Why Austria is right about Blocking Turkey into EU

Her age, oe.

(Well she's over 50, but feels like 114. At least she said something like that on one of the more intellectual threads.)

ummm, sorry for the hijack. i'm afraid that's classified information. kgb would kill m... I MEAN, err, it's it's, you know, republic, order, brighter tomorrow... musn't tell. torture me all you want.

I heard an interesting radio interview on the BBC last night - there was a suggestion that the existing members of the EU might be able to get their own economies up to snuff by the time the 800+ pages of laws/bylaws etc needed to get Turkey to the next stage of EU entry are completed/updated.

There has been discussion on CBC/BBC on how the Turkish economy is much more vibrant than much of the EU. That was something of a surprise to me. I knew the existing EU wasn't on fire economically, but I'd never considered that Turkey might be doing comparatively better.

Definitely something I need to learn more about.

source: BBC

There's a lot more info in that report.

Still, it would be a rather simplistic point of view. Would be like saying that the States are lagging behind China and really have to reform their whole economy in order to be able to compete with China.

The question is how you define "doing comparatively better".

I'd actually agree with that comment about the USA and China, OE.
It's something I've started a coupla threads on.
The USA needs to get it's economic rear in gear.

Comparatively better, in the way I understood last night's discussion, was that the Turkish economy is revving up while the EU economy (as a whole) is stagnant in the areas it isn't worsening. Like I said, something I want to learn more about.

I can understand why Turkish membership is viewed as a "good thing", demonstrating acceptance of secular state with muslim population etc.

..except that Europe was never a "Christian club". There is no reference as far as I know to any established EU wide religion. The EU is specifically non denominational.

What worries me is that within a few years of Turkey joining, the islamists will take over and demand the EU accepts sharia law in a member state.

i'm pretty sure they would be suspended then. austria was for haider, remember? it's possible and has been done.

ehBeth, I guess I've just heard it too often recently.

The reality is that free markets and globalization, at least to a certain extent, are facts. And basically desirable. But during the years where western countries demanded that other nations open their markets (so we could import cheap resources and export expensive industrial goods) we forgot that these are not modern day colonies. Capitalism works both ways, and we actually have to be better in order to get out of it better.

Hhmmmmmmm... have to disagree.

First off, in this case, the negation of the hypothesis that its an exaggerated fear, and that they wont actually move here in great numbers, is kinda physically present in our cities. Lots of Turks did move here - Holland, Germany.

Now I dont blame them; and I dont mind ... to the extent that it doesnt disintegrate our socio-economic system.

And although many people already scream that the many current immigrants do already threaten our social arrangements, so far I've been disagreeing. As long as living standards in Holland etc are higher than ever, any dismantling of the welfare state thats been going on has clearly been a question of choice - we could apparently well still afford to keep it, but just not if we also cut taxes, no.

But once Turkey is inside the EU, and then eventually, inevitably, gets freedom of movement, its a different story. The migration of large numbers of Turks in the past already shows that they would "uproot and move half across the continent". Many still do, using the family reunification laws, and many more would if there werent such draconically strict rules in place.

And I dont blame them. I mean, Istanbul is a relatively prosperous city. But Eastern Turkey, where most of the immigrants come from, is a place of great poverty.

Eastern Turkey is not Eastern Poland or Eastern Slovakia. The poverty there in proportion to living standards in Western-Europe is much greater than that in Kosice barring perhaps the Roma settlements. And as long as thats the case, I dont think your comparison works.

As soon as Eastern Turkey, in proportion to France or Germany, is where Nyiregyhazi is now, I'd be a lot more inclined to welcome it in the EU. I dont think thats gonna be the case in 10 or even 15 years time.

actually, i'm just coming from a lecture on migration in EU. This was the crux of it:


He claims that migration into EU is not only happening, it's necessary and beneficial. What's wrong is lack of coherent EU policy that would control the flow. Besides, it's not the poorest people that migrate. They can't afford it. And there are different tiers of regulations for the rest.
Our Roma did try to travel, too. Not the poorest, mind you. The ones that saved up or the loan sharks. Most didn't make it and were turned back. Of course you have illegal migration, but that won't go away if Turkey isn't in EU, quite contrary.

"He" being Tito Boeri, sorry about that. I pulled the lecture summary from www.iwm.at

Exactly. And thats where I'm wary.

