Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    5)Turkey has income levels way below Western Europe. A country of 72 million young, uneducated middle-easterners is not good for the EU economy. Immigration only benefits the immigrants economically speaking, fact.
    No, that's far from a fact. We benefit massively from cheap labour, it fills maunal jobs which need doing but which many Brits would not want to do. It can lower prices for the goods and services which the immigrants provide.

    The main problem comes when you have an expansive welfare state which is available to all comers and not strongly linked to how much you have contributed to paying for them. However, most of the studies I have seen of the recent immigration from Eastern Europe, Asia and then further back from Africa indicate that immigration is almost always a net gain for the treasury and an economic positive to a country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stettin)
    Woman who refuse to wear the veil should be discriminated against.
    Congrats on finally outing yourself as an Islamofascist nutjob.

    (Original post by stettin)
    Turks are from Central Asian. They even boast about it all the time. Turkey before the Central Asians came was the land of Greeks and Armenians.
    Turks of modern day Turkey are a mix many ethnic groups and are overwhelmingly Caucasian. Evidenced by the fact that most do not look remotely Central Asian. Anatolia was not the land of only Greeks and Armenians, it was comprised of many ethnic groups – Circassians, Laz, Hittites, even Celts. All which make up modern day Turkey. It is a melting pot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by etnies)
    And Turkey has 80 mln.
    71 million. You've just added an exta 9 million from the top of your head.

    (Original post by etnies)
    Germany is already flooded with Turks (about 8 mln )
    Roughly 3 million, actually. You could have at least typed a slightly believable figure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay Riall)
    No, that's far from a fact. We benefit massively from cheap labour, it fills maunal jobs which need doing but which many Brits would not want to do. It can lower prices for the goods and services which the immigrants provide.
    He is actually correct. The common belief among economists is that not only do the natives not benefit from immigration economically but that they in fact lose out and have to essentially pay for immigration.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    He is actually correct. The common belief among economists is that not only do the natives not benefit from immigration economically but that they in fact lose out and have to essentially pay for immigration.
    Which economists would that be?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    Of course not for these reasons

    1)Turkey is in Asia Minor, only 5% of its land mass is in Europe. Since when do Europe's borders extend to Iran and Iraq?
    Since when was Cyprus even 1% geographically European?

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    2)It's economic blokade of Cyprus is devastating as well.
    Not really. I hardly see economic "devastation" in southern Cyprus, as you so dramatically put it. It is a member of the EU after all, so it has plenty of economic aid.

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    3)Turkey is culturally middle eastern
    BS. If you knew the slightest thing about modern Turkey, you wouldn't spout such tenuous drivel. Western Turkey is hugely European in culture.

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    4) as well as lack of real seperation of islam from the state.
    I wasn't aware that was an EU requirement :rolleyes:. Tell me, how many Western European nations are secular? No nation is truely secular or democratic.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    He is actually correct. The common belief among economists is that not only do the natives not benefit from immigration economically but that they in fact lose out and have to essentially pay for immigration.
    19th Century America would have been much less prosperous if it had closed it's borders (if that were possible)? True or false?

    It's not a fact and it is highly dependent on the country (which is why I specifically mentioned welfare policies) and it's policies, and also the actual groups immigrating (it should be fairly obvious that hypothetically having Americans immigrate here would be more beneficial to the economy than Afghans or Somalians).

    This does not even take into account the actual cost of keeping a strict border policy. It could be possible that the cost of keeping the borders closed (border patrols, costs of deportation, expensive immigration systems and huge walls and fences as they are planning to build on the America/Mexico border) be larger than the net hit the economy would take if there was a much more lax immigration policy.

    Here is a quote from Paul Krugman (just so you don't accuse me of cherry-picking my favourite economists to back my view) -

    "I would also stress the benefits of a relatively free and prosperous Mexico on our southern border. The path is not without further bumps, but Mexico has turned the corner. Without high immigration, remittances (second biggest "export," I believe), and the spread of liberal democratic ideas, Mexico probably would have been much worse off. In the long run this will prove hugely beneficial to the United States, and of course to the rest of Latin America as well."

