Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oblivion99)
    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.
    What the hell has age got to do with this?

    As for what is British culture...... That's easy it's called western culture do you think turkey has that?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oblivion99)
    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:
    Religion has everything to do with this as their religion is the basis for their disgusting culture


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sparky3212)
    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?
    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
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Menakshelatte)
    I hope UK leaves EU.
    I hope every country in the EU, leaves the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Not really, as the EU countries will only be "deporting" them to another EU country which is not against any HR legislation or international law.

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



    Well yes, that is one of the benefits of membership.


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



    They've been on the waiting list since 1989, I think. The Germans (who wish to wield the EU for their own interests) have always blocked any progression of accession.

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

    Turkey asked NATO, the EU and the US to implement a No-fly Zone over Syria and a buffer zone for refugees along their border a couple of years back. Had they done so, we would be seeing a lot less movement .

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


    Furthermore, the EU has been asking Turkey to let in more Syrian refugees and some form of compensation needs to be paid.

    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

    You don't need to be in Europe to be in the EU. Algeria, as a former French colony until it's independence in 1962 was part of the EEC, the precursor to the EU.

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


    Of course they can. As a member of NATO, and as the second largest army personnel within NATO, they are more than adequately equipped to deal with their borders.

    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

    The people that will be defending Europe, in the event of an attack, will be Muslim. Do you have an issue with Muslims defending you?

    What?

    Turkey has been at the forefront of adopting European cultures and practices for the last 100 years. Where some EU nationals grudgingly accepted changes in their cultures, Turkish people have enthusiastically welcomed it.

    So why is their culture vastly different from European cultures?

    If they were in the EU, they would rank 7th by GDP.

    So what? What about GDP per capita?

    If Turkey is what you consider to be "poor", then let's kick out the 22 Member States who are poorer than Turkey.

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

    You could, but it won't get you anywhere.

    Well obviously it would as your answers have been crap lol
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sparky3212)
    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?
    It takes years from the beginning of formal membership discussions/announcement for a country to join so no, Turkey isn;t getting to join any time soon.

    It doesn't meet EU standards, and while Erdogan continues to impede democratic, legal, legislative and press freedom to feed his embryonic dictatorship than it never will.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig J S)
    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.
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by paul514)
    That isn't true as they wont be an EU country at that point.
    Could you inform me exactly what Human Rights legislation the deal will contravene, which will subject it to a legal challenge?

    Yep it is, and I'll bet the vast majority of Europeans don't want turkey to be a member.
    Most Turkish people don't want to be in the EU. It doesn't matter what the Europeans want (the electorate are always stupid, even when they aren't), so long as Governments are receptive to the idea.

    This contradicts your earlier point that Turkey will be an EU member and therefore returning migrants will be legal
    What the Germans have done in the past doesn't mean that the Germans will do so again. They started two World Wars, it doesn't mean that they will start another one.

    Turkey has something called leverage, which they have used to their full advantage in recent negotiations.

    So what? Turkey has to get agreement from NATO and then NATO not to do this for this to be a relevant point.
    I'm telling you why the EU is giving them 6 billion. It was because of our inaction and lack of support at the earlier time.

    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
    Yes, but that is not Turkey's problem. That will now be an EU problem and the EU is seeking to cure this ailment by paying Turkey 6 billion Euros.

    That's an oxymoron you cant be part of the EU when it doesn't exist yet.
    The E in EU, it's predecessor EEC and it's precursor, the ECSC stands for "European".

    The issue in question was one about territory, not about subsequent changes in entity names.

    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
    Because they open their borders to refugees, who you have just kindly informed us, Turkey is under an international obligation to do so being a signatory to the original 1951 Refugee Convention as well as the 1967 Protocol.

    What?
    The EU has no supra-national military force but the majority of it's members are NATO members.

    As Turkey is a NATO member and has the second largest standing in NATO forces after the US, there will be Muslims defending us. Are you okay with Muslims defending us or do you want to get rid of Turkey from NATO?

    So why is their culture vastly different from European cultures?
    What in their culture is "vastly different"?

    So what? What about GDP per capita?
    What about it? No-one, apart from pedants, care about GDP per capita. If they did, they'd have to concede that Qatar, Luxemborg and Macau should be ruling the world, which is bloody ridiculous.

