Hee-Lar-E-Us! - I wonder if Americans can say the same when Euros are soooo interested in U.S. internal issues. Work the same way Mr. He??? 
[quote=“TNT”]But how have all these people (even the Turks or maybe I should label them all as muslims for the benefit of this thread) been integrated so well into the USA or integrated themselves into the USA.
There is an election in 3 weeks in Ireland. 9/10% of the population of Ireland are emigrants. Ireland has intergration problems, but those who do not wish to integrate have not yet caused a problem The parties running for the election campagin do not includee them or their concerns. There may be trouble ahead for Ireland[/quote]
Did you check the differences in immigration laws and immigration policies? The US may be more picky as to whom accept and demand more of an immigration effort on part of the immigrants.
Germany on the other hand for instance had for quite some time this open-gate multi-kulti crap of “oh, just let the whole family follow, speaking no German when entering first grade at school is no problem at all”.
It may also be an issue of numbers. I doubt the U.S. gets the same number of Turks as let’s say … Mexicans?
And regarding Muslims integrating as well as let’s say Chinese into the U.S. … was there not an incident when some Muslims - some of them living in the U.S. - crashed planes into some houses or skyscrapers or what not? Just thought I read something like that on the internet. Was some years ago though … I can see if I can look it up again though if you like to.
Meanwhile you find something similar done by let’s say … Ukranian immigrants / exchange students / your pick of Visa?
Hee-Lar-E-Us! - I wonder if Americans can say the same when Euros are soooo interested in U.S. internal issues. Work the same way Mr. He??? [/quote]
I am merely stating a fact. Any US citizen has less to say at the end of the day than any EU citizen. I at least accept that when debating US gun control and other US domestic issues.
Mr. He has already pretty much said everything, but there’s a couple of points others have made I’m not clear on.
- Muslims lack of integration in Europe is the failure of European governments, not the failure of immigrant Muslims.
I don’t get this. The Arab League and other Muslim countries have always been very clear that they will only allow emigration from their countries into Europe if the European governments will not try to assimilate the immigrants in any way. Just a few points from articles I’ve read on discussions between France and the Arab League post-1962 are that France would not compel Muslims to attend public schools, France would not attempt to curb the growth of mosques or force Muslims to live in mixed communities. I can only guess that criticisms of the French and other European governments are aimed at a failure to do…something. Could someone explain what that something is?
- Canada and the USA are models of integration that Europe should follow.
I think it’s true that Muslims are better integrated in American and Canadian society, but then again the populations are much smaller. But Muslim-only conclaves are forming. I’ve read plenty of articles about American and Canadian women who while walking around certain neighbors in places like Detroit and Toronto have been warned on the streets to wear less revealing clothing. In Europe there have been several cases of gang rape, at least one wherein the perpetrators have openly admitted their motive was revenge on the girls for not wearing modest dress (one of the Danish imams responsible for causing the riots publicly supported this practice, calling Danish girls “pieces of meat”). If girls are being accosted by total strangers on the streets and ordered to wear modest dress, how long before revenge rapes/beatings begin?
Plus, the United States mainly issues visas to professionals – college educated, experienced professionals in a variety of business, technical, and medical fields. I am not sure about Canada, but I seem to recall it has a similar system. Europe has let in a lot more working class people, and no offense to working class people (I have been one of them), but crime is more common in poorer areas. Finally, Europe’s family reunification polices are much more generous than the USA’s (again not sure about Canada). Add in a skyrocketing birth rate and Europe has a much bigger problem than the USA and Canada…for now.
Is this what people are suggesting Europe do? Limit visas, keep immigration populations small? Isn’t it kind of too late?
One more question for those in favor Turkey entering the EU. Why have the other immigrant populations integrated so much more successfully than Muslims? Are the governmental policies different towards those groups? If so, what are they? If the policies are no different, it is possible the fault lies with the trouble-making immigrants, and not the government?
Bellicose and stroppy… have a bad day? And not even interesting deprecation. :s But very well, if you insist…
[quote=“Mr He”]if your reading is impaired, pleace read the excellent article in wikipedia on the subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_EU
That should provide you with the bare minimum of facts needed for you to have an opinion on this matter.[/quote]In point of fact, the bare minimum of facts needed to form an opinion is significantly less than this. Wonderful thing about opinions, everyone’s got one, and as is daily demonstrated here, facts are hardly a requirement. However, thank you for the reference; I’ll be returning to it.
- Culture.
Ok, culture is important. Agreed.
And the EU has established programs to increasingly knit together a common European culture.
AND, you can tell me what “the europeans as a whole thinks”.