See, I dont like politicians who make promises and then forego on them. I've felt very strongly - and still do - that we had/have a moral obligation to integrate the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU because, after all, we'd been telling them, encouraging them, even kinda agitpropping them, though Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, etc, that yes, they're Europe, they rightly belong to our big European family of free nations, they're welcome and they should join us!

I think that, when they then finally do rise up against their dictatorships and proudly wave the banner of "returning to Europe", you can hardly go back on all that once you realise it might all be a bit costly and suddenly say: "oh, eh, on second thought, by the way..."

Promise makes debt, as we say. In that light I think it's already been pretty shameful how long it did take us to welcome them in.

But yes, hesitant, therefore, about extending the same promise to a place like Turkey. If promise makes debt, perhaps we should be careful about what we promise.

I mean, one thing is clear: once you start membership negotiations, there's no plausible way out, in the long run. You cant halfway through say, fuhgeddabout it. Creating expectations like that and then dashing them would be the most surefire way to trigger a virulent backlash of potentially very dangerous anti-European resentment. And that backlash is gonna be worse the further on the road it is, the more hopes were created first. People dont ever like being excluded or being treated badly, but they'll get really mad if you first promised them the opposite. Hell hath no fury like a people spurned.

(One of my main conclusions in my thesis on the political mobilisation of ethnic minorities was that minorities dont particularly mobilise in situations of bad treatment, per se; in fact, if ill treatment is stagnant and stable, they're more likely to be resigned than anything else. Its when things either threaten to take a turn for the worse, or there's a sudden opportunity for things to get better, that people rally.)

The membership process simply has a dynamic of its own. Bulgaria and Romania, I feel, are already treated a little more laxly than Poland etc were. Why? Because once started, you cant drag on these talks forever - out of many reasons, if only just because of the strategically dangerous backlash you'd create. To ward that backlash off, the EU is forced to ever move a step forward and keep the trust/hope alive - even if there hasnt, perhaps, been all that much progress in meeting criteria.

So, wary.

I dont think they'll ever try that again... it wasnt much of a success.

Note the EU's utter silence, after the whole episode, when next up it was Italy's turn to integrate both rabid xenophobes (Lega Nord) and actual, literal ex-fascists (Alleanza Nazionale) into its government.

True, and again, bad IMHO - if you're going to let them into the EU, you should give them the perks as well as the demands.

But don't those arrangements also mean that we dont actually know whether people uprooting and moving half across the continent was an exaggerated fear? I mean, if they werent actually given the chance to do so, anyway? (See also your observation about how the Roma who tried to move West were most all sent back).


True - but on both counts. Controlled immigration is not just benefitial - its positively necessary to maintain our welfare state arrangements.

Uncontrolled immigration, however, would devastate them.

There's a dilemma for me, because idealistically, I believe there should be no controls at all. That would be the Right Thing. But I also realise that if they'd really be done away with, that would mean the end of social-democracy. America has been able to process higher immigration rates than Europe partly because any immigrant knew there'd be no kind of support. And I'm loathe to give up social-democracy, not only as it exists in Western Europe now, but also as a model or example for other countries, an alternative to the US model of wild capitalism. So its a balancing act.

I dont think its fair, in the long run, to welcome somebody into the EU as Member State and then indefinitely deny them some of the basic rights the EU celebrates (freedom of movement, traffic etc). The limits on immigration from the new central-european member states will surely be temporary. So to offer the same prospect to Turkey?


True - partly. Its not the very poorest that migrate - they cant afford it. But its those who have some money, from the poorest regions.

Ie, current Turkish immigrants in Europe. They're overwhelmingly from the poorer East of Anatolia. And they were/are less educated than the average Turk.


No, illegal immigration there would be either way. But the striking difference would be re: legal immigration.

Currently, the entry of legal immigrants is limited in some inhumanly draconic ways. According to the latest Dutch policies (either active or in the course of being implemented), if you're a Turk and you want to marry a Dutch(-Turkish) girl or boy and join him/her in Holland:

- your partner needs to have a steady job (one-year contract or more), and earn over a specific standard monthly salary (something like 130%? the minimum wage)
- your partner takes on financial responsibility for you and you will not have a right to any social benefits for the first three years

- you have to take an obligatory "integration course" (mostly Dutch language). Until now you would take that once you got here, and the state paid for it. But from now on, you have to do it at your own costs and in your own country, before you're even allowed in. Up to you to find the school/teacher that can teach you Dutch, out there in Eastern-Anatolia, too. Only once you passed an exam at the Dutch embassy can you come.