    He says in that piece that the benefits of Mexican immigration has been relatively small (though does not say a net loss) in the short run. But in the long run, the case for stable and prosperous neighbouring countries is far too valuable to pass up on. It makes the future more secure as well as the fact that we benefit from having prosperous neighbours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    Of course not for these reasons

    1)Turkey is in Asia Minor, only 5% of its land mass is in Europe. Since when do Europe's borders extend to Iran and Iraq?
    Firstly, the ammendmants made to the treaty of Rome in the Maastricht Treaty (1992) state that the European Community is to be defined by:

    "a common market and an economic and monetary union" (Article G.B.2.)

    Equally, Article 8 under Part Two (Citizenship of the Union) regards that citizenship is conferred not by geographic location, but simply by holding citizenship of a Member State. By reviewing the relevant literature and facts, it is quite clear that the European Community is not defined by geography, but by a series of interlocking and overlapping networks of standardized rules and regulations, including the non-visa Schengen Area and the Euro-using Eurozone. In this regard, the EU is defined not on ethnic/geographic terms, but based on this interlocking network of regulations, laws, currency (etc). The website of the UN recognizes Cyprus as part of Western Asia, for example, yet Cyprus is often deemed 'more European' than Turkey.

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    2)Turkey has showed no sign of reform of late, out of 35 EU 'chapters' 8 are closed. It's economic blokade of Cyprus is devastating as well.
    Incorrect; the past five years have seen reforms made regarding (a) capital punishment (b) open discussion of the Armenian issue (including the opening of so-called 'soccer diplomacy' between Turkey and Armenia) (c) lessening of restrictions against Kurdistan (d) Article 301, a sticking-point for European mediators, has been reformed recently (the list goes on) . Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish head of state, recently made the statement that Turkey is determined to continue its obligation to meet the criteria for entry to the EU, a sentiment shared among a majority of the parties within the European Parliament. The following link, to a BBC article, is typical of the optimistic press coverage of the progress regarding Turkish reform (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3631038.stm).

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    3)Turkey is culturally middle eastern and in fact has existed as an enemy of Europe for most of its history. The Poles and Austrians did not drive the Turks from the gates of Vienna in the 17th cent. only for them to come in through the back door.
    So? The EU is not a culturally-homogenizing institution, where standardization is expected within a framework of economics, currency and legislation (etc). Equally, Turkey is a culturally diverse mosaic of Greek, Russian, Turkic, Syrian, Kurdish, Armenian and European traditions; indeed, the AKP party currently in power sees itself as the heir to traditions of European enlightenment initiated during the reform and revolution movements of the 1910s-1920s under Ataturk. Ankara is a city which, more than any other I have ever visited, visibly celebrates the concept of democracy and secularism. Equally, there is no consensus on what constitutes a "European culture", if this is even a possible/laudable goal.

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    4)Not a true democracy, lots of army intervention in the govt. as well as lack of real seperation of islam from the state.
    The degree of autonomy and power vested in the military is declining under the AKP party, who have been at loggerheads with the military over the selection of PMs on more than one occassion.

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    5)Turkey has income levels way below Western Europe. A country of 72 million young, uneducated middle-easterners is not good for the EU economy. Immigration only benefits the immigrants economically speaking, fact.
    Firstly, the EC constitutes both Western and Eastern Europe, many of the countries (Bulgaria, for example) show lower GDP than Turkey, and a slower growth rate. Indeed, diplomatic and economic talks between Georgia/Armenia/Turkey are expected in the coming months to oversee a substantial expansion in Turkish GDP. Your statement that "72 million young, uneducated middle-easterners" is insulating to the many young, educated friends of mine who are Turkish; these are university students, entirely bi- and tri-lingual, all of whom are studying for degrees in some of Turkey's top universities; I find your post, in this regard, personally insulating and ignorant, seeing as you have clearly never spent any time among the charming, intellectual people of Turkey.