Well, I concede that that are many things about which people of different cultures will have the same opinions, but I do not believe politics is generally one of those things: it’s too complex and subjective, and individual motives too varied. Anyways, if the EU is actively knitting together Europe, there must be cultural fissures. And if there are cultural fissures, there’s probably going to be a spectrum of political opinion. And yet, you can tell me what “europeans as a whole thinks”. (I assume all those internal disagreements in the European family over Austria’s bringing Jörg Haider into government are over with, because at the time, member states didn’t even want to have the traditional family portrait taken with that black sheep.) Well then, please do explain. Because reading your wiki article, there appears to be at least one major schism:
[quote=“Mr He’s wiki article”]Turkey is a traditionally Atlanticist and NATO country, with very close ties to the United States. The USA has also been one of the strongest backers of Turkey’s membership. However, in 2003, Turkey did not grant access to its land and harbours as asked for by U.S. officials, to aid their invasion of Iraq. Some member states, like France, wish the EU to increase its political independence from the United States and therefore believe Turkish membership is undesirable. Atlanticist countries, however, like the United Kingdom, would see their positions strengthened.[/quote] (Please note, this is an argument I’ve already made. Why did I, with my remedial English skills, need to struggle through this long article with so many big words to rediscover it?)
- Religion.
[quote=“Mr He’s wiki article (nominated to have it’s neutrality checked, noted for its lack of sources, and in need of expert attention)”]A prevalent point of view from Ankara as well as members of the EU is that the EU can be called a “Christian club,” and there are suspicions of allowing such a large Muslim country to join. However, the foundation of the European Union was never claimed to be on religious grounds, so this argument is something that seems to trouble the general population rather than specific politicians or experts.[/quote] That’s fair enough. You said that if the people get to vote, and I agree. If so, someone will vote no, and the people should have a vote. But you’re wrong on religion: the EU’s origins are economic and far-sighted peace-making, not religious, and the Vatican’s efforts to have Europe’s Christian character enshrined in the EU were resisted and ultimately rejected.
Oh btw, right under that, I found this:[quote]Turkey’s overwhelmingly Muslim population would lend considerable weight to EU multi-culturalism efforts and might help to prevent potential scenarios involving a clash of civilizations. At the same time, Turkey’s young (23% of population is under 15) and quite well-educated population might act as a balance for the increasingly aging populations of the current EU.[/quote] Damn, I could have written that. I nearly did. So, once again, you assert that I’m talking out of my ass and in need of remedial reading, and direct me to this article for correction, and once again, it’s presenting the essence of a significant aspect of my argument. Can you explain that to me? You want me to correct my overwhelming ignorance by reading another person’s articulation of the same argument? Really?
[quote=“Mr He”]And yes, the EU was founded in order to avoid a war between the major European powers every generation, and it has worked. What separates Eu as it is with Turkey is that the EU is at least nominally Christian, meaning that you do have a minimum of shared values across the board.[/quote]And that minimum of shared values has served the people of Europe very well in overcoming tensions in Northern Ireland. Err… or not. Well, those values certainly restrained the Christian Serbs. Uh…
Moving on…
- Progress
[quote=“Mr He”]OK, let’s see how much Turkey is interested in playing by the EU roles.[/quote] If they were entirely disinterested, Ocalan would be long since dead. Do they have a long, long way to go? Absolutely. Could they get there over a fifteen year process of working towards EU membership? I’d be willing to bet on them making it a long, long ways down that road.
Anyways, why not work with some real sources?
Copenhagen critieria & EU Enlargement: Turkey - Political profile
- Lots of luck
[quote=“Mr He”] As some EU counries are planning referendums on Turkey’s accession, their opinion will matter. Yours won’t. Live with it.[/quote]:lol: Distinguish please between “opinions that matter” and “votes that are counted”. Opinions expressed at the right time, in the right place, and the right way, sway others, inspire others, and otherwise shape the intellectual environment: they matter. Votes are cast and counted, but generally speaking, individual votes don’t count except in very rare instances. Will my opinion matter? Probably not. Will I vote? Almost certainly not. So why bother with this exercise, I often wonder.
[quote=“Mr He”]As I have mentioned a few times, there is no way - repeat no way that Turkey will be allowed to join the EU if say the people of the EU has a say. Turkey is too different, too poor, and from a different culture circle, so their accession will change the EU and not for the better.[/quote]No, they probably won’t get past a popular referendum. But I believe that it’s precisely because they are so different that they would do Europe good. Europe has always been riven by divisions, and current efforts to knit the continent together are far too focused on it’s collective navel. If there were to be a European constitution, and it were honest and accurate, at the moment, the preamble would read: “We the Confederated Particular Principalities of Europe…” Not precisely something to wrap your arms around. The continent faces some pretty significant challenges, and it’s trying to meet them with half-assed measures. The challenge of bringing Turkey on board would do a world of good, even if Turkey wasn’t ultimately admitted, if the challenge were seriously taken up.
That’s not the goal of the EU. If the EU is to survive, we have to deepen rather than widen.
Sure, marginal jokers such as Tony Blair and George Bush want Turkey into the EU, however their goal is to use the added diversity to destroy the state building project the EU is, not to promote it.[/quote]No shit, I did know that. Seriously. Which is why I wrote “I want…” Your assertions that the EU must deepen rather widen to survive, and dismissal of Blair as a marginal joker aren’t credible. The UK’s long been decidedly cool to a deep European Union, and has strong cross-Atlantic ties. I agree that it’s future should be primarily based in Europe, but wishing it don’t make it so. Nor does stamping your feet, pulling your hair, raising your voice, tossing around insults, ect, ect… Well, it hasn’t worked for dear old Dick Cheney, but if you want to keep trying, knock yourself out. I’d far rather talk things out.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]1. Muslims lack of integration in Europe is the failure of European governments, not the failure of immigrant Muslims.
