Turkey and the EU

daisy dukes


Joined: 06/09/2008
Posts: 3815

Message Posted:
08/10/2011 23:28

Just a few thoughts for food....



Turkey would have to be insane to join the EU. It is the leader of the Islamic world. It has the largest Muslim economy, it has by far the largest military force, and its economy is so dynamic that it is creating a vortex in the region.

The best thing that happened to Turkey is the fact it was not admitted to the EU."

--George Friedman, STRATFOR Institute. (Hürriyet Daily News, 7-10).



Interesting.



Thoughts?





DD

vonny


Joined: 25/06/2009
Posts: 476

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 00:02

Turkey has been trying to join the EU for years,i think they.ve had a lucky escape up till now,.They would be daft to join now,isnt it strange how the EU hasnt got 1 muslim country in it,hence,why they never wanted turkey in it.it sounds like the whole EU is going to collapse anyway

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 02:52

,isnt it strange how the EU hasnt got 1 muslim country in it,hence,why they never wanted turkey in it.



What!! ,EU didnt want a Muslim country in(,Turkey), because EU hasnt got a muslim country in. Cant make sense of that remark.

Actually I would find it strange if a Muslim country was in. Who did you have in mind Pakistan ,Syria.





Daisydukes , Turkey ,against your advice, has been trying to enter the EU for years,so they dont think its to bad

Turkey is having problems as is everyone '' Ahmet Akarli, an economist at Goldman Sachs in London, has long been bullish about Turkey’s economy, but he says that this year “the cyclical picture is looking ugly, imbalances are accumulating and financial vulnerabilities are growing.”



Wish people would stop wishing for a EU collapse,especially Brits. If the EU collapses ,you wont know what hit you in UK, and even if the EU did collapse ,Germany will still be the 2nd largest exporter in the world and will still make and sell BMW's

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 09:09

There is another possibility for Turkey, which is to join the Eurasia zone which Russia is pushing. This is made up of some of the former Soviet countries. This group has some of the richest natural resources in the world, which makes them powerful. This is a good move by Russia, because it will bolster its position in the world, but it could work for Turkey. Turkey already does a lot of contracting work in the former soviet countries.



Nevertheless, I suspect Turkey (Erdogan) would like to be the key dog at the head of an Islamic grouping. The problem is that the middle east is disjointed and is looking fragile and uncertain. Rejection by the EU has pushed Turkey eastwards.



Anyway Turkey is making good progress. It is building strong foundations for the future. Unlike Europe its population is young. It has over 60 R&D institutes specialising in minerals, biotechnolgy, IT, defence etc.

Turkeys technical universities are believed to be comparable to those of the US.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 09:40

@ msg 3, girne_29: (...) Wish people would stop wishing for a EU collapse,especially Brits. If the EU collapses ,you wont know what hit you in UK, and even if the EU did collapse (...)

▶ You're so right! Economists in the UK have written predictions* for life in the UK if disaster would hit the EU. The UK would doubtless become one of the poorest countries in Europe!

* Unfortunately it looks like most Brits prefer to read papers with front page stories about the enlarged boobs of some one day superstar.



▶ Re Turkey: this booming country exports 53% (!) of its products to the EU (Syria is number two on the Turkish list, but at the moment export has almost stopped). What would happen with Turkey if the EU collapses (what many C44 members seem to hope for)?



Let's not hope for developments no one can control anymore if and when they happen.

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 09:44

girne 29;

Two other countries in Europe, that are referred to as "Muslim" are Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina, besides Turkey...

ilovecyprus; Also almost all of the "former Soviet countries" in Eurasia are actually ethnic Turks, who have preserved using some form of Turkic language besides Russian. They all have developing trade and political relationships with Turkey. Recent trends in Turkish politics has shown that there is a great possibility, and huge benefits in these Turkic nations joining up in an Eastern version of EU. I think the Russians are aware of the potential and wish to play the part as a leader.

