Turkey in Europe?

Discussion/News about Europe, EU, politics

Moderators: Fons, Phaseolus

Should Turkey join the European Union?

Yes!
55
25%
No !
162
75%
 
Total votes: 217

User avatar
ART
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 5222
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:26 pm

Re: Cyprus nord

Postby ART » Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:48 am

Dakkus wrote:And besides, the Turkish-speaking part of Cyprus does have its own leader. That's the one who should be talked with, not the bulk of Turkish parliament.

The invasion of course ends at the moment all Cypriots (of which 85% are Greek-speaking) have voting right on the issues of the whole island. After that no part of the island is under Turkish rule or Greek rule. Only under Cypriot rule.


Probably you don't know that the so-called "Annan plan" previewed the acceptance of the permanence of Turkish military forces in North Cyprus after the unification also.
"If you lose, you can't win" (Andrea)
"Let's go to see the monsters" (Andrea)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
European soul, European pride.

User avatar
ART
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 5222
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:26 pm

Postby ART » Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:36 am

Dakkus wrote:Do you really believe that Turkey would invade a part of Greece AFTER its accession to EU?! If yes, why?


It's a real hypothesis: Greece and Turkey are both part of the NATO even, but the tension often indeed worrisome levels. Almost all the politicians of the rest of EU are line up with the EU-enlargement at Turkey for economic interest therefore the not-Greeks media, because of the ties with states, political formations and correspondents lobbies, or for simple disinterest to the events of the others, they very rarely talks about the "aerial battles" on the Aegean (one had a dead man also) and about the Turkish territorial reclamation, therefore who don't have possibility to delve the situation can think onestly that the situation is simple.
"If you lose, you can't win" (Andrea)
"Let's go to see the monsters" (Andrea)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
European soul, European pride.

User avatar
Phaseolus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13123
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:16 pm
Location: Quelque part ou même ailleurs !

Re: Cyprus nord

Postby Phaseolus » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:41 am

ART wrote:
Dakkus wrote:And besides, the Turkish-speaking part of Cyprus does have its own leader. That's the one who should be talked with, not the bulk of Turkish parliament.

The invasion of course ends at the moment all Cypriots (of which 85% are Greek-speaking) have voting right on the issues of the whole island. After that no part of the island is under Turkish rule or Greek rule. Only under Cypriot rule.


Probably you don't know that the so-called "Annan plan" previewed the acceptance of the permanence of Turkish military forces in North Cyprus after the unification also.


The "Annan"-Plan has been imposed by Annan personally ; this plan was the result of VERY long discussions and concessions by both communities. It was not a solution brought "only by the outside world that doesn't undertsand a clew about the Cyprian situation".

Now, the real problem of the "Annan"-plan for the Greek Cypriots is that they rejected it. And by doing it, they have changed their statute from "Poor Greek cypriots invaded by the Evil Turkish neighboor" to "Arrogant Greek Cypriots joining the rich EU and not willing to give peace a chance to their Turkish neighboors"

So, this is another part of the problem of initiating peace talks ; it is that, at a certain point, you need to make concessions ; and not only one side must do concessions ; but BOTH sides ought to sit down at a table and make sometimes difficult choices. Now, these choices are made by politicians and submitted to the people and we all know that "sometimes" referendums can lead to negative answers, because of the overstigmatisation of certain points of the agreement.

I therefor understand the position of certain people writing here that the Annan-Plan was not acceptable, as it much easier not to talk with the ennemy, as we know who is the bad guy in a war situation. When it comes to peace-talks it's much more difficult.

So, please, go on blaming the Annan-plan, but just remind, that it was acceptable to both governing parties in Cyprus and it is the Greek Cypriots that took the decision to reject it.
Ceci est une signature.

User avatar
Dakkus
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4734
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:59 pm
Location: No Helsinkiem, Somijas / Iš Helsinkio, Suomijos
Contact:

Postby Dakkus » Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:28 pm

ART wrote:
Dakkus wrote:Do you really believe that Turkey would invade a part of Greece AFTER its accession to EU?! If yes, why?


It's a real hypothesis: Greece and Turkey are both part of the NATO even, but the tension often indeed worrisome levels. Almost all the politicians of the rest of EU are line up with the EU-enlargement at Turkey for economic interest therefore the not-Greeks media, because of the ties with states, political formations and correspondents lobbies, or for simple disinterest to the events of the others, they very rarely talks about the "aerial battles" on the Aegean (one had a dead man also) and about the Turkish territorial reclamation, therefore who don't have possibility to delve the situation can think onestly that the situation is simple.


Nah. They are just showing their muscles. A really peaceful approach should work just fine in this situation. Greece could just stop bothering about the Turkish military. They simply can't attack. Remember what happened when Iraq attacked Kuwait? The same would happen about Turkey.
The Turkish military showing their muscles poses no real threat to Greece. Letting them show theirselves as completely ridiculous would be the easiest way to stop the army's idiocy.
Turkey isn't strong enough to fight the whole rest of Europe.

