relatively low which is linked to immigrant productivity.

    http://mason.gmu.edu/~gjonesb/Immigrant%20IQ
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    * Turkey's population is 69 million compared to Mexico's 105 million.
    Turkey's population is just under 74million.

    * Turkey's per capita GDP is $6,700 compared to Mexico's $9,000.
    Turkey's GDP per capita is just under $10,000 whilst Mexico's is over $10,200

    Get your figures right. Also, why are you comparing them? Its pointless.

    A significant portion of the population are unskilled and are likely to be a net drain on resources if they migrate.
    Seven year transitional controls + European Union development + Single Market = Increasing wealth for Turkey.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Also, why are you comparing them? Its pointless.

    Seven year transitional controls + European Union development + Single Market = Increasing wealth for Turkey.
    I'm comparing them because it is well documented in the US that low skilled migrants from Mexico are a net drain on the US economy. Turkey appears to have similar economic performance & psychometric profile which is predictive of migrant productivity (see the Jones & Schneider paper above). These figures are for the US, but presumably low skill migrants to Europe will be eligible for similar levels of public services.

    At the state and local level, the average low skill immigrant household received $14,145 in benefits and services and paid only $5,309 in taxes. The average low skill immigrant households imposed a net fiscal burden on state and local government of $8,836 per year.
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tes...ocal-Taxpayers

    The UK House of Lords select committee report on the economic impact of immigration is also worth considering.

    Immigration has become highly significant to the UK economy: immigrants
    comprise 12% of the total workforce—and a much higher proportion in London.
    However, we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government,
    business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—
    generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population...

    The available evidence suggests that immigration has had a small
    negative impact on the lowest-paid workers in the UK, and a small
    positive impact on the earnings of higher-paid workers. Resident
    workers whose wages have been adversely affected by immigration
    are likely to include a significant proportion of previous immigrants
    and workers from ethnic minority groups....

    While the overall fiscal impact of immigration is small, this masks
    significant variations across different immigrant groups.
    Professor Rowthorn concluded that “the positive contribution of some
    immigrants is largely or wholly offset by negative contributions of others”
    (p 6). A recent IPPR study found that immigrant employees from 13
    countries—ranging from Americans to Zimbabweans—paid more tax and
    national insurance contributions on average than UK-born citizens, while
    immigrants from countries such as Bangladesh and Turkey paid considerably
    less on average. 58 These variations are largely due to differences in average
    incomes between different immigrant groups. The same study also found
    that almost no Americans and 1% of Poles and Filipinos in Britain claim
    income support, compared to 39% of Somali immigrants.
    http://www.publications.parliament.u...onaf/82/82.pdf
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is yet another reason why Britain must leave the European Union. First it lets countries like Romania in, now Turkey. It just isn't sensible to grant millions of poor Eastern Europeans access to a small island like the United Kingdom. It doesn't work socially, it doesn't work politically and it defiantly doesn't work economically.

    The Euro-fanatics knows they are losing the debate, they know their project to create a European Super State is at risk. Now they want to pull on a facade that the project is still working through geographical expansion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by werd123)
    The immigration cap doesn't apply to EU countries, as one agreement of the EU is that immigration is free between all countries. There may or may not be transitional controls when Turkey joins (So there is a temporary limit on Turkish migrants which is gradually raised and then got rid of), but in the long term Turkish immigration will not be subject to any sort of cap.
    Sorry, I was talking about the wrong measure. I was referencing the pledge of having controls over new joining EU countries, not a cap.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    France, Austria and Germany need to stop being absolute *******s and genuinely give Turkey the opportunity to prove themselves. Cameron is right, Turkey should be joining the European Union and when they have met the accession criteria, they should be members and the European Union should help them do that; If Britain helps them more, we can attempt to develop stronger relations with them.
    Cyprus much?
    They invaded an EU member and have illegally occupied the north for a long time.
    In order for Turkey to join the EU, all 27 members have to agree...and Cyprus wont..so you can forget it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    Cyprus much?
    They invaded an EU member and have illegally occupied the north for a long time.
    In order for Turkey to join the EU, all 27 members have to agree...and Cyprus wont..so you can forget it.
    Sounds like you don't understand their history.