Most of these Turkic nations have no animosity against in Russia, because most have kept good trade relationships with USSR, and due to oppression, bribery, & cruel treatment by the new local governments, the elderly feel they were better off being part of the USSR.

The only problem that remains is, the Russians predominantly belong to (Greek) Orthodox Church!

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 09:56

DutchCrusader; "What would happen with Turkey if the EU collapses?"

If Europe collapsed, Turkey would probably end up taking over the markets Europe is exporting to. What you also seem to ignore, is that around 41% of what Turkey imports comes from Europe! Overall, if trading was to come to a halt between the two, the economy of Turkey would prosper even more, because people would end up purchasing what's produced locally, rather than the imports. There would always be alternative, markets for the agricultural products Turkey exports (i.e. hazel nuts, citrus fruits, cotton & textiles, olive oil... etc.)

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 10:06

@ msg 7, bigOz: (...) If Europe collapsed, Turkey would probably end up taking over the markets Europe is exporting to. (...)

▶ And what would Turkey export to those markets?! Your words: "The agricultural products Turkey exports (i.e. hazel nuts, citrus fruits, cotton & textiles, olive oil... etc.)". Is that really what these markets are waiting for..?!

I do wish Turkey well, but the country is still a third world country in many places and for many years to come cannot take the place of Europe.



A side line: My generation, born during the Second World War, didn't have to go through another war in Europe, nor did my children and grandchildren. Without any doubt: thanks to the EU, where countries now discuss problems instead of going to war for the umptieth time in Europe's bloody history.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 10:11

msge 6 bigoz



very interesting post.

My taxi driver in Cyprus the other day was an ethnic Turk from Bulgaria.

You are right, the challenge is the orthodox religion.



msge 3 and 5



I agree that the collapse of the Euro would be a disaster for Britain.



I read an interesting (but disturbing) article last week. A hedge fund manager from Texas back in 2006 predicted the world economy would collapse. He subsequently made a fortune from that prediction. He has now put vast sums of money on Europe collapsing. His team did a 4 month study of EU countries financial situation. He showed his figures to a Harvard economic professor who said 'I had no idea Europe was in such a bad state'. And this is a professor who advises Washington. For example, he showed that Spains debt is 25 times its annual income.



Anyway, we know that all experts can be wrong. Lets stay cheery

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 10:37

msge 8



"Without any doubt: thanks to the EU, where countries now discuss problems instead of going to war for the umptieth time in Europe's bloody history."



You just cannot say 'without any doubt'.

There may be other reasons why European countries don't go to war. It is impossible to trace the cause and effect of this. Stephen Pinker the Harvard psychologist has just written a book showing how humanity as a whole is becoming more peaceful.



Western European nations became cohesive in response to the threat of the Soviet Union. They were tied together by a common enemy. Under a capitalistic ideology (and US protection) these nations became more innovative, they traded and raised everyone's standard of living. Why fight when you are living the American dream. Former soviet countries wanted to join in the feast.

I agree that the EU has given a platform for European countries to talk, but this may be the effect of peace. not the cause.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 10:40

ps Dutch



Its a small world. I was speaking to a business associate of mine in the UK. He said he stayed with Neil in NC and met up with you on a couple of occasions.



Apologies to everyone for going off track.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 11:03

@ msg 10, ilovecyprus: (...) "Without any doubt: thanks to the EU, where countries now discuss problems instead of going to war for the umptieth time in Europe's bloody history."

You just cannot say 'without any doubt'. (...)



▶ OK, I agree and I'll change my remark: "I don't doubt: mainly thanks to the EU, etc".

My observation in msg 8 is one of the most important reasons to make me a fervent EU-supporter: "My generation, born during the Second World War, didn't have to go through another war in Europe, nor did my children and grandchildren."



Furthermore the content of your post # 10 makes sense.



@ msg 11, ilovecyprus:

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 12:07

DutchCrusader; I disagree with you on two subjects!