I don’t get this. The Arab League and other Muslim countries have always been very clear that they will only allow emigration from their countries into Europe if the European governments will not try to assimilate the immigrants in any way. [/quote]I think you’re over-simplifying this.
Integration failures are a collective failure. Obviously the primary responsibility falls to individual immigrants. But, in many instances, they cannot possibly do it alone. Governments can make integration so much easier simply through improving access to services, and the majority community can be the magic bullet if it’s welcoming.
(I’m not interested in being assimilated into Taiwanese society, but if I were, I’d have a hell of a lot better shot at it here than in Japan, because while Japan was so much better in so many ways, it was always clear that some people are always and only welcomed guests.)
Secondly, there’s a difference between integration and assimilation. A huge difference. While I have no wish to be assimilated into Taiwanese society, being better integrated would be a very good move on my part, and it’s my failure that it hasn’t happened.
Back on point, take French Muslims for an example. There’s reams of evidence that the broader communities have not been welcoming, and the state hasn’t made things easier. This is a collective failure, but more of the responsibility falls to the state and community given the sincere efforts of a good portion of the immigrants to integrate (not assimilate). Fair?
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]2. Canada and the USA are models of integration that Europe should follow.
I think it’s true that Muslims are better integrated in American and Canadian society, but then again the populations are much smaller.[/quote]And there’s a selection bias, so it’s easier still.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Is this what people are suggesting Europe do? Limit visas, keep immigration populations small? Isn’t it kind of too late?[/quote]I’m suggesting that rather than (or in addition to) trying to patch together a European identity, they try something more ambitious, more universal.
[quote=“gao_bo_han”]One more question for those in favor Turkey entering the EU. Why have the other immigrant populations integrated so much more successfully than Muslims? Are the governmental policies different towards those groups? If so, what are they? If the policies are no different, it is possible the fault lies with the trouble-making immigrants, and not the government?[/quote]Not all other immigrant populations have an easier time of it, though some do. (Some native populations don’t have such a jolly time of it either.)
Try this:
The point of policy A is to enable X by acting on Y. Immigrant population B comes with cultural variant Y1, and is therefore both immune and blind to the effects of policy A, meaning that X will not be realized. Being that population B is both immune and blind to the policy, is the failure to achieve X–a goal of which they may not even be aware–their fault? No, there’s no intention, no agency, no fault. Is it the fault of the government? No, not directly, and not immediately, because how are they to know about variant Y1 or its effects. However, if, after a long period of time, the government realizes that policy A is ineffective on population B, and the gov’t fails to redress the situation, the government is culpable for its failure to realize it’s stated end, X. Is that clear and fair?
[quote]I think you’re over-simplifying this.
Integration failures are a collective failure. Obviously the primary responsibility falls to individual immigrants. But, in many instances, they cannot possibly do it alone. Governments can make integration so much easier simply through improving access to services, and the majority community can be the magic bullet if it’s welcoming.
(I’m not interested in being assimilated into Taiwanese society, but if I were, I’d have a hell of a lot better shot at it here than in Japan, because while Japan was so much better in so many ways, it was always clear that some people are always and only welcomed guests.)[/quote]
The one policy mentioned here is “access to services.” Have the immigrants Muslims not been given access to public services? Everything I’ve read on the subject has said the exact opposite. Immigrants do have access to public services, including welfare services, and make good use of them.
I agree, but I don’t think mere “integration” will work in the long run. Throughout American history, ending only in the mid-20th century, the US has made numerous successful attempts to persuade Europeans to cross the pond and settle in the US. There was a wave of German and Scandinavian emigration in the late 18th century, something Ben Franklin took a lot of interest in. He criticized Germans in particular for refusing to learn English and teaching their children German. In some of the frontier regions there were even schools set up where German was the medium of communication. He wrote something like, “Germans who refuse to learn English must be stupidest of their nation in existence.” He wasn’t alone –newspapers of the time clearly reflect a concern that the Germans and other non-English speaking foreigners would not assimilate.
I wonder what would have happened if they really did not assimilate. Would there have been German enclaves all over the US? Would they have become a fifth column during WWI and WWII? Fortunately most did assimilate, but some Germans in the US (and more we took from Latin America) were put into internment camps, particularly recent immigrants. Others were subject to various travel/military duty restrictions, and we did the same for the Japanese. All of this was sensible in my opinion. It makes no sense for a nation to allow foreign enclaves to exist within its borders.
I think one of the fears of the Muslim immigrants is that integration eventually leads to assimilation, particularly in successive generations. Hence the blossoming of Muslim schools all over Europe, self-segregation, rejection of those who embrace European culture, attacks on police who enter Muslim enclaves, etc. I don’t think Muslims have any desire to become part of the mainstream culture, whether you call it integration or assimilation. Simply put, they are forming societies within societies.
If what you are saying is true, then that means either Europeans did welcome other immigration groups (like the Chinese), or did not welcome them, but the immigrations groups did not respond by raping girls and stoning policemen. Either way, Hindus, Buddhists, North African Methodists were all much easier to welcome. Where discrimination existed, they went to the courts and lobbied the government to get rid of it. They did not respond with threats and violence.