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    6)two words, 'Armenian Genocide'
    No; this is actually a live issue which seems to be reaching the possibility of resolution (see above)

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    7)one word, 'Kurds'
    Again, see above.

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    8)Turks dont make good immigrants, consider Turkish ethnic ghettos such as Kreutberg in Berlin already...
    The 'ghetto' is a stage in the process of enculturation, a mechanism by which cultural-dislocation can be compensated by the reinstitution of cultural norms among members of that culture. Ethnographic studies conducted within cultural 'spheres' (or ghettos), especially in London, have observed how occupational ghettos do not translate into employment/education/leisure ghettos, and in fact the 'ghetto' is itself a dynamic process, rather than a static, 19th century 'pale'. I have known many native Turkish people who have integrated into European society, in this regard.

    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    9)Massive agricultural sector would destroy CAP
    Many European analysts and economists would consider this a useful thing; the CAP is not held in consensus in Europe, and is increasingly being seen as
    an inappropriate measure which stifles integration and free trade.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paulgallagher13)
    It is childlike to argue that because some of your Turkish friends are educated that the majority of Turks are. The Turkish education system is vastly inferior to that of Europe. Bulgaria is a country of 7 million, Turkey of 72, any comparison of these is useless. The fact is the Turkish economy is backward and agricultural. The CAP may not be a good system but i'd prefer it be phased out rather than simply destroyed.
    As for never having spent time with the 'charming' Turks? Five minutes in Duisburg is enough to convince me otherwise.

    The AKP may see themselves as 'the heir to traditions of European enlightenment' but I see them as the heir of the Ottoman empire. While it might not be clear what European culture is to you, to me it is. Turkey is not European and it strikes me as biarre that anyone would think that it is. Almost everything from their history to their architecture is middle eastern.


    Turkey has not reformed in any significant way, that is a view shared by the EU else we would not still be talking about the same reforms years later. The majority of the EU do not desire Turkish membership as you've said, Sarkozy/the CDU of Germany/Austria and Holland in particular will never ever allow it thankfully. Whilst Turkey is showing a bit more class in its dealings with the Kurds and the Armenians it still strikes me as typically Turkish that it still denies the Armenian genocide.

    I could go on but this really is something you either support or don't, there is no middle ground. Either you see the facts or see what you'd like to see.
    Hardly childlike, rather it is misleading to state as fact that the population of Turkey (73 million) is represented by a single educational/age/employment strata. Secondly, as with the 'fears' that other EU countries would receive a disproportionate amount of immigration from Bulgaria following their accession, such fears turned out to be unfounded. The standardizing character of EU legislation aims to homogenize employment and labour conditions across EU member states to 'spread out' immigration.

    How is the Turkish Republic in any way derived from the ruling principles of the Ottoman Empire? Not only did Ataturk redevelop the capital (Ankara), but instituted many liberal forms of governance not paralleled in Europe at the time; for instance, Turkey had female ministers/members of Parliament before many continental European nations even permitted female suffrage, while Turkey is held under ICJ jurisdiction and is a member of the European Court of Human Rights. Turkish inclusion in a 'European Community' has been recognized since the Truman doctrine, and so is by no means a sudden initiative.

    You base your ideas of culture on unfortunate anachronisms; firstly, 'middle eastern' architecture can be seen in Spain (some of the finest examples of such architecture), Portugal, Kosovo, Albania, Greece, Ukraine, Belorussia, north London, while cities such as Konya, Ankara and Istanbul are all undergoing massive expansion in terms of business and industry, with the majority of buildings constructed in what is closer to an 'international style'. Yes, Ottoman architecture is still Ottoman, but Caernarfon Castle in Wales was directly inspired by Constantinople's Byzantine architecture, the Brighton Pavilion by the idea of Mughal and Indian architecture. What difference does this make?