    In 1963 the Greek Cypriot wing of the government created the Akritas plan. Have you heard of it? The plan outlined a policy that would remove the Turkish Cypriots from government and lead to a union with Greece.

    Further developments occurred, and in 1974 the Greek military junta backed a Greek Cypriot coup in Cyprus. Turkey claimed that under the Treaty of Guarantee, the coup was a good enough reason for military action to protect the Turkish Cypriots.

    Turkey then invaded Cyprus in the same year; Turkey's military intervention prevented the coup from being successful. Turkey then "took over" the northern third of Cyprus with Greek Cypriots fleeing south, and Turkish Cypriots fleeing north.

    The Treaty of Guarantee meant that Cyprus cannot engage in political or economic union with any country.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James10000)
    a larger economy means there is a larger market to sell your goods , america has a larger economy but retail sales are falling whilst they are increasing in Turkey

    I think Turkey should be in the EU but no with free movement of Labour
    That's why bilateral agreements exist. I'm sure the EU is quite happy to do those with Turkey.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    That's why bilateral agreements exist. I'm sure the EU is quite happy to do those with Turkey.
    Membership without free movement can be achieved - Member states can apply transitional controls for seven years which can restrict the flow of immigration.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Your fifth point is incorrect. It is well in keeping with the tried and tested method of continually expanding the EU to prevent political integration. Can you imagine Germany and France pushing for a superstate if Turkey were involved?
    Think you raised a good point. I support Turkey entering for that very reason, as a 'euroskeptic'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Membership without free movement can be achieved for seven years - Member states can apply transitional controls for seven years which can restrict the flow of immigration.
    There. Fixed.

    Seven years is hardly much time, it's probably been chosen so that governments that approve it are out of power by the time it elapses and someone else gets blamed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnonymousPenguin)
    There. Fixed.

    Seven years is hardly much time, it's probably been chosen so that governments that approve it are out of power by the time it elapses and someone else gets blamed.
    Why the hell alter the quote? I mentioned the seven years in the next sentence...

    It was chosen so that you don't get an influx. The idea is that after seven years, the country will be more prosperous and thus the immigration will be a lot lower.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not entirely sure I want the EU to get any bigger, but Cameron is quite right, there really aren't that many good, none islamophobic arguments against Turkey joining.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    I'm not entirely sure I want the EU to get any bigger, but Cameron is quite right, there really aren't that many good, none islamophobic arguments against Turkey joining.
    I can give you some:

    1. It is not rational to grant 70+ million poor Turkish people access to a small island like the United Kingdom. This will only lead to racial tension which in turn increases islamophobia in the UK.

    2. 97% of Turkey is in ASIA so why are they joining the EUROPEAN union?

    3. It's not a matter of hating Islam but simply that the Islamic culture does not match with the British Culture. A very practical example would be one might not like the sight of mosques.

    4. There are enough kebab shops.

    Many of the above arguments can apply to countries like Germany and France.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Why the hell alter the quote? I mentioned the seven years in the next sentence...

    It was chosen so that you don't get an influx. The idea is that after seven years, the country will be more prosperous and thus the immigration will be a lot lower.
    I'm sorry, I didn't really think you were making a serious point. Well, ehm, 7 years to modernize an economy the size of Turkey - I don't see that as at all feasible. The 12 countries that joined in 2004 were much more developed and the gulf between them and the existing members is still pretty large.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    I'm not entirely sure I want the EU to get any bigger, but Cameron is quite right, there really aren't that many good, none islamophobic arguments against Turkey joining.
    Except that they committed ethnic cleansing against the Kurds throughout the 90's and actively attempt to cover up the various genocides that occurred in the early part of the century.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.