Firstly, the EU was formed many decades after the second World War & the ensuing peace that followed. It was not the EU but the might of USA that kept the USSR from adding the rest of Germany or your country to the rest of Eastern Europe. The Common market - EEC, before finally becoming EU was in essence formed to compete with the US industrial machine. It was a coalition of industrially strong states to enable them exploit industrially undeveloped countries in a coordinated way (a form of monopoly if you like!)

Second point; I wish you would stop expressing prejudiced personal opinions as facts and say "In my opinion ...", because many would not agree with you that Turkey is a "third world country". May I ask on what criteria your conclusion is based on? On the contrary, Turkey is a very fast developing country with e very dynamic economy at the moment (much to your dislike as a 21st century crusader I guess )

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 12:15

@ msg 13, bigOz: (...) Second point; I wish you would stop expressing prejudiced personal opinions as facts and say "In my opinion ...", because many would not agree with you (...)

▶ BigOz, expressing a (my) personal opinion often includes the fact that some or many will not agree. I don't see the wrong here.

And I didn't say that "Turkey is a third world country", I said: "but the country is still a third world country IN MANY PLACES." If you deny this, you might take a closer look at ALL parts of Turkey.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 12:29

re 13



Hi BigOz



NOT, how the history *I* know remembers it.. ;)



The EU evolved from a body formed only 13 years after the end of the war - including former adversaries..











http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

gusanova


Joined: 23/11/2010
Posts: 187

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 12:32

How refreshing it is to have a proper debate on this Forum.



I feel that Turkey could find itself being courted by Russia regards the Eurasia Zone as after all the natural minerals that are in the former Soviet States are in very closr proximity to Turkey. If this was to happen I feel it would push the EUs nose out of joint on this aspect.



People forget that there is a huge Muslim Population already in Europe, France, Germany and especially the Balkans and Turkey would be the 'Godfather ' for their interests, maybe !!



I recetly visited Libya with a British Energy Giant and the Italians and French Energy Giants are already there and guess who else is there in numbers - Turkish Companies haha I managed to practise my 'colloquial Turkish'. Turkey in my opinion is een as a very good friend of Libya so Im sure that Oil Treaties have already been signed and probably sealed in Turkeys favour making them more powerful than western countries who are so heavily dependant on Oil.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 12:42

Gus, where where you in Libya?



Going soon and my contacts in Benghazi told ME that the Turks are 'on their way out' as they sat on the fence when other nations helped... They are Brits and were around before and have returned. Their opinion ( of course) doesn't make my response 'fact' !



Russia may be 'courting' TR but things aren't rosy.. They are having a spat - a la Belarus and Ukraine ( other nations that Russian Gas traverses) re Gas prices



http://jutiagroup.com/20111007-turkey-and-russia-spar-over-natgas-prices/

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 12:43

message 15:



very much so mark: france and germany were historic enemies

and the common market's/eu's principal political ambition was to create

a union between them in the first instance



message 3:



not one muslim country?

kosovo's membership is under consideration as I understand it,

and the tiny partly-unrecognised muslim statelet may one day join



but size IS important: turkey has 80 millions ...and that's a firm no-no:

don't worry though, our eu leadership will come up with other reasons

gusanova


Joined: 23/11/2010
Posts: 187

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 12:48

I forgot to mention the fact that Turkey has certainly been expanding its influence in all countries involved in the 'Arab Spring' also others in the Levant.

In Lebanon they are in the throes of building a bigger Embassy - why??? Same throughout region.



They are also the only Country who has had the stomache to stand up to Israel and in doing so has ruffled the United States feathers. So much so that the US has now to think about its wholehearted 100% support for Israel. They will always support Israel because of the large Jewish Lobby in US though but are having for first time in History to tread carefully



I personally see 'challenging' times ahead and do I think that TUrkey needs the EU, I do not think so.

The EU through the ROC keeps the Cyprus issue burning but you can see gradually even EU, UN are becoming not so vocal in their support for the ROC and Cyprus . So Turkeys initiatives will carry a lot of weight at any settlement.