- if you commit any crime at any time (in the latest government proposal even if it's just shoplifting), you can be deported back to your country, regardless of your legal residence permit

- children under 18 have the right to join their parent in the Netherlands, but those over 18 don't.

No partner to join and no job already promised to you, with the employer proving that he cant find anyone with your skills within the EU? You wont get in, period.

So theres a lot of limits on legal immigration, without which immigration would (judging on past numbers) increase proportionally.

I favour loosening a number of these, IMO, cruel limitations. But EU membership would, I'm guessing, pull the carpet out from underneath the lot of them.

Ooooo, long. Sorry.

I hear ya, and I agree, I'm an idealist too. But you and I both know it is not possible - wasn't in respect to Central Europe, and most certainly won't be when it comes to Turkey. (haha, i wrote turdey..nemmind). EU needs common immigration policy no matter what. So I think that is an internal EU problem, Turkey or no Turkey. Cruel or not, it is necessary.

As for the different speeds (or membership perks) - also unfair, and believe me, humiliating, but i'm not grumbling. It does make sense for the reason you also state (though I still think some are exaggerated. So what, perhaps I am, on the other hand, an exaggerating optimist. I suspect that, but am willing to take my chances) and will be crucial in Turkey's case. So we're talking 15-20 years before borders really open up for Turkey. If there is an increased migration in the meantime, again, EU has to deal with it. Its mechanism is rusted, inflexible, and outdated. And unfair, not in the least because of so many regional differences.

Speaking of voluntariness and promises - Turkey wants into EU for decades, and EU has been toying with Turkey like a cat with a mouse for at least a decade. Perhaps there wasn't an overt promise, but pretty damn near to it. And as of now, I believe there is (shouldn't be at least) no turning back, because the promise certainly IS there now.

But in any case, I will post a week old article that sums up better than I can some of the things I subscribe to. Next post.

Historical memory, baby. It's all about historical memory. (ok, am just warming up my own soup here. it's not, and i know it. but it sure as hell is interesting...)

sorry, i don't have the link. was forwarded to me via email...


Regime change, European-style, is a measure of our civilisation

European self-interest must not be trumped by the politics of identity on the road to Turkey's accession
to the EU

Madeleine Bunting
Monday September 26, 2005
The Guardian

A week from today, barring a last-minute upset, there
will be a small, quiet signing ceremony, probably in
Strasbourg. Not even the UK Foreign Office seems
entirely sure of the venue or its format. But no one
is questioning the scale of the ambition nor the risks
which underpin this event - the opening of the
accession process for Turkey's membership of the
European Union. Welcome to regime change,
European-style.

The parallels are inescapable: the US launched its
regime change in a Muslim country with shock and awe, an unprecedented onslaught of military power. The EU quietly initiates its regime change in the Muslim country next door with the shock of 80,000 pages of EU regulations on everything from the treatment of waste water to the protection of Kurdish-minority rights.
While one sends in its Humvees and helicopters, the
other sends in an army of management consultants,
human-rights lawyers and food-hygiene specialists.

The more the US model of regime change disintegrates into violent chaos in Iraq, the more the EU glows with discreet pride in its own unparalleled record of successful regime change, from post-dictatorship Spain and Portugal to the more recent enlargement countries such as Hungary and Estonia.

The EU model uses the incentive of membership to
insist on dramatic change - once a country is a member, the leverage is lost. So Turkey will have to
jump through a number of hoops on issues such as
corruption and sewerage, which might trip up many of
the oldest EU members. It's a style of regime change
which is "cheap, voluntary and hence long-lasting",
points out Steven Everts in a new pamphlet,Why Europe Should Embrace Turkey.

This kind of regime change is the only way in which
the EU can lay claim to being a serious global player
- on almost every recent international crisis, from
Bosnia to Iraq, internal squabbles crippled an effective response. No wonder then that there are
plenty of Europhiles, particularly in the UK, whose
eyes glitter at the prospect of Turkey in the EU
queue. They rattle off the long list of advantages:
the geostrategic significance of Turkey in relation to
the Caucasus and the Middle East; the key gas supplies that now run through Turkey; the demographic advantages of a much younger population; the dynamic Turkish economy - grown by a quarter since 2001; securing Europe's back door against drugs and people-trafficking.

