Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

It is by no means certain that Turkey will ever join the EU. The enthusiasm on both sides is diminishing. Turks are tired of being put on hold all the time and Europeans don't seem too keen on welcoming 70 million Muslims into the Union. Interesting to note that both the UK and the USA are supporters of Turkey's bid to join. Again part of the reason here is the view that its membership would make it more difficult for the EU to develop into a superstate.

I personally would like to see Turkey admitted to the Union although it presents quite a challenge for both Turkey and Europe. I genuinely think if it could be achieved it would help greatly in healing divisions and promoting understanding between the Muslim and Christian worlds.
 
On the issue of Turkey joining the EU the fact is that we need their numbers. The population of the EU relative to the USA, China and India is dropping quite dramatically. Either we let in loads of emigrants (like the USA) or we breed like rabbits, or we let the Turks join. I am undecided about whether letting them join is a good idea. I don't like the idea of the EU having a land border with Syria, Iran and Iraq, not to mention Georgia and Armenia.
The history between Turkey and Greece (and Armenia) is well known and may be a problem. The fact that Southern Turkey has unstable and very insecure borders is also a problem.
In my opinion the USA and UK want Turkey in the EU because it increases the NATO and by extension the American influence on Europe. The last thing the American contingent in NATO wants is a cohesive EU foreign policy backed up by a credible military threat.
 
Purple said:
Either we let in loads of emigrants (like the USA) or we breed like rabbits, or we let the Turks join.
Click to expand...
I'd go for the rabbits option :). Of course (to bang an old drum I haven't picked up in a while) the government would have to reverse engines on its tax individualisation policy for starters, and start supporting families (like France does), to encourage the rabbit solution.
 
i think turkey has a good chance of being admitted in the not too distant future......maybe thats a good thing...maybe not, who knows? but it dose beg the question..where dose the map of europe"as we know it" finally end?
 
michaelm said:
I'd go for the rabbits option :). Of course (to bang an old drum I haven't picked up in a while) the government would have to reverse engines on its tax individualisation policy for starters, and start supporting families (like France does), to encourage the rabbit solution.
Click to expand...
Why? has a higher birth rate than . And and for that matter.
Maybe you are banging the wrong drum?
 
Everyones ignoring the elephant in the room regarding Turkey........its in Asia.

I'm sure the argument that a little sliver of the country across the straits is in Europe will be made by some posters, but this no more makes it part of Europe than France having a few small island in the Pacific makes France part of Oceania. Is the UK part of South American now? Part of it (Falklands) is in South America!

I thought that the articles of the EU state that membership is for countries in Europe? If we are going beyond Europe, then shouldnt the EU drop the "European" from its name?
 
If Turkey are allowed in, why not Israel?
Click to expand...

If Turkey and Israel are allowed, then why not Lebanon & Syria? They're geographically closer to Europe than Israel.
 
Yes, Israel would be a good addition would show our solidarity.
 
csirl said:
Everyones ignoring the elephant in the room regarding Turkey........its in Asia.

I'm sure the argument that a little sliver of the country across the straits is in Europe will be made by some posters, but this no more makes it part of Europe than France having a few small island in the Pacific makes France part of Oceania. Is the UK part of South American now? Part of it (Falklands) is in South America!
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at but I don't think that's quite the same. If Eastern Thrace (European Turkey) with nearly 10 million people were a state on its own and complied with the conditions for membership it would be allowed in. It's a gray area and poses some big questions about where the EU's expansion should finally end. I think we can say with some certainty it won't be extending into Syria, Iraq and Iran though. As for Israel, I would say not full membership (but then it's not like my opinion's going to be critical in the final decision :D)

csirl said:
I thought that the articles of the EU state that membership is for countries in Europe? If we are going beyond Europe, then shouldnt the EU drop the "European" from its name?
Click to expand...

Maybe we'll even take in Russia one day and become the Eurasian Union :)
 
uiop said:
Nah we dont need the hassle of importing terrorism.
Click to expand...

Good job the Europeans didn't say that to Britain and Ireland in 1973 :)

There would be a certain historical symmetry in admitting Israel as an EU member a couple of generations after the European Holocaust.
 
Re: Lisbon defeated what happens next ?
Click to expand...

How about Ireland announcing that it will be using the Nice Treaty "enhanced cooperation" provisions to proceed with enhanced cooperation in the area of democracy in the EU thus leaving the others behind? :)

We could announce it as the new two speed Europe with Ireland, and whoever else wants to join us, pressing ahead with democracy in the EU and leaving the slower non-democratic countries behind in their out dated dictatorships.

Rejection of Lisbon isnt us being left behind, its them reverting to the past (when most of them were undemocratic) and us pressing ahead with the modern concept of democracy. When they all agree to hold referenda, we could consider admitting them to the enhanced cooperation club. :)
 
Including Israel would show we acknowledge their democracy (in a continent known for its absence), it should bring stability to the region, perhaps even encourage some of those states towards democracy.
 
diarmuidc said:
Why? has a higher birth rate than .
Click to expand...
Birth rate is the wrong measure. Fertility rate - the average number of children per woman over her lifetime - is what's important; A 2.1 fertility rate is the population replacement rate. Ireland's current rate is 1.86 and this is projected to drop markedly over the next 15 years. France has a current rate of 1.98 and it's increasing. France has family friendly policies, Ireland less so. I would suggest a correlation, you may disagree.
 
michaelm said:
Birth rate is the wrong measure. Fertility rate - the average number of children per woman over her lifetime - is what's important;
Click to expand...
Why?

I would suggest a correlation, you may disagree.
Click to expand...
I do. Look at the countries above France on your link. Are you claiming that most or even some of those countries have more "family friendly" policies than the countries below France (on the list)?
 
diarmuidc said:
Why?
Click to expand...
The tangent I followed was Purples assertion (Post #170) that the EU needs numbers (people). Fertility rate is the important measure if you wish to increase the population other than through expansion or immigration. Rather that a 'Why?' response, 'I stand corrected' might have been more appropriate.
diarmuidc said:
Look at the countries above France on your link. Are you claiming that most or even some of those countries have more "family friendly" policies than the countries below France (on the list)?
Click to expand...
It's the EU were talking about, rich western countries have a problem with population replacement. If EU countries want to encourage an increase in population they need to promote family friendly policies.
 
michaelm said:
Birth rate is the wrong measure. Fertility rate - the average number of children per woman over her lifetime - is what's important; A 2.1 fertility rate is the population replacement rate. Ireland's current rate is 1.86 and this is projected to drop markedly over the next 15 years. France has a current rate of 1.98 and it's increasing. France has family friendly policies, Ireland less so. I would suggest a correlation, you may disagree.
Click to expand...
Is it quite that simple mike? Ireland might have a lower fertility rate but a higher proportion of women of fertility age (due to immigration). Seems to me that there is no arguing that a higher actual birth rate (other things being equal) must mean a faster growing population.
 
not trying to get off the subject but i heard an intersting comment from a reporter regarding the lisbon treaty vote....he said the No vote was at its strongest in areas that the celtic Tiger did not visit! maybe this should be food for thought for our government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top