    Equally, the agricultural sector accounts for less than 10% of its GDP, with the majority represented by services, industry and manufacturing, though agriculture does account for over 30% of employment; however, the private sector is undergoing some expansion, especially in terms of construction and communications. It is in these areas, not agriculture, that the major expansion will occur.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In all seriousness, Russia will join the EU before Turkey, i.e. when hell freezes over or oil&gas reserves run low, which ever comes first.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ataturk and his blind followers are morons who sold out the honour of Muslim Turks for such foolish notions as "secularism" to ape his masters nonmuslim europeans, only to be finally snubbed from inclusion in their exclusive christian club.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Beh, first of all Turkey must decide if it's muslim or secular because it's a de facto divided country. Btw, it has many steps to do before joining in the Union (impossible before 2025), including a more european external behavior. A country that acts like an agressive cop of NATO in the region cannot be welcomed in the European Union. Politically it would be helpful to join but only the Western Turkey is really European (I'm in a position to know that well), the eastern part is not part of Europe culturally or politically. As Sarkozy sais, Europe cannot have a border with Iran. Still Europe doens't welcome this country, do not insist on accepting it. I would prefer Europe to decide through a referendum, since it would be one of the largest countries if ever accepted. And anyway, Turkey must respect the rights of each one of the 27 member states before it even discuss any accession affairs. Currently, it doesn't reckognise Cyprus and it doesn't respect the legal rights of Greece in Aegean. Remember, any country to enter EU needs a positive answer by ALL members of the Union and this will not change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maths-enthusiast)
    Ataturk and his blind followers are morons who sold out the honour of Muslim Turks for such foolish notions as "secularism" to ape his masters nonmuslim europeans, only to be finally snubbed from inclusion in their exclusive christian club.
    Who are you to make such a foolish statement? You are the moron yourself.
    For one thing secularism is not being non-muslim; it is "not favoring any religion in political life".
    Also Atatürk is one of the greatest minds of our times and his followers are the innovative and modern Turkish people.
    And "masters"?! Hey, we spilled Europeans (mostly Greeks) to seas in our Independence War. Who do you think is the master here?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nerd1729)
    Who are you to make such a foolish statement? You are the moron yourself.
    For one thing secularism is not being non-muslim; it is "not favoring any religion in political life".
    Also Atatürk is one of the greatest minds of our times and his followers are the innovative and modern Turkish people.
    And "masters"?! Hey, we spilled Europeans (mostly Greeks) to seas in our Independence War. Who do you think is the master here?
    Are you aware of the fact that at the same time the Turks were being made to leave Greek land? And as to how innovative Turks are, I am laughing so hard to be able to make a comment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Europeans simply do not want muslim turks in the EU. It has nothing to do with GDP, we dont want their culture, we dont want their values, we dont want their influence and more importantly we dont want them.

    Turkey will never join the EU and if they did hypothetically join then I would want the UK to get out of the EU.

    And I know for a fact my sentiments are felt by the majority of europeans.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NordicBoy)
    The Europeans simply do not want muslim turks in the EU. It has nothing to do with GDP, we dont want their culture, we dont want their values, we dont want their influence and more importantly we dont want them.

    Turkey will never join the EU and if they did hypothetically join then I would want the UK to get out of the EU.

    And I know for a fact my sentiments are felt by the majority of europeans.
    I'm pretty sure Turkey is by far the most secular muslim majority country in the world. I don't think it would necessarily take that much for their culture to be quite compatible with the rest of Europe, even if the majority of them are nominally muslim. Like how the majority in the UK are nominally Christian, i.e. Christian in name but not much else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I'm pretty sure Turkey is by far the most secular muslim majority country in the world. I don't think it would necessarily take that much for their culture to be quite compatible with the rest of Europe, even if the majority of them are nominally muslim. Like how the majority in the UK are nominally Christian, i.e. Christian in name but not much else.
    Hah. You do know why it's secular right? Because the military there dictates that it should be. The overwhelming majority of the population is Mulsim- and believe me, most of these Turks would not hesitate to flaunt their Muslim identity once they reach our (far too) liberal society.