Besides, Turkey has aspired to EU membership for over 40 years, and such has been its enthusiasm in the past few years that, to win Brussels' favour, it has agreed to the most ambitious political and economic reform programme since the great secular moderniser Kemal Ataturk. Regime change is already well under way in Istanbul, but not irrevocable; the prospective trial of the novelist Orhan Pamuk for his comments on the Armenian massacre indicate that some in Turkey are only too keen to torpedo the whole process. If Europe was to turn truculent with Turkey, an extraordinary opportunity to strengthen human rights and ensure stable democracy would be lost. The conclusion is clear: Turkish membership is a "no-brainer", insist Britain's Euro elite - commentators, government and analysts alike.

What fuels this British enthusiasm is that Turkey
offers the tantalising possibility of exorcising the
"clash of civilisations" ghost. If there was a secular, democratic, economically successful Muslim state it would kill off intense arguments about the incompatibility of Islam with democracy or Islam with
human rights and modernity. Furthermore, 80 million
Turks within the EU would also kill off the EU's credibility deficit in the Muslim world, where it's
seen as a Christian, white club with a dodgy imperial
past (although the latter is as much a Turkish problem as a European one in the region). Finally - the coup de grace - it would strengthen the claim of Europe's 15 million-strong Muslim minority to a home in Europe.
In sharp contrast to the US, Europe could shape a new, prosperous and peaceful accommodation between Islam and the secular west.

But this is the nub of the problem - vast swaths of
Europe don't buy it. Either they don't believe a
peaceful accommodation with Muslims is possible or
they fear it requires such a dilution of European
identity that they don't want it. Britain's enthusiasm
is echoed in only a few countries such as Poland and
Spain, while across the rest of the continent the
"clash of civilisations" argument is flourishing.
Hence the quietness of the short ceremony next Monday.
No one has any desire to launch this project of regime change with a fanfare - it fills European populations with horror. The figures from a recent Eurobarometer poll tell it all: 80% of Austrians are against, and only 10% in favour; 70% of the French are against and 74% of the Germans. It's going to need a very hard sell to convince millions of people that Turkish membership is in their interests, and after the failure of a previous Euro elite project - the
constitution - no one's relishing the challenge.

The accession process will take at least a decade and
over that time both the EU and Turkey are likely to
change dramatically, but what will make the process so fascinating is that as the rows rumble on (no one
denies that it's going to be rocky - the Turks are
allegedly "terrible negotiators", every detail becoming a point of national honour) it will be the canvas on which will be projected all of Europe's crucial choices.

Will self-interest - put crudely, young Turks might pay for ageing Europe's pensions - be trumped by the
unpredictable politics of identity as an insecure Europe, aware of its shrinking demographic and
economic weight in the world, pulls up the drawbridge
and opts to define itself more narrowly around its
historical Christian identity?

This self-interest isn't obvious: it will need European politicians to do a lot of explaining. Geostrategic thinking doesn't come easily to your average voter and they'll need reassurance that they are not going to be swamped by cheap Turkish labour. Free movement of labour can be staggered, as it is for
the new eastern European members, and is unlikely to come before 2022. Similarly, structural funds are not going to be swallowed up whole in the peasant
hinterland of Anatolia and probably won't be
accessible by Turkey until after 2020.

But the reticence about taking on the advocacy role
for Turkish membership has been evident across the
political spectrum in Germany as politicians fear
being ambushed by the visceral emotions stirred up by Turkey. Austria and Germany are still thinking of the geese whose honking woke the army when Vienna was under siege from the Ottoman Turks in the 16th century, commented one seasoned observer.

Can such history be laid to rest when it has sunk such
long and deep roots into the national identity? All
over the world, in places such as Rwanda and South
Africa, there are many grappling with different
formulations of just that question. The EU ploughs
funds and diplomacy in to achieve an affirmative. How hollow does that ring if Europe itself, despite all
its vaunted values of freedom and tolerance and its
envied prosperity, fails the test and lets history
win. Watch Turkey's accession process in the years to
come as the barometer of Europe's degree of
civilisation.

oops, sorry for the messed up formatting also.

Link to article in Guardian