Sounds like I am pro Turkey- but are caref

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 12:56

mmmmmm;

I did not wish to go into full details but talking about EEC and subsequently evolving EU, they are miles apart structure, membership and purpose wise. I agree with you in that the full chronology is more like

The European Economic Community (EEC)-established in 1957 through the Treaty of Rome

The EU was defined in the Maastricht Treaty of 1993.

In any case 13 years after is not such a short time, me thinks. By that time, the "adversaries" had changed from being "Italy" and "Germany" to most feared USSR!

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 13:14

bigoz

message6



''Two other countries in Europe, that are referred to as "Muslim" are Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina''



You miss my point which was why the surprise that a Muslim country is not in EU. I dont think they have been left out because they are Muslim, What is their level of debt?. Do they want in?

The EU is secular, so neednt waste time hunting around for countries of any religious orientation ,to prove how PC they are. I dont want Turkey in the EU ,and its got nothing to do with religion.



Anyway it ill behoves us Brits (sorry I mean English )to talk about Europe in any meaningfull way as we so obviously hate being European . Probably take anti sickness pills to help get over the times we visit and have to meet foreigners . Leave those decisions to those who consider themselves part of Europe and leave us to carry on with sucking up to the US.

vonny


Joined: 25/06/2009
Posts: 476

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 13:32

Girne 29,no i wasnt expecting countries like pakistan,syria,i am not that stupid,but there are muslim countries in europe that havent been accepted yet,but have been promised as like Turkey.you say there are places that have been left out and what was the level of their debts,well as i see it there ARE countries that have been accepted on the same level as the ones been left out,why?because those in the Eu all hold the cross.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 16:42

msge 21



" I dont want Turkey in the EU ,and its got nothing to do with religion. "



Be interested in knowing why not?



Britain - We may have a natural scepticism of Europe because geographically we are on the fringe of Europe and we are an island. It may also be that we like being in charge, not being an equal member of a club.



It could also be that most people dislike a process that they have no control over or input in to. Free trade between nations and movement of funds from rich to poor are good ideas, however it becomes dangerous when an elite unaccountable group starts to make decisions for the whole.



When you get a beauracratic body you start to get splintering at the fringes. The EURO is probably a symptom of that. You also get corruption.



As Heseltine says, Britain needs to stay in Europe to determine policy. My god, is this the best of reasons. This means it is all about power. But perhaps this is beneficial as a way of controlling power.

gusanova


Joined: 23/11/2010
Posts: 187

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 17:17

MMMMMM,



I was in Benghazi for 4 days before flying to the hinterland and sorry cannot name the area as was about 600 miles south of Benghazi. I was with a team checking out the possibilities of renewing contracts and doing a security plan- that incidentally must be 100% Libyan apart from 'important' managers as I cannot say that Foreign Workers are not welcome but all jobs must first go to Libyans.



Benghazi is a lovely city and in some parts you may be mistaken for thinking you are in Southern Italy as the architecture is very colonial Italian. The Libyans I met were lovely friendly people and yes respect and thank Nato for its efforts. But there is still the underlying trend that certain countries ie UK did business with previous regime at expense of Libyans so they are not 100% guarranteed to get their old sites back and one of these is a multi national British Energy Company.



The Turks were in abundance in my Hotel, by far the most visible and high profile presence. They w

gusanova


Joined: 23/11/2010
Posts: 187

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 17:24

Part 2!!

were lauded and feted by the NTC as you have to remember they supported the NTC from the outset, although they did not supply any aircraft etc they were the first and always at Ports with Ferries taking wounded out of places like Misrata, Zintan and getting reinforcements in. I beleive there will be a ferry route between Turkey and Libya and I enquired about stopping at Famagusta and was informed that was part of the package so watch the Turkish Ferry giant website soon.



