Cyprus-Forum.com

[magikthrill]

Why the French? Do you forget that we have an Armenian minority in Cyprus. I believe that Cypriot Armenians should demand that Turkey should recognize the armenian genocide and compensate armenians before Turkey is allowed to enter the EU.

I'm referring to the french people not the government, since the people apparently will be allowed to vote in a referendum whether Turkey should enter the EU.

[brother]

Let them vote its their democratic right.

[magikthrill]

definitely i agree. its too bad the rest of us EU citizens dont get to vote.

[brother]

I am sure they might get the chance, you see at the end of the day why be in a club that has people that discriminate against you based on your religion or race.

If they do not want you then you should not want them back.

Maybe they should go to referandum and decide on the new name from the EUROPEAN UNION to lets say the CHRISTIAN UNION, then there would be no confusion and the planets secound class citizens the muslims or turks would know they cannot join this racist club.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[magikthrill]

turkcyp,

a referendum is not a double standard. a majority of all Europeans are hesitant about Turkey's accession to the EU, more than any other previosu country (hence its not just the "radical right" you like to call)

Additonally, Turkey demands full membership privileges which the ten EU countries have not yet attain (limit to immigration)

Finally, Turkey entering the EU is not a bad idea completely but it will be done on OUR terms (yours, mine all EU citizens/governments). Not on Turkey's.

[magikthrill]

by the way here's the article that says basically what i thought.

French poll shows depth of hostility to Turkey

Fears of mass immigration if Ankara allowed to join EU
Jon Henley in Paris
Wednesday September 29, 2004

Guardian
The majority of French people would oppose Turkey's accession to the EU if asked to vote on the issue today, according to a poll that again underlines the extent of popular hostility to the project across Europe.

The poll, by the IPSOS research group for Le Figaro newspaper, showed that 36% of French people were in favour but 56% were against the mainly Muslim country joining the 25-country union in the immediate future. The most cited objection was the fear of mass immigration.

The European commission is expected to recommend in a long-awaited report next week that the EU opens accession talks with Turkey, although no decision can be made before EU leaders meet in December. Entry talks could then last for years, even decades.

But public opinion in many European countries appears firmly set against the move, leading to increasing speculation that EU politicians have got ahead of their voters. Turkey would be the EU's most populous country, its poorest and the only one with a majority Muslim population.

The French poll found that, of those who opposed entry now, 40% were most concerned by the impact of Turkish immigrants on the EU job market. Some 26% said their main objection was that Turkey is mainly in Asia, while 25% cited the fact that most Turks are Muslims.

But in a sign that popular opinion may change, 63% said they could imagine Turkey in the EU if it made "the necessary political and economic changes". Nearly 30% said Turkey should never be part of the EU for cultural and historic reasons.

France's political class is also deeply divided. President Jacques Chirac has backed Ankara's bid, but most of his ruling UMP party disagrees.

The finance minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the foreign minister, Michel Barnier, said this week that the issue had to be settled by a referendum.

"In my personal opinion... a decision as important as Turkey's accession into Europe could be taken only after a referendum is held in France, in due course, to determine the opinion of French people," Mr Barnier said.

The prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, was more outspoken in a newspaper interview last week, demanding, controversially: "Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?"

Although the French, already upset by their diminished influence in a union of 25 members, would favour a referendum on Turkey's accession, many would be tempted to vote against such a move, fearful that a nation of 71 million people would fundamentally change the nature of the EU and further reduce France's influence.

"A referendum would be very risky," said Eddy Fougier, an analyst at the French Institute for International Relations. "It is clear that there are people on the French right who will never accept Turkey's entry."

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the new European constitution, summed up the position of many French conservatives when he said last year that Turkish membership would signal "the end of the EU". Turkey was "not a European country". It had "a different culture, a different approach and a different way of life", he said.

Calls for a referendum by those such as Mr Sarkozy and the leading socialist and former prime minister Laurent Fabius appear largely to be an attempt to cash in on popular anti-Turkish feeling ahead of their expected 2007 presidential election campaigns.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858, ... 47,00.html

Personally, the hint of ethnocentricist in me (I admit my flaws) agrees with the 30% which reject Turkey for historical/cultural reasons. And not in terms of their "violent" past (all European nations have blood on their hands) but because one of the main reasons for expanding the EU was to join historically and culturally common nations (since the ten EU members were not economically beneficial).

But on the other hand times are changing and we need to keep up.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Saint Jimmy]

Turkcyp,
your post above seems quite logical to me, with a couple of exceptions.

One is that I think you are over-simplifying the decision-making process to a dangerous extent. You claim it is always and invariably rational, and that it's the basis for the function of the whole capitalist system. My view is that decision-making is often not as rational as one would think, especially in the sense that 'rational' is used in economic theory. For instance, if the States want to push Turkey's candidacy for their own interests, they would do it through the United Kingdom (and maybe through Aznar's Spain, as long as he was in power). And the United Kingdom, in turn, following its God-knows-how-old policy of collaborating with the USA, would push for it, regardless of whether it is in the best interests of the EU (assuming it is not blatantly against these interests), much like what happened with the RoC's accession course and Greece. If the RoC's accession was not in favour of the interests of the EU, would Greece have a different agenda on the issue?

And two, is that you seem to be arguing in favor of Turkey being treated like any other EU member state, ignoring the fact that, in many respects... Turkey is not like any other member state! Maybe, then, the EU is genuinely worried about, say, Turkey's impoverished population masses flooding the German market, in search of work. Maybe it's not all rhetoric, after all. The RoC didn't want to have the acquis communautaire suspended in the north, for obvious reasons! However, the government swallowed this settlement, because the EU had to find a solution to this problem that they faced (a divided acceding country). Here, it's also true that no other country in the EU has such a condition: that the acquis is suspended in part of its territory. Would that mean that the RoC shouldn't accept the condition, because it saw it as being double-standards?

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...