This house would let Turkey join the European Union

The EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423[1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country.

Turkey’s inclusion in the EU would not threaten other members with overwhelming economic or immigration issues. It is possible that, as has happened with Bulgaria and Romania, that a delay is enacted for the Schengen passport-free zone[2]. This would give both the current EU and Turkey a period of time to adjust.

[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$), 2009

[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98ad6046-2584-11e0-8258-00144feab49a.html ‘EU newcomers smart over Schengen delay’ by Chris Bryant, 21^st Jan 2011

The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). "Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)"[1]. It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level.

Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany[2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.

[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.

[2]http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E0F99A1C8B80A445E84A70B8453383895~ATpl~Ecommon~SMed.html#F603AFF15A3548B08367A3ED2DB2733A ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country.

Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them.

There are big differences between Romania and Bulgaria and Turkey; this is caused by the political situation regarding Turkey’s support for North Cyprus. Cyprus is a member of the European Union having joined in 2005 and would be likely to block any attempt by Turkey to join so long as Turkey supports the breakaway north of the island, the European Union admitted that Cyprus would become an obstacle as soon as it joined.[1]

[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.

Turkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. "Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home."[1]

[1] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60100/david-l-phillips/turkeys-dreams-of-accession ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004

There are fears that Turkey joining the EU would create the possibility of a ‘single market’ in terrorism. "Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behaviour mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks."[1]

[1] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-turkey-will-not-be-admitted-to-the-eu.html ‘Turkey will not be admitted to the EU’ by Hugh Fitzgerald, 6^th December 2005

Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union.[1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour.

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm European Commission Enlargement, Accession criteria, 30^th October 2010

Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised unconditionally to include Turkey in the future. In a decade of candidacy Turkey has managed to satisfy less than half of the chapters, and these are only the minimum prerequisites. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possibility is therefore a long way off. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Marine Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn, point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration.

The EU has welcomed poorer entrants than Turkey without disaster; Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all much poorer than the EU average when they joined and all are now well integrated and much more prosperous. Disastrous migration was forecast in their cases too, but did not occur. Nor is Turkey as poor as has been suggested; Turkey with a GDP per capita of $8215 in 2009 is richer than Romania at $7500 and Bulgaria with a GDP per capita of $6423[1] both of which are already members. Turkey’s economy is also in the process of reform, including the restructuring of its banking system and IMF programmes; in the next few years this process will allow for faster, more sustained growth. Turkey provides a large new market for EU goods; should it be accepted into the single market the economic benefits would not be solely limited to that country.

Turkey’s inclusion in the EU would not threaten other members with overwhelming economic or immigration issues. It is possible that, as has happened with Bulgaria and Romania, that a delay is enacted for the Schengen passport-free zone[2]. This would give both the current EU and Turkey a period of time to adjust.

[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD The World Bank, GDP per capita (current US$), 2009

[2] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98ad6046-2584-11e0-8258-00144feab49a.html ‘EU newcomers smart over Schengen delay’ by Chris Bryant, 21^st Jan 2011

The EU will never be able to integrate Turkey economically. Turkey is too poor, with millions of subsistence farmers and living standards far below the European norm (making massive migration to richer EU countries inevitable). "Despite its current population accounting for 15% of the EU-25 population, its GDP is equivalent to just 2% of the EU-25 GDP. Its GDP per capita is 28.5% of the EU-25 GDP (European Commission, 2004)"[1]. It would be a significant drain on EU funding to bring its economy and living standards to an acceptable level.

Turkey is a nation of over 70 million with significantly lower living conditions and wages than most EU member states. Most EU states are already going through a recession and credit crunch and are suffering enough without a potentially huge number of Turkish migrants legally given the right to live and work in 27 member states, but who would be expected to choose to reside mainly in the more prosperous member states such as the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. This is especially a problem for Germany, who by 2004 already had 1.74 million Turkish people living in Germany[2] who make up approximately one fourth of the immigrant population in Germany. To allow migrants to come in legally could potentially hinder Germany's economy significantly by increasing unemployment levels even further.

[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.

[2]http://www.faz.net/s/Rub594835B672714A1DB1A121534F010EE1/Doc~E0F99A1C8B80A445E84A70B8453383895~ATpl~Ecommon~SMed.html#F603AFF15A3548B08367A3ED2DB2733A ‘Turkish Migration in Germany’, chart breakdown of German immigration figures by country.

Romania and Bulgaria, who have by far the worst human rights’ records, were prioritized over Turkey when they were granted the right of accession, joining the EU in 2007. The EU rewarded states that have made a big effort to democratize and change policy in order to be allowed in to the EU. By essentially procrastinating on Turkey's case, the EU are discouraging Turkey from making the required changes to their legislature and norms and thus hindering their chances of accession. Countries such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were pressurized to reform at a rapid pace after being promised by the EU they would likely be in the EU in a relatively short period of time; Turkey has been given no such promises. Turkey should have even more 'right' to be in the EU as these states, as it formally applied for membership long before these states and should thus be given priority over them.

There are big differences between Romania and Bulgaria and Turkey; this is caused by the political situation regarding Turkey’s support for North Cyprus. Cyprus is a member of the European Union having joined in 2005 and would be likely to block any attempt by Turkey to join so long as Turkey supports the breakaway north of the island, the European Union admitted that Cyprus would become an obstacle as soon as it joined.[1]

[1] http://www6.miami.edu/EUCenter/nugentfinal.pdf  University of Miami study, ‘Turkey’s Membership Application: Implications for the EU’, Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, Vol 5 No 26 August 2005.