Suddenly, when I stopped making a fuzz of people bullying me in school and just made it clear that they are unable to really do anything bad, they just stopped beating me up.
Ko saka āboliņš? Pēk pēk pēk!

User avatar
ART
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 5222
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:26 pm

Postby ART » Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:16 am

Phaseolus wrote:Now, the real problem of the "Annan"-plan for the Greek Cypriots is that they rejected it. And by doing it, they have changed their statute from "Poor Greek cypriots invaded by the Evil Turkish neighboor" to "Arrogant Greek Cypriots joining the rich EU and not willing to give peace a chance to their Turkish neighboors"

So, please, go on blaming the Annan-plan, but just remind, that it was acceptable to both governing parties in Cyprus and it is the Greek Cypriots that took the decision to reject it.


Phaseolus... the matter is very most complex than you images: I don't succeed to explain years of diplomatic tension (and "physic" also) in English, but I will try to reassuming you the situation.
The problem cannot be reduced to "the Greek Cipriots have refused the plan", because we must consider which is behind to negotiates also. In my phrase I said "so-called Annan-plan" because this plan has been introduced officially from Kofi Annan but it has been devised from diplomatic Lord Hannay and the USA special envoy Boucher: the plan was a farce that went against UN resolutions, in fact the UN Security Council have refused it and is remained simply "Annan", without the official consent of the UN. It intentionally contained a unacceptable propose (the presence, forever, of Turkish forces in unified Cyprus) that it has given to Turkey and to the USA, main turkish "sponsor" in EU, the pretest for being able to say that the plan has been refused from the Greek Cipriots and therefore the guilt as a whole Greek Cypriot. This plan is only one of the many movements of this "game to chess", to which international prominence has been given, because on nearly all the rest... prefers the silience.
Example: not long ago the media have spoken about "demolition of the wall of Nicosia", introducing this "demolition" by the Greek Cipriots of a feature of barrier in the city like a sign that the situation of Cyprus is improving quickly and that all it goes well.
The real situation?

Image

The Turkish soldiers who patrol the border from the Turk Cipriot part have constructed a bridge who comes down illegally in the UN Buffer Zone, the neutral zone patrolled from the UN in which nobody of the two parts can enter. The situation doesn't improve: the Greek Cipriots have pulled down share part of barrier in answer to this provocation, declaring that it's a sign of goodl for the relations and that the cross will be opened alone Turkish will remove the bridge... has simply given back it the joke.

Moreover it isn't ended here, because are many others issues and disputes that go ahead in some cases from decades: territorial reclamations (and we talk of half Aegean, not two or three small islands), the attempt to obtain the international acknowledgment of north Cyprus, the "cold war" on Aegean, the problem of airspaces etc.
In sum, the last thing of which we have need is to carry this disaster all inside of the EU, that has already too many problems... and all with the majority of the public opinion contrary. That "union" is a union comprending at the same time members with similar relationships? The union of the buffoons, I said :roll:

Dakkus wrote:The Turkish military showing their muscles poses no real threat to Greece. Letting them show theirselves as completely ridiculous would be the easiest way to stop the army's idiocy.
Turkey isn't strong enough to fight the whole rest of Europe.


I'm not saying that a war will burst sure, but that this hypothesis isn't impossible. Turkey currently is armed best of Greece (because it spends many more money for the armed forces in relation to the GDP) but apart from this you keep in mind who the objective isn't obligatorily the Greece, can be Cyprus also, that is far away to Greece and practically disarmed. Obviously against "the whole rest of Europe" it wouldn't have hopes... but political (united) and militar EU is actually inexistent: are we sure that the whole rest of Europe (whose governors are pro-Turks for interest) would make something against Turkey (and its juicy market)? Very difficult to think.
"If you lose, you can't win" (Andrea)
"Let's go to see the monsters" (Andrea)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
European soul, European pride.

User avatar
ART
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 5222
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:26 pm

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby ART » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:57 am

The problem isn't the part inside or outside Europe, culture or beautiful beaches: it's the future of european unity... and it's a really serious problem.
"If you lose, you can't win" (Andrea)
"Let's go to see the monsters" (Andrea)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
European soul, European pride.

zeusdias
Euro-Newbie
Euro-Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Location: Peristeri - Athens, Hellas

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby zeusdias » Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:14 am

Turkey should join the Asian Union...

User avatar
claudio vda
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 8754
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Pisa (IT) + Bremen (DE)
Contact:

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby claudio vda » Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:59 pm

zeusdias wrote:Turkey should join the Asian Union...


It's quite hard to give a definition of the cultural borders of Europe, because there is not a net division, but a slowly change.
Let's talk about Russia, for example, wich is both Asia and Europe.
Coming back to Turkey, this country is deeply linked to European story, but it have to solve a lot of problems for being ready for UE: Cyprus, the Kurdistan, and so on...
By the way, also other countries that are actually part of EU have to solve some little problems, for example Italy have to solve its problems about the freedom of the press, Grece have to solve the ridicoulos veto against North Macedonia, and so on...

