European Politics Thread

I guess it could work... Turkey would have to actually listen though.

I don't follow.

edited 4th Jul '11 10:20:11 AM by pagad

They'd have to follow Europes human rights laws.

Turkey would be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

That means no sovereign immunity for them. The Turkish government could be sued (and won against) on human rights cases. The European Human Rights Court is known for imposing hefty damages awards on governments.

The Turkish government would have to tone down the nasty shit.

Of course, it wouldn't fix the human rights situation when it comes to abuses not performed by the government. But hey, it'd be a step.

Though, as mentioned, Turkey would have to actually listen.

At the very least, they'd have to pay.

Governments are greedy things. They respond relatively well to kicks in the wallet. Them having to pay a zillion bucks to the victim each time they screw up and get sued at Strasbourg is a step in the right direction.

edited 4th Jul '11 10:28:02 AM by SavageHeathen

Fair enough. I suppose I was more worried about transparency and extra-governmental abuse.

If the problem is that they turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, if negligence is proven they can be forced to pony up a zillion bucks too.

Harder to do and, granted, it ain't a lot of oversight. Anyway, a bit of oversight trumps none when it comes to governmental negligence.

edited 4th Jul '11 10:48:56 AM by SavageHeathen

Turkey is a founding member of the Council of Europe and all Council of Europe members are party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

...

Huh. Well... thats a fairly astounding bit of political fact I've somehow managed to remain ignorant of.

Turkey being subject to the laws means immediate huge scale penalties, which either cripple the country itself or cause massive problems for the people, who ultimately pay the price. It's not as if things will change overnight, after all. And I mean the people as a whole, not just the ones actually perpetrating these atrocities.

Alternatively, we don't punish them and thus appear to condone such actions. Entry to the EU is supposed to be a privilege for those who already meant certain standards of civilisation; right now we don't have the resources to bring Turkey's outlying areas into the 21st century for them, so they have to do it themselves before they can join.

That just proves the "they don't have to listen" argument, as they clearly are already supposed to be but not bothering to.

edited 4th Jul '11 11:18:27 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

What's wrong with making them pay? They are violating human rights. They should.

Basic population statistics regarding the EU (Wikipedia):

Europe, total population, 2010: 832 million.

(For comparison: Population of Africa: c. 1 000 million; North America, 528 million; South America, 385 million; Asia, 3 879 million.)

Total population of EU: c. 500 million.

Population of Russia (of which about 80%, IIRC, live in the area West of the Urals, which traditionally, and for good reasons, is considered European): c. 140 million.

Some European (going by broad definition of Europe; EU members in bold) countries and their population:

Germany: c. 82 million.

Turkey: 70 million.

France: 65 million.

UK: 62 million.

Italy: 60 million.

Spain: 46 million.

Ukraine: 46 million.

Poland: 38 million.

Romania: 21 million.

Netherlands: 16 million.

Greece: 11 million.

The following countries have between 9.5 and 10.5 million (well, I rounded the numbers to the nearest ½ million:) Portugal, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Belarus, Sweden, Serbia.

About 5 million to c. 9 million:

Azerbaijan, Austria, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Denmark, Slovakia, Finland, Norway.

Not gonna list the rest.

One of the maps in the article features the borders of Europe as defined by the EU; according to that map, most of the population of Russia are European, and Turkey is a European country. I suggest taking a look at that map, as it helpfully illustrates the EU, as well as countries that are applying to join.

Personally, I agree with the map's definition of Europe, and I can't think of a good reason why Turkey should not be seen as a European country.

edited 4th Jul '11 3:02:43 PM by BestOf

I agree. However, I don't think it meets the criteria set down by the EU. E.g. abolishment of cap. punishment, limit of debt to under 60% of GDP (which was ignored in the case of Greece and Spain). It may have a low debt-GDP ratio, but its human rights are dubious.

Hm. That answers my question. Well, I guess the US is never joining the EU, then. I wonder which is more likely: the Swiss joining or the US joining?

Edit: Wait, they consider Greenland to be a part of North America? I always thought it was a part of Europe. That would probably be why I'm the history nerd, and fail miserably at geography...

edited 4th Jul '11 3:10:52 PM by USAF713

Switzerland joining is more likely.

I consider Turkey a European country, but it's not ready for EU yet. It needs to improve human rights, freedom of the press, social, religious, sexual etc equality, and its infrastructure and economy.

If you ask me, the EU should go to elaborate lengths to make meeting these criteria as easy as possible for Turkey (still not gonna be easy all the way), except that lowering the standards is out of the question.

I hope that Turkey will be an EU member by 2050, but only if they deserve it and we deserve them.

Swiss will join... however, their debt-GDP ratio is rather high. Not that anyone cares.

I agree with your points. They explain my ideas more thoroughly.

Savage - punish the nation on a scale like that and it's the innocent people who suffer. I'd rather just keep Turkey out and spare them that.

Another issue with Turkey joining the EU is Cyprus. Which is gona take a lot of work to resolve. Add in the human rights record and all Turkeys other problems and things become even more difficult.

Which is a bit of cheek considering Cyprus wasn't a block to Cyprus joining the EU.

What?

what.

I concur with my fellow Europeans.

Wha...?

Oh I'm sorry was using Cyprus as a shorthand for the issues surrounding the Cyprus dispute right after someone else did too hard? I mean using it for the country afterwards might be confusing but that's actually quite a well established linguistic trope too. It's quite popular for when a more obvious target is missed.

Or maybe you don't know what "cheek" means in this context. That's a difficult one, hard to describe. I'll use it in a sentence "My use of sarcasm in the first line of this post was a bit cheeky."

Self-demonstrating post. Hiyo!

edited 6th Jul '11 9:46:50 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

Why would Turkey's actions in north Cyprus be an obstacle to Cyprus joining the EU?

Cyprus is a very well developed country, both in terms of human rights and economy. The only country that recognises the Northern half (well, nearly a half) of the country as a sovereign nation is Turkey. This is a problem for Turkey's accession into the EU; it is not a reason to block Cyprus, which is the victim in this conflict (or rather, dispute).

In other words: Whaaa...?

edited 6th Jul '11 9:54:39 AM by BestOf