And I must respectfully differ, whilst asking upon which timeline you're basing your conclusions.

Over the past century

My father went to Iraq like a month ago. ( he's a journalist, not a soldier FYI) and he couldn't land on the airfield, so his plane circled the airfield like 2 hours before they finally could land. Why? Turkey was sending in an incursion into Kurdistan and were trying to repress rebels that were operating in their country.

I really don't feel like having such a country in the EU actually....

@fyreNL:
As much as i dislike the Turkish reaciton to the PKK, we are currently sharing the EU with the United Kingdom, which if i recall sent paratroopers into Northern Ireland, and supported the Americans in Iraq.

Now every major group accepts the PKK as a terrorist organisation. The Kurdish region of Iraq want's to maintain it's own stability and autonomy from the central Iraqi government, while Turkey want's to protect it's citizens and avoid the establishment of an independant Kurdish republic which takes up parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/help/maps/images/special/kurdistan_map.jpg

The Spannish government is currently supressing the terrorist+seperatist ETA movement.

The UK is not currently supressing the Scottish independance movement (because they are non-violent) nor the Irish republican Sinn fein (because they have agreed to use only peaceful political means)

However the UK has invaded Iraq, destabilising the region and making it easier for PKK rebels to operate in southern Turkey. I acknowledge that is dislike a lot of things going on in the World, but that isn't enough to convince me that they shouldn't join the Union.

@TheGhostmaker:

"Furthermore, an agreement similar to NATO would be perfectly possible without the political baggage of the EU."

Military alliances have been all over Europe for centuries without securing peace at all. Military alliances are always made AGAINST someone. EU is not. Its different and its so much more than a alliance. As I said before, it binds not just our goverments and militarys together but the economies and societys as whole. That makes it much more stable than any military alliance might ever be.
Although I'm no friend of the idea, but I'm pretty sure we'll all see NATO fell apart in our lifetime - but we won't see with the EU.

"there has been EU-level legislation on the permitted curvature of bananas, cucumbers, and even leeks"

As you said - it HAS BEEN. It has been criticized and it has been changed. Although I liked the idea that butter came always in 250g packages, sugar always as 1 kg etc. Why? It made it much easier for customers to compare prizes for basic products. But unfortunately this reasonable EU regulation has been canceled as well, due to whining producers. Now they are free to decide their package sizes and can much easier trick us customers. Regulation is always two-sided!

"“an EU strategy for the Danube area” has been called for, not, notably, a "Danube area strategy for the Danube area""

Ridiculous names for any kinds of official papers are widespread in big organizations - companies as well as countries and of cause in the EU as well. ;)

"As you said - it HAS BEEN. It has been criticized and it has been changed. Although I liked the idea that butter came always in 250g packages, sugar always as 1 kg etc. Why? It made it much easier for customers to compare prizes for basic products. But unfortunately this reasonable EU regulation has been canceled as well, due to whining producers. Now they are free to decide their package sizes and can much easier trick us customers. Regulation is always two-sided!"

No, that kind of regulation is costly and emphatically not a good idea. Supermarkets can put in prices per kg anyway. Why not allow producers to offer different size pack to consumers? All you have done is screwed over the man who wants 250g of sugar.

As for the regulation being repealed, it was in place for years, and had there been some measure of democratic accountability, it would never have been passed.

Even if you support these regulations, there is no justification for having them on an EU wide basis.

""“an EU strategy for the Danube area” has been called for, not, notably, a "Danube area strategy for the Danube area""

Ridiculous names for any kinds of official papers are widespread in big organizations - companies as well as countries and of cause in the EU as well. ;)"

No, the point was that policy is being enforced on the Danube area by the whole of Europe. Sweden, for instance, has a say. Similarly France is going to have a say in regulating the city, as he has often boasted.

"as he has often boasted." should read "as Sarkozy has often boasted."

"No, that kind of regulation is costly and emphatically not a good idea. Supermarkets can put in prices per kg anyway. Why not allow producers to offer different size pack to consumers? All you have done is screwed over the man who wants 250g of sugar."

I'd guess that standard package sizes are, due to the bigger amount of produced packages, less costly than n different sizes per manufacturer.
The fact that supermarkets have to put prices per kg (in ridiculously tiny fonts, but nevertheless they do) aside of the prices per package is based on EU regulation as well. They didn't before and since the standard package sizes were reversed, lots of manufacturers tried and try to trick customers with packages that appear to be regular sized but in reality contain less of the product.
Nevertheless you're right with the man who wants 250g of sugar. There should have been a range of standard sizes for different needs. But nevertheless standard sizes because there is no other need for a package of 217g of whatever that has the same outer size and look like a 250g package than just tricking customers.

"No, the point was that policy is being enforced on the Danube area by the whole of Europe. Sweden, for instance, has a say. Similarly France is going to have a say in regulating the city, as he has often boasted."