Turkish and other Arab Countries such as Lebanon and Qatar recognised NTC immediately and will get their benefits but as I am not a politician I can only summize that as fellow Arabs who are pouring Aid in without strings attached will benefit. Italy and France are already in there but I fear Britain will only get a small peice of the action. Yes Cameron and Hague are well respected and liked but I feel that Erdogan is above them in the pecking order!

All conjecture at this stage I hasten to add !

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 17:41

gusanova;

NTC have already refused the demands by the French for some exclusive deals on oil, stating "this is what we fought against in the first place"!

"Turks are on their way out..." can only be wishful thinking, since a day does not go by where the Turkish press is reporting another deal with NTC and Turkish government. Clearly, these may not be reported in the newspapers where mmmmmm works or lives (probably because it is accepted in par with making Turkish propaganda).

I bet you did not klnow either; the revolutionary forces had actually been, and were, trained by Turkish ex-commando trainers. ATV, Show TV, Kanal-D, Haber Turk etc. even showed video recordings made by these trainers of the training sessions in Libya prior to actual action starting (using Turkish-Arabic translators when giving tactics).

gusanova


Joined: 23/11/2010
Posts: 187

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 17:51

bigOz,



Interesting comments and I have no reason to doubt them and thank you for your support in agreeing with me regarding MMMMMMs comments on Turkish Influence waning, as I saw first hand its certainly not!

gusanova


Joined: 23/11/2010
Posts: 187

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 17:59

I meant to add before Big Oz,



I was working with a British Security Company in Iraq in 2005 and went to Ankara to select Turks to come and work in Iraq. All of these chaps had plenty of experience in Commandos, Army, Gendarmes etc fighting PKK and have to be honest was very disapointed at the standard. Was suppose to sign up about 30 I left after only selecting 8. These 8 turned up and 4 could not pass our own company's training induction week and the last of the other 4 left after 4 weeks.



So now you have enlightened me with that it explains a lot of things I have seen on TV Reports, very passionate and brave but basic skills in very short supply hence the 'happy fire' you see on TV and not amking proper use of the wepans they have. I would have sent a column of tanks into Sirte weeks ago not the 'Technics', after all NATO is bombing or with aid of helicopters destroting any strongpoints and heavy weapons.

Turkeys military maybe large but give me a Para Bn over a Turkish Divi

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 19:01

gusanova; Do not believe everything these guys say in Turkey. According to most that I sometimes meet out here, they fought during the war in 1974 - a little research usually shows they did not even join the army ever and are here to avoid it!

Furthermore, remember people could buy certificates and references at a cost of few hundred pounds, claiming they are "Rambos". My own experience in the army has shown quite the opposite. The commandos I met were incredibly fit, usually sharp shooters with no fear of anything but Allah, very capable of constructing, climbing, eating anything to survive, walk for miles without food and water and master the art of camouflage. You should have gone for the Special Forces Commandos instead

I am not doubting your word, but when in action, they had been very successful during real life hijacking and siege scenarios, I dear say more than their European counterparts, with hardly any loss of civilian life.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
09/10/2011 19:27

Very interesting posts indeed,a pleasure to read constructive view points,



Paul.

daisy dukes


Joined: 06/09/2008
Posts: 3815

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 07:21

I forgot i posted this....but oh what a pleasure to read!!



DD

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 14:47

ilc message 23:



inventive comments about britain being lukewarm on the eu because it is "peripheral"

try telling that to tiddler wannabees bosnia, albania, kosovo, georgia ...and half of ukraine



further to remarks in my msg.18 para.1, it could have been france/ england instead,

historians say in 1955 a french prime minister proposed union between france and the uk



...the whole idea being to compensate for up for the isolation of a fading "europe" caught in

the postwar nutcracker of a militarized communist bloc on one side and a hollywood-grinning

all-devouring capitalist superstate on the other:



the british cabinet roundly rejected the scheme after a lengthy discussion



but do not despair, we would have a francophone world if napoleon had triumphed at

waterloo, rain had softened the field the night before the 1815 battle forcing boney to delay

the off until 2pm allowing blucher's prussians to arrive barely in time

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 15:11

message 17 mark:



I argued that russia and turkey have many common objectives

despite generations of conflict between them, but you bring us back to reality with a bump



despite a booming commercial relationship, their national interests are in some contention

over respective influence in mid-asia/caspia and erdogan now talks about their navy standing

guard at the outlet of the black sea or some such



the dispute over gas prices goes way back as you know better than me, turkey is hedging

its bets with both russian atomic plants and american anti-missile systems



when putin is "re-elected" I wonder if he will really be able to add turkey as another string

to his bow (BRIC: a discussion group of russia, brazil, india, china, maybe south africa too)



the earlier possibility voiced by a bbc journalist was turkey becoming "russia's poodle"

...if it is rejected by the eu (though "now it has been" is more apt)



but it has been a chronic error to understimate turkey's will

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 16:23

msge 32



"inventive comments about britain being lukewarm on the eu because it is "peripheral" "



An island periphery (unlike Bosnia etc) with a strong history of being the leader of the pack (again unlike Bosnia etc). My inventive comment (which you make plenty of yourself) is to throw (test) in to the pot some reasons as to why Britain is anti Europe.



As for the rest of your thread I have no idea what you are tying to say. Just sounds like a load of old shite and you like to just show off with lots of historical facts.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 18:57

well!



it is worthwhile trying to fathom why this monstrous eu really evolved in the first place,

don't you think? that could explain a great deal about the present european crisis I believe

...as well as the turkey will-it-or-won't-it charade



the other point is that at certain critical points in history eg britain's intervention at suez or

turkey's in cyprus things might have gone either way given a slightly different background



overall there are no pat answers except to say long-running disputes are "insoluble"

almost by definition...but life continues



and on the question of one-time top dogs, that accounts for some of the "we" garbage on

this forum in regard to present day horrors in syria and on the other hand:

no-one should pretend the eu is really a state either "newsweek" said so last october



finally, why is there anti-eu sentiment in britain?

because without having to look at all hard, the country gets what international experts

call a "raw deal"

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 21:11

Okay Andre I get you now. It is useful to have a frame for the discussion. We are trying to establish how the EU evolved and has taken on such monstrous proportions. The term monstrous would not be a word that all would share on this forum.

Apparently, in a recent poll the EU was way down on the list of political matters that worry Brits, so you and I seem to be in a minority. When I refer to Brits being anti Europe, I guess I mostly seem to be referring to the Conservative ones.



"Finally, why is there anti-eu sentiment in britain?"



There are those that pay more and those that take more out.

Complex issues often have multiple causes.There are also psychological components where people are involved. That is why I refer to a lack of control/input being an EU issue for Brits (not just Brits) and why I don't buy in to the Europhile idea that the EU is the sole reason for peace in Europe. Its far too narrow a conclusion.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 21:24

msge 35



"no-one should pretend the eu is really a state either "newsweek" said so last october"



Whilst it useful to get a sense of perspective, to remind ourselves that the EU is not a state, from where I stand it seems to act like a state. Its large foreign budget with its own head seems to be representative of a state.

Its purpose should be to serve EU countries and in some respects, it has to have done some things well, but it seems to me, like beuracratic bodies, it has come to mostly serve those in its employ.



Why cant small enterprising NGO's not do the job of the EU.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 21:41

Top stuff Marcus,your posts have been sadly missed my friend,



Paul.

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 21:53

ilovecyprus; I am in complete agreement with your last post - my exact sentiments

The may claim EU is not a state but they are continuously pushing for a "united states of Europe". Why do you think the calls for one EU parliament, president, flag, national anthem, army,, currency etc. I remember there was even a suggestion during the early "common market" days, proposing Esperanto (an artificial language) as the common language for communications.

The only problem is, people at large in most member countries are really getting pissed off with Brussels dictating them how to work, eat, spend, live, and even deal with most of their internal affairs... Nationalism is rife and gained more support in UK, France, & Germany during EU's development. So I just cannot see how far the dream of becoming a single state will ever become a reality!