    But it is a moot point. At the moment Europe is shifting to the right. In fact, I think apart from three governments in the EU (Spain, UK and one other) there is no government which is entirely left-wing. Plus, the Conservatives will probably come to power as well in the UK soon enough.

    Sarkozy doesn't want Turkey in. Merkel doesn't want Turkey in. And the newly-elected EU President Herman Van Rompuy is staunchly against Turkish membership. Basically, within the EU it is only a bunch of liberal nations (which count for very little) such as Sweden that want Turkish accession.

    We don't need Turkey. Most Europeans don't want Turkey. And if you think that Germany and France are going to sacrifice their influence/strangehold on EU-decision making to what is basically a third-world Muslim nation, then I suggest you get your head checked.

    Turkey is not a European nation, everybody knows it, and it is really as simple as that. The East of Turkey is about as developed a Iraq!

    Our (Europe's) message: you are not welcome- not now, not ever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ashurst)
    Hah. You do know why it's secular right? Because the military there dictates that it should be. The overwhelming majority of the population is Mulsim- and believe me, most of these Turks would not hesitate to flaunt their Muslim identity once they reach our (far too) liberal society.

    But it is a moot point. At the moment Europe is shifting to the right. In fact, I think apart from three governments in the EU (Spain, UK and one other) there is no government which is entirely left-wing. Plus, the Conservatives will probably come to power as well in the UK soon enough.

    Sarkozy doesn't want Turkey in. Merkel doesn't want Turkey in. And the newly-elected EU President Herman Van Rompuy is staunchly against Turkish membership. Basically, within the EU it is only a bunch of liberal nations (which count for very little) such as Sweden that want Turkish accession.

    We don't need Turkey. Most Europeans don't want Turkey. And if you think that Germany and France are going to sacrifice their influence/strangehold on EU-decision making to what is basically a third-world Muslim nation, then I suggest you get your head checked.

    Turkey is not a European nation, everybody knows it, and it is really as simple as that. The East of Turkey is about as developed a Iraq!

    Our (Europe's) message: you are not welcome- not now, not ever.
    REP.

    The biggest critics of turkys EU bid are countries which are plagued by large populaitons of turks. There has been a newsblackout on the weekly mass riots in france that hace been instigated by north african and turkish youth.

    Europeans are SICK of tide after tide of brown immigrants from alien cultures. We are sick of it and we REFUSE to allow many more millions of immigrant turks descending on our beautiful continent.

    We dont want you and polls on european opinion show that turkey is not welcome in europe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Brown immigrants? surely a ban?

    I'll have to remain on the fence on this one and I've been pretty anti inclusion in past threads.

    The bigot in this thread should realise that their precious western culture includes being open to "aliens" from all corners of the globe. That doesn't mean open immigration either. In saying that, I would co-sign a previous post were the person said something along the lines of western Turkey being European and the east being in line with middle eastern culture. The more remote you are the more likely you'll come across staunch Muslims. As an anecdote; I'm from the east but very liberal and would've remained so had I never left Turkey.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AYE)
    Brown immigrants? surely a ban?

    I'll have to remain on the fence on this one and I've been pretty anti inclusion in past threads.

    The bigot in this thread should realise that their precious western culture includes being open to "aliens" from all corners of the globe. That doesn't mean open immigration either. In saying that, I would co-sign a previous post were the person said something along the lines of western Turkey being European and the east being in line with middle eastern culture. The more remote you are the more likely you'll come across staunch Muslims. As an anecdote; I'm from the east but very liberal and would've remained so had I never left Turkey.
    Wait, so on the one hand you are talking about democratic western values etc. (free speech...) but you are advocating banning another poster just because he mentioned that he doesn't like "brown" immigrants...how is that indicative of free speech?

    He is not inciting violence towards them, merely stating his own preferences. I smell hypocrisy in the air...
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

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.