Danube is not a good example for your point because the Danube crosses 10 different countries with 6 beeing EU members and one EU membership candidate. Before EU you'd have to set up multilateral or even multiple bilateral treaties for the Danube area and less of the 10 countries would have had an interest to even set up such a treaty. They'd all fight on their own interests and maybe have settled polluting industries at their most downward position at the river not even caring about their neighbours. Ok, by now Sweden is able to have a say in such a treaty, but one might argue that a neutral third could have a positive impact on negotiations.

And one more thing especially about "the city": we've all seen the side effects of a deregulated financial market. We all have to pay for it although only London (in europe) had the benefits of it before. The majority of europeans and I'm pretty sure as well the majority of the british citizens are not willing to let these boys again risk our wealth so easily. Therefor a regulation has to be in place. Should this regulation, in a borderless market like EU, be a national regulation? I don't think so because in a borderless market like the EU you will have to apply the same basic rules to everyone if you don't want the whole system to blow up. It's the same with cheap east european producing industries. If they would not have to set up regular standards there'd be no fair market whatsoever.

And "the city", as well as german exporting industry and french or spains agricultural industry take a big benefit out of this borderless market.

@Ghost
yes, I do read the Grauniad, but also the Torygraph and the Economist. You appear to be channeling UKIP.

Anyway, I do not defend those examples of "bureaucracy gone mad", to me those are arguments for reform, not arguments for abolition of the EU or simply leaving it. Such regulations make a market LESS free but that is very different to NOT free. Nor would leaving the EU result in a fully free market that you seem to want; all governments maintain legislation controlling weights & measures, product safety and so on.

"And one more thing especially about "the city": we've all seen the side effects of a deregulated financial market"

The financial market wasn't deregulated. Quite the reverse. Do you want me to give the explanation of how over-regulation caused the financial crisis?

"yes, I do read the Grauniad, but also the Torygraph and the Economist. You appear to be channeling UKIP."

My point was that saying that someone reads a certain newspaper in an argument is just stupid. Similarly pointing out that when I argue for an independent Britain I am agreeing with UKIP is kinda dumb, to be honest.

"Anyway, I do not defend those examples of "bureaucracy gone mad", to me those are arguments for reform, not arguments for abolition of the EU or simply leaving it."

But you cannot pick and choose. With any mass-regulating machine such as the EU, you are inevitably going to get these problems. The issue with any central planning is this: no-one is competent enough to do the planning. No matter who you put in to work in the EU, they would make these kind of mistakes. It isn't that the people in Brussels are evil or stupid, its that they are human.

Have you ever seen meaningful reform from the EU? Have you ever seen them listen to calls from the populations to change they're ways? No. I've come to conclude that such change is just impossible.

"Nor would leaving the EU result in a fully free market that you seem to want; all governments maintain legislation controlling weights & measures, product safety and so on."

I know, and leaving the EU is a means to an end, not an end in itself. I don't want to bring powers back from Brussels just to leave them festering in Westminster. I want to see them pushed as close to the people the decisions affect as possible.

The only proper function of government is to defend the rights of the people. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc. In its most condensed form, to defend the property right. The EU act directly in contradiction to this.

@ghost:
"The financial market wasn't deregulated. Quite the reverse. Do you want me to give the explanation of how over-regulation caused the financial crisis?"

Yes please give an explanation! Big words from you and then...nothing ! Go and tell us :-)

@Ghost
I utterly reject the idea that the EU is mass-regulating "machine" and to suggest that is involved in central planning is barmy.

The people in Brussels are human and I think their over-regulation is a form of arrogance rather than some sort of inevitable error generation. They desperately need a kick in the arse, just as Westminster has had over their expenses.

I think you agree on a the ends - less regulation, subsidiarity - but disagree on means. You want to leave the EU, I want reform from the inside and we will have to leave it at that.

"The only proper function of government is to defend the rights of the people. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc. In its most condensed form, to defend the property right. The EU act directly in contradiction to this."

-Actually i think you will find i disagree with more than just the method of TGM's thesis.

Subsidiarity is a good start, and reforming the EU to actually provide it would be great. (in fact different regions trying different things not because they are each special in their own needs, but instead because you can't tell what the effect of any regulation will be until it is tried - experiment with regions to reach the best solutions)

Anyway, I would argue that governemnt should do much more, and in a democratic system i would support a party which agreed on that. (which i beleive is most political parties in Europe)

I think Turkey got lost in here somewhere...

so do i- always hijackers on a thread- GO CREATE UR OWN

Back to TUR then. I believe the whole debate can be bottled down to one simple fact - if TUR was a Christian country it would have been half way in already. It's not ... and people are paranoid hypocrites.

De Gaulle - in any real conversation the subject changes often, sometimes to a completely different topic. However, this is still highly related to the OP and I do not see a problem with it.