Actually, I don’t think either group bears the “responsibility” of integrating. It’s not a matter of assigning responsibility or placing blame on who “fails”. The question is simply whether the host society and the immigrant society can get along with each other. This seems to be case between Europeans and a variety of immigrant groups…just not with Muslims.
[quote]Try this:
The point of policy A is to enable X by acting on Y. Immigrant population B comes with cultural variant Y1, and is therefore both immune and blind to the effects of policy A, meaning that X will not be realized. Being that population B is both immune and blind to the policy, is the failure to achieve X–a goal of which they may not even be aware–their fault? No, there’s no intention, no agency, no fault. Is it the fault of the government? No, not directly, and not immediately, because how are they to know about variant Y1 or its effects. However, if, after a long period of time, the government realizes that policy A is ineffective on population B, and the gov’t fails to redress the situation, the government is culpable for its failure to realize it’s stated end, X. Is that clear and fair?[/quote]
I’m afraid it’s not clear at all, but fortunately I speak Jaboney at a conversational level and so I’ll translate for our friends here.
What you’re trying to say (I think) is that the governmental policies towards immigrant groups have remained static, but due to a cultural variant in the Muslim immigrant group, those polices are ineffective towards it. You are also saying that it isn’t really anybody’s “fault” per se, or at least the initial failure was not anybody’s fault, but since the government is taking so long to realize its mistake, then it is still culpable for the failure to integrate the Muslims.
But the problem is that I really can’t imagine what more the government can do. It can filter out candidates who lack good citizenship, education, and experience. It can deport immigrants who break the law. It can ensure equal access to public services. It can enact discrimination laws. It can even provide free courses in the native language (as in Sweden).
But hasn’t Europe done most or all of those things? It seems that way. And it’s working for non-Muslim immigrants. But if you’re saying that these policies have failed with the Muslims, then explain what other policies the European governments should enact.
I can’t really answer that the EU goverments are doing wrong with the integration of muslems, as I myself think they are doing too much. What they should do in my view is exactly the same they are doing for their non-muslem citizens.
Note that all EU countries have freedom of worship, a good many (or all?) of them allow them to maintain their own schools etc.
When I talk about integration, I talk about respect for the local culture - IE not calling Danish women “meat”, no attempt to threaten to stop debate on issues like the muhammed drawings, a willingness in the community to support the young to attend proper post primary education etc. That respect and the willingness to subscribe to values such as freedom of speech, freedom of dress etc. is lacking from the leaders of the muslem community not just in Denmark but in mostg of Europe.
Nobody would even try to force them to live in certain areas, or convert from islam etc. All what is asked is a willingness to play along with society as a whole. Again, when Chinese and jews were able to do so to the point where the jewish minority faces extermination through complete assimilation, I don’t see any reason for the Turks, the Pakistanis etc. to do the same thing.
Now, that’s a very interesting point. In general, the guest workers which came to Denmark in the late 1960’s were former farmers - a lot of them came from an actually limited area in central anatolia. General education in that area was somewhat low.
Therefore what we ended up importing was the farmers and the workers, not the engineers and the doctors. The latter would have been a damn sight easier to deal with.
In my view a great deal of the issues we are having in Denmark would have been negated if the guest workers coming in the late 1960’s had not been drawn from the rural working class.
Actually the original group of guest workers was very small, however family reunifications, with examples sometimes bordering on the absurd led to a rather huge growth of the number of immigrants of middle eastern descent. Moreover, some certain mores in the immigrant society led to a continued rise in the number of immigrants. For instance most young in the community were and are being pressured into marrying people living in the area thier parents emigrated from, and not other young second generation immigrants or “native” danes.
I would try to limit the immigration as much as possible without violating the charter of human rights. We already have a very large number of poorly integrated people of middle eastern descent to deal with, and it’s not much fun, when we have to start all over with a new batch w\many of which are functional analfabets every time a generation enters the marrying age. Absorbing the ones already in say Denmark is going to take many decades.
Wonder what jaboney has to say about this.
[quote=“Jaboney”] And the EU has established programs to increasingly knit together a common European culture.
AND, you can tell me what “the europeans as a whole thinks”. [/quote]
Hmm, at least when it comes to Turkey’s accession, it would appear that a vast majority of EU citizens are against, according to a number of opinion polls, so in that case i have NO problem telling you what a majority of EU citizens want and what they don’t want.
Europe is a diverse place, and the number of diverse opinions is therefore huge. However, there is still a bunch of basic values rooted in christianity, which are shared.
[quote=“Jaboney”] Well, I concede that that are many things about which people of different cultures will have the same opinions, but I do not believe politics is generally one of those things: it’s too complex and subjective, and individual motives too varied. Anyways, if the EU is actively knitting together Europe, there must be cultural fissures. And if there are cultural fissures, there’s probably going to be a spectrum of political opinion. And yet, you can tell me what “europeans as a whole thinks”. (I assume all those internal disagreements in the European family over Austria’s bringing Jörg Haider into government are over with, because at the time, member states didn’t even want to have the traditional family portrait taken with that black sheep.) Well then, please do explain. Because reading your wiki article, there appears to be at least one major schism:
Dear jaboney. I made that argument too - against Turkey ever entering the EU.