    Great the accession countries should never have been allowed to join at that point anyway
    This is extremely ambiguous. Which countries are you referring to and what time period is this statement in reference to?

    Well obviously it would as your answers have been crap lol
    They are not answers because you had not asked any questions.

    You have made wide, ambiguous statements which have either been dismissed as irrelevant or counter-argued.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    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.
    Foreign policy - Not relevant.

    Press Freedom/Activists - What values? The EU (and Member States) don't really subscribe to the values that they signed up for.

    We live in an era of the greatest mass surveillance, eroding our personal freedoms and we acquiesce for "national security" reasons.

    The only difference between us and Turkey is that we have a piece of paper saying that we guarantee rights whilst subverting them underhandedly whilst Turkey does it openly.

    If you want Turkey to do it underhandedly, then you only have to tell them and I'm sure they will be more than happy to do so.

    I really don't understand why "sovereignty and competence has not been granted to the EU" is relevant.
    Because the EU can only legislate in, and determine areas where it has been given competency by Member States to legislate in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Could you inform me exactly what Human Rights legislation the deal will contravene, which will subject it to a legal challenge?

    Sure there you go

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf5c1c3a-e...#axzz42RSinxtQ
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...160629966.html


    Most Turkish people don't want to be in the EU. It doesn't matter what the Europeans want (the electorate are always stupid, even when they aren't), so long as Governments are receptive to the idea.

    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.


    What the Germans have done in the past doesn't mean that the Germans will do so again. They started two World Wars, it doesn't mean that they will start another one.

    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.

    Turkey has something called leverage, which they have used to their full advantage in recent negotiations.

    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.

    I'm telling you why the EU is giving them 6 billion. It was because of our inaction and lack of support at the earlier time.

    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.

    Yes, but that is not Turkey's problem. That will now be an EU problem and the EU is seeking to cure this ailment by paying Turkey 6 billion Euros.

    I agree that it isn't Turkey's problem. If they can get the EU to do what they want then more fool the EU.

    The E in EU, it's predecessor EEC and it's precursor, the ECSC stands for "European".

    The issue in question was one about territory, not about subsequent changes in entity names.

    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.

    Because they open their borders to refugees, who you have just kindly informed us, Turkey is under an international obligation to do so being a signatory to the original 1951 Refugee Convention as well as the 1967 Protocol.

    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.


    The EU has no supra-national military force but the majority of it's members are NATO members.

    As Turkey is a NATO member and has the second largest standing in NATO forces after the US, there will be Muslims defending us. Are you okay with Muslims defending us or do you want to get rid of Turkey from NATO?

    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.


    What in their culture is "vastly different"?

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

    What about it? No-one, apart from pedants, care about GDP per capita. If they did, they'd have to concede that Qatar, Luxemborg and Macau should be ruling the world, which is bloody ridiculous.

    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!

    This is extremely ambiguous. Which countries are you referring to and what time period is this statement in reference to?

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

    They are not answers because you had not asked any questions.

    You have made wide, ambiguous statements which have either been dismissed as irrelevant or counter-argued

    You haven't countered anything with anything relevant
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Turks are not European and they are muslim so not they cannot and must not be allowed to join the EU
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SMEGGGY)
    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
    Actually only 3 percent of Turkey is in Europe
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    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.
    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?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    It will work and it will be legal.

    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.
    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.

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

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

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

    Everything do you really need examples or are you just continuing to be facetious?
    Please be more specific. I can't spend my time counter-arguing if you make asinine comments like "Everything".

    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!
    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?

    The accession countries, are the nations that joined the EU shortly after the millennium and more recently.
    That isn't even a term in use. Why not just use the dedicated term, "Member States"?

    You haven't countered anything with anything relevant
    Of course you would believe that it's not relevant.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    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.
    So the short answer is you will keep being factious no matter what the response is

    At least I need not waste anymore time on you


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    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.
    Completely agree


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Great news
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _icecream)
    Great news
    Why's that in your opinion?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Why's that in your opinion?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Turkey has a better economy than Eastern and Southern Europe
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Viva la Turkey.. I for one would welcome a different opinion to the the EU table instead of the nonsense atm.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 10, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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