Btw, keeping them out is hardly going to help anyone else but the radical movents there.

encouraging them to join will help increase the average birth rate within the EU allowing a younger generation access to our jobs market which will reduce average industrial wages and have a net positive effect on our economic productivity.

Now i would be the first to argue that there are things which are more important than economic productivity. That in fact i'd rather live in a world where economic prodictivity was lower but the more equal distribution of wealth meant there was less to be gained from theft.

Thus an expansion to include a poorer country and allow their youth to work (thus increasing their own wealth) in our industry is being argued by me not as it benifits just our economic productivity, but also it improves the distribution of wealth.

1. Turkey is not respecting freedom of speech, in the way that it imprisons journalists and authors who are critical about the goverment.

2. It invaded a country decades ago and still shows no will to solve the problem.

So it´s not about religion, as you see.

"Expressions of non-violent opinion are safeguarded by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by Turkey in 1954, and various provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by Turkey in 2000.[5] Many Turkish citizens convicted under the laws mentioned below have applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and won their cases."

- many European countries have had their laws overturned by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey is not special in this.

Turkey imprisons jounalists and author! I think that is very special for a from you called "european" country!

@orathaic

You are naiv if you believe Turkey has no human right problem because of signing a contract. Look up Amenesty Internationals hompage and get informed about Turkey, before you copy and past something from wikipedia without informing about the reality :-)

i assume you are talking about

"Orhan Pamuk has been charged with insulting Turkey's national character."

and i'm pretty sure that this could be taken up with the European court of human rights. Whose decisions Turkey abides.

You are characterizing it as if all turks support such action, which is like me saying all British people supported the torture tactics used in the early 70s and the practice of internment in Northern Ireland.

The law protecting the nations 'character' is akin to treason laws in Britian - "if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty" - if any person writes in favour of forming a republic they could be called up on treason charges and improisoned for life. (death is no longer a penalty for anything in Europe - apart from Latvia, Russia and Armenia, but including the Turkish ban since 2004)

Perhaps these laws are archaic, but i don't see them being a major hinderance to EU membership.

No i am not talking about that issue, there are lots of more issues.
You are coming up with a quote of some text. That is so lame orathaic...it´s out of context and has nothing to do with reality. And that´s what is all about!
What´s the reality of Turkey?
Is it a place that practises human rights? No, not about freedom of speech!
Is the turkish army under control of the government? No, it has still to much power far away from a democratic process!
Is willing to let nationalistic intrest stay behind peace with neighbours? No, Cyprus is still invaded and Turkey is still forcing a seperation of Cyprus!

And orathaic please don´t come up with some strange quotes again, that have nothing to do with present reality.

You guys forget the most important point in this subject. Turkey is still ruled with military mentality, since its establishment, 1923. Yes there is no liberty of speech or yes there are issues with Kurds, these are the results, not the reasons. Turkish army has ruled the country ever since and has the power to interfere to the government. Now thanks to AKP, the leading party, Turkey is getting rid of that corrupted ideology and god damn Kemalism (Turkish approaching to faschism).

@Miro: you are naïve if you think no other country in gas human rights violations just because they signed up to the same contract.

Of course Amnesty International has no vested interest in protecting their own countries (unlike politicians) so will criticise whatever they see as a violation of human rights. So they will criticise everything.

to quote from them:
'The so-called “war on terror” has led to an erosion of a whole host of human rights.' - cheif violators in the EU Britian and Spain (if my limited knowledge is correct) but also probably former Soviet states which co-operated with the US.

Abolish the Death Penalty - that's been done pretty well within the EU, and Turkey.

Control Arms - as a member of NATO, Turkey is as much to blame as the UK or France for the arms controls/trade currently seen in the world. They share arms technology to keep their militraries compatible.

Demand Dignity -All over the world, people in poverty are demanding dignity - by allowing Turkish citizens to work in the EU they would have more opportunities to find dignified employment. Thus we should be pushing for more integration within the world if you believe Amnesty International.

'Amnesty International has called on law-makers in the Spanish region of Catalonia not to adopt a motion on Wednesday in favour of banning women from wearing the full-face veil in public buildings and spaces.'

- i mean by Amnesty International's standards Spain should not be allowed into the EU.

i think we will have more influence on the Turkish public and changes within their system if they choose to join the EU rather than if we choose to reject their application.

And as i've pointed out there are many people whose views and political movements I do not agree with or support within Europe, but we live in a tolerant society.

"Kemalist ideology...sought to create a secular nation-state, guided by educational and scientific progress based on the principles of Positivism, Rationalism and the Enlightenment." - sounds great, but your problem is not with the Kemalist ideal, but instead with the way in which the militrary implemented it.

And if you want to talk about militrary rule i would again point to Spain.