Not admitting Jorg haider into the “good” club was a mistake, as he was democratically elected and is at heart a democrat.
The more sisister goals of the US, IE rewarding Turkey for being a good support and at the same time decrease the effectiveless of the EU as a whole - interesting that you support it, the next will be what? support of Bush’s land grab in Iraq?
Also, differences of opinion is natural, and something you have in North America too. Canada is a prime example. The goal of the EU is to bridge those gaps and so far the EU has performed rather well at this task.
[quote=“Jaboney”]
2. Religion.
Hmmm… you are wrong in your reading on this one, especially when you see what the EU has in practice done.
Cyprus is geograpically a part of Asia, however it’s culturally European, so it was let in.
Turkey is Asian/middle eastern, and they have a mere 3% of their territory in Europe, so that disqualifies them on the principles used so far.
Also, the notion of the EU as a Christian club is supported by a fair bit of the decision makers in the EU. while you would not get secular politicians in Europe to admit to subscribe to that notion, it has still been brought up indirectly. The notion is cladded in arguments such as culture (Which is a great part of what European christianity is) etc.
Again, this serves as an argument against what you are arguing for. The integration issues the EU is currently facing are not solved by letting more in, it’s solved by taking on those already in. Admitting another 60 million turks is not going to help, rather increase the load, unless you subscribe to the notion that more is less, which is a load of bollocks in my view.
Cheap pie in the pky bullshitting, and enough of that to fertilize 5,000 acreas of albertan farmland.
The values eventually worked in Northern Ireland, right?
Secondly, last time I checked Serbia was not part of the EU, right? You with all your education should know that much.
Also, the EU peace project worked very well within EU and that was the initial goal.
Off the mark, try again. 
[quote=“Jaboney”] 3. Progress
What happened to article 301 of the Turkish penal code? That was a step backward taken after they opened negotiations.
On the Ocalan issue, they for all intents and purposes abolished the death penalty in 1984 - some 15 years before Ocalan was caught.
So far the actual willingness of Turkey to play by EU rules have been more rhetorical than real. Compare it to Central Europe which started the 1990’s being run by communist dictatorships, and who now are there. In 1989, the Turkish minority in southern Bulgaria was suppressed, now they are recognized as a minority. Turkey refuses to recognize and extend basic human rights to the Armenians and the Kurds - still as I wrote in the bit of my argument you conveniently skipped.
[quote=“Jaboney”] Anyways, why not work with some real sources?
Copenhagen critieria & EU Enlargement: Turkey - Political profile [/quote]
OK, the Copenhagen ctiteria, let’s se wher Turkey is:
Turkey has 35 in their tettetory in Europe, so they are actually disqualified from joining on those grounds alone.
Turkey still faces a major challenge here.
Say that to the armenians and the kurds, they would love this. As late as in 2005, Turkey implemented article 301 of their penal code, which is in direct contradiction to this. The will to abiude by this is therefore very doubtful. Note that the EU has been telling Turkey to clean up their act for how long? 30 years?
I mentioned this, however you still haven’t really deemed it worthy of an answer. Any applicant has to align their legislation to the EU legislation - Turkey’s progress here is abysmal.
Again, I would like you to discuss the facts instead of discussing you perceptions of the facts, perceptions which would appear to come out of the dreamer’s diary.
I agree with you, no need for you to bother with this, especially given the quality of your arguments. The opinions you present are held by a number of Europeans and they are brought up - however the great unwashed masses of the EU would appear to either ignore them or be flatly against.
The issue of Turkey’s accession cost the EU a new constitution, so the issue has certainly been debated, and it has for at least Holland and France been established firmly that Turkey are let into the EU club on the peril of the political lives of any politician in those countries valuing their political lives.
So what you mean is that this should be rammed through irrespective of democracy? Forced down the throats of the population of the EU? I imagine that you are a strong supporter of democracy, and would like to hear how that viewpoint sits with that support?
so the EU is focused on its own collective navel due to the fact that they don’t want to admit a huge poor country with is not even a part of Europe?
I find your collective navel remark stupid and in contradictions of the facts for a couple of reasons, with the first being that the EU supported and eventually admitted Central Europe, when they were ready. Before that, you saw them doing the same thing to Greece and Spain/portugal. You have customs unions with Turkey, association agreements and partnership aggrements with maghreb states and Israel/PA. You have the EEA, which is an extension of the EU in all but name. You have preferential trade and support agreements with a long list of third world countries.
it would reflect positively on you if you considered those as well, before you start to talk about “navel gazing”, a remark, which is long on uninformed opinion, and somewhat short on facts.
You could claim that the EU is build on half-assed measures, however they have taken the EU a very long way. The policymakers of the EU have always pursued what was possible, and have step by step expanded the cooperation geograpically and deepend it as well. This is a momentous feat, which has been achieved by large number of small “half-assed steps”.
I can tell you what the acccession of Turkey would mean:
-
A large bit of the EU sructural funds would go to develop Anatolia, thus depriving the rest of Europe.
-
Turkey would become a force to reckon with in the EU itself, leading to a loosening of the EU. Deepening of the community would become a pipe dream for half a century, whicle the EU focused on getting Turkey developed.
