You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Dutch minister opposes EU balloting on Turkey
2004-12-20
Foreign Minister Ben Bot of the Netherlands, which holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, on Sunday criticized French and Austrian plans to hold referendums on Turkish membership in the EU, saying such moves could keep Turkey out of the bloc.
Yep. French got what they wanted from the Turks in 2003, and now it's time to screw them.
"I do not think it's very fair to move the goal posts in the middle of a match," Bot said on Dutch public television. "We have never said to the Turks, neither in 1999 nor in 2002, that a referendum would lie at the end of the process. We have to be fair." President Jacques Chirac of France, who has had to juggle his support for Turkey's EU hopes with skepticism among politicians and the public, has promised a referendum on ratifying Turkey's eventual EU membership. In Austria, President Heinz Fischer on Sunday added his voice to a call from Chancellor Wolfgang SchÃŒssel for a European referendum on Turkish membership. SchÃŒssel has said that in any event there would be a vote in Austria.

There were fresh signs Sunday of the unpopularity of the Turkish decision in some countries. Supporters of Italy's populist Northern League party took to the streets of Milan to protest against the start of talks and demanded a referendum on the issue. Banners said, "After the Chinese, now the Turks: Businesses are at risk" and, "Yes to Christian roots." But in Turkey, celebrations continued. Foreign Minster Abdullah Gul said that the EU decision contributed to the Muslim country's stability and gave it a new position in Europe and the Islamic world. "Turkey is a very different country than two days ago," Gul told supporters in Ankara.
Wait til several Euro countries vote 'no'.
Posted by:Sock Puppet of Doom

#17  The Frenchies and some other countries are verbally harsh against Turkey for inner politics but when it comes to deeds the picture is different.

Say that if, and when, Turkey gains EU membership. Any sooner, and it's only wishful thinking.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-12-20 2:41:43 PM  

#16  I hope the EU takes on Turkey.
Posted by: 2b   2004-12-20 12:35:11 PM  

#15  Great another welfare state of 66 million with ethnic strife and a simmering civil war in the east. Not to mention opposition to any Iraqi Kurd autonomy which is the only house in order in that Hellhole. Bad gamble.
Posted by: Rightwing   2004-12-20 12:31:08 PM  

#14  France is not completely stupid. They've learned that colonialism is a costly affair. It's much more profitable to have Dane geld paid to you than to actually conqueror and administer.

The New and Improved Capitulations!
Posted by: Psycho Hillbilly   2004-12-20 10:52:46 AM  

#13  Re #5 "I'm not sure what exactly it is that you are arguing...":
Aris, perhaps not every comment is an argument.
Posted by: Tom   2004-12-20 8:10:04 AM  

#12  Murat is right. As the old saying goes in the U.S., "just follow the money." France will have no real problem with Turkey joining as long as it gives France some new economic advantage. If France is lucky, it will become a secular Islamic republic rather than just an Islamic republic.
Posted by: Tom   2004-12-20 8:07:26 AM  

#11  Err, some 80.000 Europeans have moved and are living already in Turkey, most of them at old age, enjoying a villa life on the beautiful beaches of Turkey (kind of a Florida).

And what is that bulshit of land grab, Turkey and Europe are both benefiting economically that's what counts. The Frenchies and some other countries are verbally harsh against Turkey for inner politics but when it comes to deeds the picture is different.
Posted by: Murat   2004-12-20 7:00:42 AM  

#10  Who would want to move to Turkey??? For one, they have world's worst construction standards (if any at all). Can't build a home.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-12-20 3:02:44 AM  

#9  i would like to see a program of massive church building in turkey to test the waters--let immigration become a two way street
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI   2004-12-20 2:56:57 AM  

#8  Going back to your original statement, your argument can be paraphrased as "the EU is reluctant to grab more territory, therefore it is not an imperialistic power".

I'm merely saying, that if you're looking to show that the EU is not imperialistic, then you should not rely solely on its reluctance to grab territory as proof. I claim the opposite, in fact. The EU is not reluctant. It's only waiting for the opportunity to present itself. It isn't there yet with Turkey.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-12-20 2:41:44 AM  

#7  If it were profitable to accept more states, the EU would expand all the way to the Urals.

And assuming those other states *wanted* it to expand to cover them. Meaning, if it was *mutually* profitable.

I don't disagree with you but once again I think you are missing my point, namely that imperialists tend to see grabbing more territory as something they want to do by *itself*, regardless of whether logically it's profitable or not.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-12-20 1:37:45 AM  

#6  Aris, you mentioned reluctance on the part of the EU to grab more territory. I'm arguing that reluctance has little to do with it. If it were profitable (not only in the monetary sense) to accept more states, the EU would expand all the way to the Urals.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-12-20 1:28:19 AM  

#5  I'm not sure what exactly it is that you are arguing -- that if Turkey's entry becomes unequivocally good for the EU, then there won't be much disagreement about its entry? That's obvious, but it doesn't tell us much.

My argument was that usually for imperialists, the expansion of territory is felt to be *itself* a good. And usually the encroached-upon nations tend to be afraid and resentful, not joyous at the "conquest".

If a neighbouring nation to the Soviet Union for example had said "Conquer us please", I don't think the old USSR would be as reluctant about it as the EU is about Turkey's membership. And likewise with China, Nazi Germany, and pretty much every other conquering power in the history of the world.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-12-20 12:48:54 AM  

#4  I have no opinion either way. I would hope the same method as has been used in the past would be used. That seems fair. But many countries want a vote on it.

Just gettting ready for accession talks has been good for Turkey.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2004-12-20 12:46:23 AM  

#3  Actually Aris, there is nothing fancy about it if you look at it from the point of view that the EU actually needed the eastern Europeans to join, economically speaking. Turkey will never be able to match what eastern Europe had to offer in this respect, and if it did, I venture that there would be no postponing Turkey's membership. Sure Turkey would have to change some things, but there would be no "debating" it and no referendums.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-12-20 12:38:29 AM  

#2  I'll believe it when it happens. The Turks aren't 'xactly popular in the rest of Europe.
Posted by: Steve White   2004-12-20 12:32:14 AM  

#1  Sharing sovereignty is a big thing. Like marriage, it should be voluntary on both sides.

So far enlargement has usually been confirmed with referenda on *one* end, that of the acceding countries. (Sidenote: There was one exception actually -- France held a referendum before allowing UK, Ireland and Denmark to accede back in 1973)

But anyway, when there's doubt on the part of the countries already inside the union, it makes sense to have referenda there as well.

-

As a sidenote, for a supposedly imperialistic and Nazi-like power, the EU seems too reluctant to grab more territory, but said new territory is celebrating even a distance chance of becoming a part of us. Fancy that.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-12-20 12:26:49 AM  

00:00