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 22:55

the eu is still only a pseudo-state, hit by a financial tsunami,

a beauracracy masquerading as a state:



as karl marx put it the state is "a body of armed men"



that is why, for all the huff 'n puff about getting turkey out of cyprus

there is no european force ever going to be sent to "save" cyprus,

there is no "eu-nato" and britain and france's political decision to bomb libya

uses a un resolution instead, like america did with korea in 1951



the eu has it is true a parliament, but generally this acts as a talking shop,

with real legal powers resting with an unelected commission

this has supreme legal status but it is for national governments to enforce



likewise the schengen agreement, now not agreed by signatory denmark:

and when did anyone last wait in line at an "eu embassy"?



of course as a union has a significant voice in the world and

the eu has the power to dispense largesse using national taxpayer funds!

...to favoured groups and nations elsewhere

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
10/10/2011 23:26

but if the eu is really so "awful"

then why are states as far afield as iceland and georgia a-hankering to sign up?



firstly, the smaller, poorer fish will get free access to a huge market and investment pond



secondly there are dollops of taxpayer-funded cash for farmers and regional projects etc



thirdly weaker states get diplomatic support, think of the greek cypriot regime for example



fourthly there is an open-door policy for emigration to northern europe

...this is the real reason for sarkozey's "inappropriate" descscription of turkish membership

in his 2007 interview

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/10/2011 09:33

msge 40



Karl Marx was wrong about key things (still a great intellect though) . He certainly did not have the foresight to realise the hidden forces that drive the capitalistic market (and sure capitalism is not perfect) and a 'body of armed men' is a useful description for states when he was alive.



A modern biological description of a state might be 'a body of people who bind together to ensure the states predominance thus ensuring its survival and prosperity'. Now this is a pretty narrow definition in itself, however the EU could fit in to this description.



At the end of the day, I agree with you the EU does have less power than most of us believe it does. This is why I have always stated that the EU has been less responsible for European peace than most people think.



Nevertheless the EU will look to increase its power, its statehood (by my definition) because as it takes on a life of its own. Its parliament is expected to call for a 5% rise in its budget ( taxes) this y

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/10/2011 09:35

msge 41



I think you will find that Iceland have gone cold on the EU, however the real reason that countries bind to the EU is that they are stronger in a large group (which is what you are kinda saying anyway). For me this is the only reason why the EU exists and the reason why after all I say I might sanction it. It has never really been about peace, it is about binding a large group of people together to make them stronger. Europe faced an immense threat from the Soviets, now China and Eurasia etc. If the EURO and Europe loses its status you just watch Georgia jump ship and throw its lot in with Russia.





Anyway, the peripheral countries can get access to the European market but do you need an EU for this. Turkey and Switzerland trade with Europe, In terms of investment, this can be handed out by small NGO's.



Your last point about emigration is spot on.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/10/2011 09:40

correction to msge 42 - I refer to the positive aspects of market forces which is more in alignment with self organising systems than the planned economy

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/10/2011 11:57

msge 41



You forgot to mention economies of scale also as a significant benefit for EU countries. Europe can negotiate hard around the world. This is the power of a beuracracy.



The downside is that it seeks conformity which can make its thinking rigid. Hence it fails to take in to consideration differing cultures i.e the universalistic cultures of the North and the particularlist cultures of the South (this is just one dimension of culture) and incredibly complacent about the EURO should it hit the rocks (which it now has)

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 01:53

europe in the guise of the "eu" has considerable influence

which the individual states may or may or may not have been capable



there are economies of scale, but for the newbies, it's the lure of new

investment, free or cheap cash...and the party is not quite over yet



yes there is a fair and open forum for debate but for organic and

tactical reasons, france/germany are behind most decisions



indeed it is a supra-national body yet there is an established policy

of regionalism too:

think of scotland gaining independence, far far simpler for an

england within the eu-framework



look how the spanish regions have been beefed up, even if it

means tipping "unplanned" ex-pat homes into the sea



it is obvious that in any "solution"...european, final

or cypriot, there are bound to be losers as well as gainers



but what of the turkeys, ukraines and moroccos muttering at the

edge? if it is impossible to agree how european union began,

who is to define at what place it shoul

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 01:54

...at what place it should end?