-
The EU would end up losing importance as a global player, partly due ot internal bickering focused on the bill for building Turkey up, partly due to the fact that Turkey is more disposed toward the US, and less toward Europe as a world political entity.
-
The appetite of the peoples of the “Old” Eu to integrate further would be lessened knowing that they were getting integrated with a poor country with a different culture.
Ignoramus. The central goal of the EU (read the preamble of the treaty of rome) is: “An ever closer union”. closer as in deepening. It has always been a major goal of the EU and this is why deepening has always been sought by the leaders of the EU. Moreover, there’s no stopping. You either keep the momentum in creating one European state, or you either stagnate or start rolling it back.
Again, look at history, you have expansions and deepenings alternating with periods of stagnation or worse like in the second half of the 1970’s. I think it’s time the theEU to widen, not to stagnate while digesting a Turkey which is likely to keep the continent occupied for a few decades.
Tony Blair is a marginal player in the EU - the UK has always though them in partnership with the US, and they have never really been into the European thing. By constantly blocking, asking for rebates etc, they hve managed to marginalize themselves when given half an opportunity to do so.
George W. Bush is a person which thankfully has only little influence on the continually development of the EU.
Again, i see you unwilling to actually face the facts and concede where appropriate. if you would tru to relate to the facts I hve presented, it would aid the discussion a fair bit.
Hee-Lar-E-Us! - I wonder if Americans can say the same when Euros are soooo interested in U.S. internal issues. Work the same way Mr. He??? [/quote]
Americans are still trying to work out if Europe is a country or a continent.
Mr. He,
Excellent post. Now regarding this:
[quote]
[quote]gao_bo_han wrote:
One more question for those in favor Turkey entering the EU. Why have the other immigrant populations integrated so much more successfully than Muslims? Are the governmental policies different towards those groups? If so, what are they? If the policies are no different, it is possible the fault lies with the trouble-making immigrants, and not the government? [/quote]
Wonder what jaboney has to say about this.[/quote]
Don’t hold your breath for a direct response from Jaboney or any of the other pro-Turkey naifs. 
[quote=“Mr He”][quote=“Jaboney”] Well, I concede that that are many things about which people of different cultures will have the same opinions, but I do not believe politics is generally one of those things: it’s too complex and subjective, and individual motives too varied. Anyways, if the EU is actively knitting together Europe, there must be cultural fissures. And if there are cultural fissures, there’s probably going to be a spectrum of political opinion. And yet, you can tell me what “europeans as a whole thinks”. (I assume all those internal disagreements in the European family over Austria’s bringing Jörg Haider into government are over with, because at the time, member states didn’t even want to have the traditional family portrait taken with that black sheep.) Well then, please do explain. Because reading your wiki article, there appears to be at least one major schism:
Dear jaboney. I made that argument too - against Turkey ever entering the EU.
Not admitting Jorg haider into the “good” club was a mistake, as he was democratically elected and is at heart a democrat.[/quote]So, we have a fundamental disagreement. I believe there’s ample evidence showing that (at least in economic and cultural terms) (mono)nation-states are better off than divided multinational states, but less well-off than multinational states that have resolved cultural/sectarian divisions.
And keeping Jörg Haider out was the correct move. Democracy itself is insufficient. But you appear to be far more populist than I.
(I recognize that constitutions are, in part, an exercise in self-binding: holding oneself to higher standards, not reflecting today’s sentiments generally.)
[quote=“Mr He”]The more sinister goals of the US, IE rewarding Turkey for being a good support and at the same time decrease the effectiveness of the EU as a whole - interesting that you support it, the next will be what? support of Bush’s land grab in Iraq?[/quote]
- Religion.
[quote=“Mr He”]4. EU is a Christian club, born after the second world war, with the explicit goal of helping Europe to heal, and also to punch at its weight in the world. it has absorbed and paid out a fair bit to get Central Europe back into shape after the fall of the Berlin wall, and you want them to increase the burden? [/quote][quote=“Mr He”]Hmmm… you are wrong in your reading on this one, especially when you see what the EU has in practice done.[/quote]What practices are those?
[quote=“Mr He”]Cyprus is geograpically a part of Asia, however it’s culturally European, so it was let in.[/quote]The geographic argument is a good one, and I’ve discussed it.
We also obviously view multiculturalism differently. I believe that greater difference, in greater numbers, would compel Europeans to get serious on the cultural front and articulate a more universal vision.
[quote=“Mr He”][quote=“Jaboney”] [quote=“Mr He”]And yes, the EU was founded in order to avoid a war between the major European powers every generation, and it has worked. What separates Eu as it is with Turkey is that the EU is at least nominally Christian, meaning that you do have a minimum of shared values across the board.[/quote]And that minimum of shared values has served the people of Europe very well in overcoming tensions in Northern Ireland. Err… or not. Well, those values certainly restrained the Christian Serbs. Uh… [/quote]Cheap pie in the pky bullshitting, and enough of that to fertilize 5,000 acreas of albertan farmland.
The values eventually worked in Northern Ireland, right?
Secondly, last time I checked Serbia was not part of the EU, right? You with all your education should know that much.[/quote]Inconvenient, for you, but on point and correct. Hands up, who feels their shared Christian heritage helped the Irish work out their political differences? Now, hands up, who feels that heritage got in the way of resolving political differences? Do I really have to throw up a poll on this one?