So I don't think that this quick sentence "Turkey should join the Asian Union" is a good resume of a very complicate situation :wink:
My statistics are HERE, last update 17th September 2017 .
Join the European Association of Eurobilltrackers (A2E) !!!

zeusdias
Euro-Newbie
Euro-Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Location: Peristeri - Athens, Hellas

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby zeusdias » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:16 am

They are completely different cases. Greece has not invaded to "F.Y.R.O.M." like Turkey in Cyprus or Kurdistan.
The european influence in Turkey, comes from some of Greeks, Serbs and other Europeans who became Turks forcibly.
Actually a very small peace of Turkey, is European (lost greek land).

User avatar
an-148
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4583
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: summer: Ivanica, BiH ; winter: La Calamine (Liège) BE
Contact:

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby an-148 » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:51 am

if you call Macedonia (the country, not your province) FYROM, we schould call Greece FTROG (former turkish republic of Greece) hahahaha

do you imagine how ridiculous you are in the eyes of the world, disputing your neighbours about the name of their country !!!!!!!
we have a province called Luxemburg, like the neighbouring country: can someone imagine that we could refuse them their name ???

and never tell me (like I read and hear from Greek "patriots") that Macedonia is Greek !!! : ancient Macedonia was nor Greek, nor Slavic: it was Illyrian: King Philip and son Alexander the great were not greek, but Illyrians and they INVADED Greek small states (Athens, Sparta,...).
It happened that Alexander the great had an Athenian teacher and adopted that culture, extending it with his conquests !!!
You are not entitled to decide about your neighbours' name: both of you (and parts of Bulgaria and Albania) are located on historical Macedonia: why would you have more to decide than others?

time to cool down and being an honest neighbour !

zeusdias
Euro-Newbie
Euro-Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Location: Peristeri - Athens, Hellas

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby zeusdias » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:18 am

This is exactly the problem: that our north neighbours want the exclusive use of the name "Macedonia".
I have to say that I used the temporary officially recognised name "F.Y.R.O.M." by United Nations for this country until the solution of this problem.
You should know that Illyrians were relative race to Greeks because they have descent from Pelasgians, just like Greeks. You certainly would be in troubles if you said to Alexander the Great that he had not a greek descent. Alexander's teacher, Aristotle (Aristotelis) was not Athenian but he was from Stageira - Chalcidice of Macedonia (55klm east of Thessaloniki). All the educated world community recognises that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks.
But I think this conversation is out of this topic.
Last edited by zeusdias on Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:10 am, edited 12 times in total.

zeusdias
Euro-Newbie
Euro-Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Location: Peristeri - Athens, Hellas

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby zeusdias » Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:52 pm

It seems that Merkel and Sarkozy support a future treaty for a special connection between Turkey and EU but not entry.
I think it could be the only realistic evolution to the relations between Turkey and EU.
Last edited by zeusdias on Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dakkus
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4734
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:59 pm
Location: No Helsinkiem, Somijas / Iš Helsinkio, Suomijos
Contact:

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby Dakkus » Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:09 pm

zeusdias wrote:You should know that Illyrians were relative race to Greeks because they have descent from Pelasgians, just like Greeks.


Doesn't this mean that Alexander the Great was Greek just in the same manner as Alfred Nobel was Dutch and Miguel de Cervantes was Italian?
Do the Dutch have any more right to be proud of Alfred Nobel than their neighbors, the French, have? According to your what you just said, yes. According to my logic, no.
Ko saka āboliņš? Pēk pēk pēk!

zeusdias
Euro-Newbie
Euro-Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Location: Peristeri - Athens, Hellas

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby zeusdias » Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:12 am

Alexander the Great was only Greek and nothing else, not because Illyrians were relatives to Greeks but because Macedonians were Greeks. They spoke greeks, they believed to Greek gods, they felt Greeks. They never were Illyrians. Alexander's ancestors from his father's side were never Illyrians. Alexander's mother was from a greek area called Epirus near to Illyria but not from Illyria. If someone says that ancient Macedonians were Illyrians, then he must say that Portugese people are Spanish or that Austrians are Italians, e.t.c.
But I think you should open a topic about Macedonia's national identity.
Our problem, in this topic, is Turkey's willing to join EU.

User avatar
an-148
Euro-Master
Euro-Master
Posts: 4583
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: summer: Ivanica, BiH ; winter: La Calamine (Liège) BE
Contact:

Re: Turkey in Europe?

Postby an-148 » Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:39 am

I was expecting nothing else from you :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
( and YOU say the problem is that your neighbours want the exclusive use of the name "Macedonia": hahahaha !!)

now to the essential: why the hell accept Turkey: Greece is already the farmost eastern country possible: they already lack the elementary good will for living in peace with neighbours !!!!!! :roll: :roll:


Return to “Europe-Board”