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 11:58

"if it is impossible to agree how european union began, who is to define at what place it should...at what place it should end?



I expect we will never really know its true purpose/beginning, whether it was a proactive or reactive stance. Liberals like to state that its intention was to create peace in Europe. Its nice and moral. If that works for them then fine.

The landscape continually changes and small incremental changes by multiple players often move a system away from its original goal, which makes defining the intention hard.



So instead of asking where did it start and where should it end (although I like this latter question as it imposes a boundary on the system) we should ask 'What is it's purpose? and 'who should it serve? And then, how should it serve? Then to ask 'how do we measure its success?



I suspect that the philosopher Michael Sandal would say that the purpose would need to be defined by the collective, not the powerful minority.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 19:17

ilc message 48:



I said "impossible to agree" not "impossible to understand"



the oft-repeated cliche is the eec/eu protecting the peace in europe etc

but there was already an organisation to do that: NATO



the eec/eu on the other hand, is economic and political

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 19:35

msge 49





"I said "impossible to agree" not "impossible to understand"



So you did. Apologies but I read it too quickly and made an incorrect assumption

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 20:05

Not like you to drop a bollock Mark,lol,



Paul.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 20:31

msge 51



It happens a lot Paul to be honest. I have to keep checking they are there

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 20:52

msge 49



You are right about NATO Andre. To be honest I hadn't mentioned it before because I see past and current (not the future) politics, economics and the military as one of the same. They are all intertwined. Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of policy by other means"



I am a big fan of the psychologist Will Schutz. He put together a psychological model for the US army. What he felt was that humans have three strong psychological needs. To be included, control and openness.



Most of our institutions get stuck in control. This is about being on top or stuck at the bottom (hierachy). He felt that politics, economics and the military were psychologically the same and were all to do with control.



Inclusion is linked to the need for significance. I have come to believe this is one of our strongest human needs. The EU is an affront because it ignores our need for significance. It does this by excluding us from the process.



Why I am against big institutions like th

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 20:56

continuation of msge 53





is that they are all about control (which is about a fight for power) and stops us from moving towards openness which is our expression for love and connection. (there I mentioned the word love. How dare I)



Most of our systems, be that political or business etc are stuck at control. To explain why this is I would have to delve in to another psychological model, one which might be best saved for another day.



Until we move past control we wont solve most of our problems (although as you say many are insoluble)

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 21:18

Got to think outside the box Mark,



Paul.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
12/10/2011 21:41

msge 55



First my bollox now my box. You are getting a bit too saucy Paul

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/10/2011 00:07

re 26/7



Hi Gus/ BigOz,



Here's what I saw / heard.. Turkey sat on the fence - getting splinters up the ...ss while places like Misrata, Zitlan, Al Zuwaya, Ajdabia and nearly Benghazi were getting pummelled ..TR sought to enhance it's reputation by urging talks.. NOT recognising the validity of the NTC



The UK , France, and - not so publicly - the US, actually DID something to save lives... and stop the 'Greens' ..



More recently, there has been some differing of opinion re the role the former UK govt played - but in Benghazi city - the UK is THE favoured nation... not TR..

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
14/10/2011 01:11

granted, the new libyan regime should be "grateful" to britain france and the us

but turkey seems to be finding that "no problems with neighbours" isn't really working well

...think cyprus south, israel, syria, even an argy bargy with russia over gas

and what would be their reaction to an uprising in iran the mullahs can't control?



on the other hand, post eu-rejection they have a lot going for them, economic growth

and regional power stauts



and if they get to throw their weight around more readily these days, it is no more than

britain and france did for generations



...or do I mean "we"?