And the point isn’t that Serbia was a part of the EU, but that it shares in that “common European heritage”, which pre-dates the EU. Did that heritage, and attendant values, serve it. or humanity, well?
You seem to be looking at the membership issue as an end state. The application process is a process. It’s not about where is Turkey now, but can it be in the right place 10~15 years down the road, and where Europe will be 10~15 years down the road. The EU itself is a process: an “ever closer union”. Today’s facts are snapshots: this is a film that’s still being shot.
[quote=“Tyc00n”]Americans are still trying to work out if Europe is a country or a continent.[/quote]So are the Europeans.
As I said Mr. He, don’t hold your breath for a direct answer. But let’s give these pro-Turkey folks another chance.
TO EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES MUSLIMS’ LACK OF INTEGRATION IS DUE TO FAILED EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES, PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.
[color=darkblue]Why have the other immigrant populations integrated so much more successfully than Muslims? Are the governmental policies different towards those groups? If so, what are they? If the policies are no different, it is possible the fault lies with the trouble-making immigrants, and not the government? [/color]
[quote]1. Muslims lack of integration in Europe is the failure of European governments, not the failure of immigrant Muslims.
I don’t get this. The Arab League and other Muslim countries have always been very clear that they will only allow emigration from their countries into Europe if the European governments will not try to assimilate the immigrants in any way. [/quote]
European governments putting up with this kind of attiudes is probably the failure Mr. He refers to. Though I have to admit … how pathetic is this stance of the Muslim League? I doubt them “allowing their people emmigration” into Europe is hardly the issue for any emmigrant from there … getting a visa from European authorities is … and for a long time it had been too easy and by far not selective enough.
But still … it shows the kind of attitude that is projected from the Arab League: don’t assimilate and I have doubt’s there is a kind distinction made between “assimilation” and “integration”. And even if … why should a Muslim not assimilate in Europe if he wants to? Even trying to support such a wish is condemnable by the Arab League? I can’t recall such a public statement from any other direction.
Any more questions as to why Muslims stick out so much?
Or … and that’s what I see in Germany … they make it too easy to NOT integrate.
My “it is not problem if your kid does not speak any German at grade one” was not a joke. That’s been for a long time standard procedure in Germany. There are 3rd generation families from the Middle East where the kids speak no German at the age of 6. Typically they are raised by grandmother, TV (Arab channels due to sattelite tv), very well integrated into their Arab subculture … and no real contact with Germans on any meaningful level. Kindergarden is not compulsory.
Age 6 they enter school and don’t understand a word. Why are they not put into special classes? Well “selection” has this KZ-waggon-arrival sounds, so we would not want to select this nicey-nice multi-kulti children out now would we? Only Nazis do selections of children and have a problem with foreigners, korrekt?
Or so at least the mantra has been for years.
Why do other immigrants not face this problem? No idea, but from my Chinese friends I see that they DO put their kids into kindergardens PLUS daycare if they can afford … and if it is for nothing else that they apparently deem it necessary for their kids to speak German if they want to integrate.
How it is possible for segments of the Muslim immigrants to see this any different I can’t explain. And frankly, I don’t think I have to. I place the onus here fair and square with that segment of the Muslim emigrants. Shall they give a good explaination … if they have one.
Anyhow:
Grade 1: speak no German.
Grade 2: may have picked up enough, but lag behind in every other subject.
Grade 3: understand school only as a joke (can’t blame them by then)
Grade 4: decision is made which type of school to attend from here, they end up in the “Hauptschule” (which today as well may be named: Dead End)
Grade 10: Graduate, find no job with that “degree”.
Why? Because demanding foreign kids to learn Deutsch before they attend school is soooooooo Nazi, you know.
No kidding, till the 90s there was money spent ob foreign kids to get extra lessons to keep practicing their mother tongue. Nice, right? Very suave … very international … very multi-kulti … very non-Nazi so to speak.
Standardized language tests before entering primary school though? Nada.
One exception I recall from Germany is Army Service. Every German male has to attend, but my Turkish classmates got around it always. They kept their Turkish passport till they were to old to be drafted and then switched German.
Not all of course … I assume. At least all I know personally did.
Go figure.
Sorry, but Canada and the US are NOT models I want to copy.
I mean - immigrants exterminating pretty much the entire native population is NOT a model I like to copy in Europe.
Oh wait … you probably referred to the LATTER waves of immigrants … after the first had dealt with the Indians, correct?
Not that I percieved (and I worked about a year in the immigration office of a major German city). Thus my stance that the roots lie in Muslim culture and that it allows too many niches for guys with a chip on their shoulder to be accepted as troublemakers.
There are of course general problems with all kinds of immigrants, but that’s nothing out of the ordinary. Pretty much everyone of Forumosa knows how it is to be a foreigner in a strange country. It is stressing, taxing and not everyone makes it and you get your fair share of whackos in every expat community all over Asia.
However, with Muslims it seems these things regularly grow out of hand disproportionally in a violent manner. And that no matter how tollerant, international or multi-culti their host culture may be (Netherlands, UK, US … you name it).
And that’s already putting it politely.
[quote=“Jaboney”] So, we have a fundamental disagreement. I believe there’s ample evidence showing that (at least in economic and cultural terms) (mono)nation-states are better off than divided multinational states, but less well-off than multinational states that have resolved cultural/sectarian divisions.
And keeping Jörg Haider out was the correct move. Democracy itself is insufficient. But you appear to be far more populist than I.
(I recognize that constitutions are, in part, an exercise in self-binding: holding oneself to higher standards, not reflecting today’s sentiments generally.)?[/quote]
Democracy is insuffient??? So I am debating with a guy who at the end of the day does not believe in Democracy??? :loco:
Cultural and sectarian differences aren’t solved by sweeping them under the carpet.
As I said, letting in culturally European bits of Asia, however keeping out parts of Europe not culturally European.
Difference is something to be cherised, however national identity is at least as important, as you can’t appreciate what’s around you if yoiu aren’t rooted in your own.
Your view of the North Irish conflict is too simplistic. The issue was not religion per se, as Catholics and Protestants do share a common Christian heritage and are able to live together in most of Europe.
The problem was a social system in Ulster meaning that the English-supported haves (who happened to be Church of England) were suppressing the have nots (Who happened to be catholics). It was to a much higher degree a social conflict than a religious one.
Jaboney, you are really talking out of your arse, and uninformed is the only word I can use to describe you. Or are you twisting facts around because you spoil for a fight?
Cos’ you have no idea about what the EU is or has been about, or if you have you have chosen to disregard it for the duration of this discussion.
OK, European history in brief:
From the dawn of mankind, Europeans have been killing each other with the worst one measured in lost lives being the secodn world war. In order to avoid it, the protaganists decided to set up a cooperative sceme, called the coal and steel union, where they pooled their coal mines and steel works, as those were the materials most important during wars.
After they did that, the cycle of killing stopped among them.
Helping that cooperation along was a set of shared values, coming off a shared culture.
The serbs - common christian heritage? One of the main protagonists was not a christian group, however for the sake of things Serbia is not a member of EU, so the peace spreading effects of getting in has not been spread there.
Which is what I have been saying all the way along - apart from the bit with the turks. The European Union is a developing thing, and having voted for 3 different EU treaties, I know a fair bit about the development thing.
The EU has widened with some 12 countries over the last years, and they are looking at decades to absorb the new members properly.
The EU needs to get the deepening bit back on track, and getting distracted by biig poor backward in every way Turkey - no, not even as a possibility. As I have been mentioning to you, EU member shit is something that evolves, and the increased diversity caused by the new poorer and les developed members is something which takes works to overcome. So no added distractions.
However yes, Jaboney, When we talk about the EU I take the E very seriously, Europe is not a club who’s expanding membership in order to maximize future income, it’s a continent. And Asia Minor is not part of that continent, be it geograpically or culturally.
[quote=“Mr He”]Democracy is insuffient??? So I am debating with a guy who at the end of the day does not believe in Democracy??? :loco: [/quote]You understand the difference between valuing something and believing that it is sovereign sufficient, do you not?
“Man does not live by bread alone” (Deuteronomy 8: 2-3; Matthew 4: 4; Luke 4: 4): did Moses and Jesus not believe in bread?
[quote=“Mr He”]Cultural and sectarian differences aren’t solved by sweeping them under the carpet.[/quote] Agreed. I’m not advocating that they be swept under the carpet, but spotlighted.
As I said, letting in culturally European bits of Asia, however keeping out parts of Europe not culturally European.[/quote]Point of curiosity: what are your thoughts of the rejection of Israel’s membership application?
Difference is something to be cherised, however national identity is at least as important, as you can’t appreciate what’s around you if you aren’t rooted in your own.[/quote]Agreed. However, I do not believe that a tree in the open forest is less rooted than one in a pot, however large.
Your view of the North Irish conflict is too simplistic. The issue was not religion per se, as Catholics and Protestants do share a common Christian heritage and are able to live together in most of Europe.[/quote]You’re mistaken. I’m well aware of the complexities of the N. Ireland conflict. My point is that the shared Christian heritage did not contribute to the resolution of that conflict, but exacerbated it.
Jaboney, you are really talking out of your arse, and uninformed is the only word I can use to describe you. Or are you twisting facts around because you spoil for a fight? [/quote]Stow it. You seem to be asserting that anyone–from Tony Blair, to lowly Jaboney–who disagrees with your version of the EU and what it’s about is an American hack, or ignorant. The vehement disagreements within the EU do not merely concern different paths to the same goal. There are sincerely held disagreements over what the EU is and should be, and knee-jerk dismissals of contrary opinions as uninformed does you no favors.
My my… such strong language. Perhaps you should be asking him to pm you?
Do you think it would help? You know, from personal experience, that’ll I’ll go to great lengths to raise the tone.
Oh I do not dispute that you have made great efforts to raise the tone. Now, if only you could work half as hard to increase the content of your posts we may be close to achieving a concordant.
Oh I do not dispute that you have made great efforts to raise the tone. Now, if only you could work half as hard to increase the content of your posts we may be close to achieving a concordant.[/quote]You’re right.
Tell you what, in terms of content, I’ll double any efforts you make in terms of tone. Deal?