Turkey is a key geo-political strategic ally to the West and should be integrated fully in order to ensure its continued cooperation. "Turkey is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The eastern flank of NATO, straddling Europe and Asia, it played a critical role in containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the 1990s, it helped monitor Saddam Hussein and protect Iraqi Kurds by permitting U.S. warplanes to use its bases. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became a staging area for coalition forces in Afghanistan, where Turkish forces eventually assumed overall command of the International Stabilization Force. Turkey continues to be a pivotal partner in the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, despite attacks by radical Islamists at home."[1]

[1] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60100/david-l-phillips/turkeys-dreams-of-accession ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004

There are fears that Turkey joining the EU would create the possibility of a ‘single market’ in terrorism. "Turkey will not be admitted to the E.U. It will not be admitted because, at this point, given the behaviour mainly of Arab Muslims (for does anyone doubt that it was the Arab influence that caused some Chechens to embrace not only the idea of Jihad, but all of the current methods being used to further it), Europeans have lost their stomach for parroting phrases about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance." They do not want to admit a country of 70 million Muslims, who would then move freely about Europe. They do not want Turkey admitted because it will be an easy conduit for non-Turkish Muslims to enter Europe, posing as Turks."[1]

[1] http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/fitzgerald-turkey-will-not-be-admitted-to-the-eu.html ‘Turkey will not be admitted to the EU’ by Hugh Fitzgerald, 6^th December 2005

Turkey was promised a chance to join the EU by a unanimous vote at the Helsinki summit in 1999, when its candidacy was unanimously accepted after three decades of consistent Turkish requests. As a candidate country Turkey should be allowed in once it meets the membership criteria which were first set out in the Copenhagen European Council of 1993. These were stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union and the ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic & monetary union.[1] Clearly economic and political reforms are necessary, but that is true of all states attempting to join the EU and should not be used as an excuse to backtrack now. It would be hypocritical to apply one set of criteria to Central and Eastern European states and another to Turkey. Such blatant hypocrisy would have consequences, if the EU is seen to break its promise to Turkey it may turn a potential friend and partner into a suspicious and hostile neighbour.

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm European Commission Enlargement, Accession criteria, 30^th October 2010

Turkey first applied to join the EU back in the 1960s but there is no document where EU leaders have promised unconditionally to include Turkey in the future. In a decade of candidacy Turkey has managed to satisfy less than half of the chapters, and these are only the minimum prerequisites. Even if they had, past declarations (as opposed to treaties) cannot be held to bind today’s leaders in weighing both their own national interest and the wider European interest. The possibility is therefore a long way off. The possible negative impact of Turkish EU membership upon existing members must be considered. The recent rise of far-right anti-immigration politicians, such as Marine Le Pen, Jorg Haidar and Pym Fortuyn, point to a dangerous public reaction to more open borders and unchecked migration.

There is no obvious and widely accepted geographical definition of a frontier to Europe. Is Russia a European country? Are Georgia and Armenia? Are Cyprus and Malta? The fact that the Mediterranean country Italy became a member of a regional organisation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was certainly not determined by geography, but was an act of political imagination. Today the location of a Mediterranean state in the North Atlantic is no longer considered as something "odd".  Another example of changing perceptions of a region is the change from regarding the border of Europe as falling between East and West Germany; Europe broadened to include all the former Eastern European countries as potential members of the EU.

Given that part of Turkey’s territory is on what everyone accepts is the European mainland, why shouldn’t it be allowed to join the main European club? While Turkey's land area is almost entirely in Asia the European part does have immense historical significance, and Turkey has a population in Europe of about 14million, larger than many of the smaller EU members. It already belongs to NATO, the OECD and the Council of Europe, and participates in the Eurovision Song Contest and European football competitions. Turkey is a westward-looking country.

Turkey is not a European country - 95% of the nation’s landmass is on the wrong side of the Hellespont, in Asia. If Turkey is allowed into the European Union, not only would the institution’s very name become nonsensical, but it would be impossible to place a limit upon its potential future expansion. If Gibraltar belonged to Morocco rather than Britain, would we have said yes to Morocco’s application to join the European Union? Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing told Le Monde in 2002 - "The day after you open negotiations with Turkey, you would have a Moroccan demand (for membership of the union)"[1]. One could of course then argue that Turkey should not be the only geographically non-European member of the European Union and that Morocco and Armenia would make excellent candidates. But if Morocco, why not Algeria? If Armenia, why not Azerbaijan?

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in January 2007: "Turkey has no place inside the European Union. I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union. Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept."[2] If there is to be a limit then it makes sense that this limit should be at Europe’s geographical borders.

[1] http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000564.html ‘Turkey not part of Europe’ by Randall Parker, 8^th November 2002

[2] http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=159133 15^th January 2007

Turkey has a better history of democratic elections than a number of the former communist states currently negotiating their membership of the EU. Its election of a party with Islamist roots has led to a smooth transfer of power, with no attempt at intervention by the secularist military (as in the past). In 2010 the EU welcomed the success of a referendum on changes to the Turkish constitution which reduced the power of the military and made it fully subject to democratic authority.

Turkey is near some global flash points, but its entry into the EU would not bring these potential dangers closer to current EU members. The EU is already engaged in conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Turkey’s inclusion would not have made that more or less likely. Turkey is already a long-standing member of NATO; this means that any security crisis on Turkey’s borders, for example between Palestine and Israel, already involves its Western neighbours and the EU has had to involve Turkey over issues of planning and access.

Furthermore, Turkey as a strategic gateway to the Middle East does not only involve conflict; it also provides the West with the opportunity for reconciliation and cooperation. Turkey is potentially a crucial alternative conduit for oil and gas to and from central Asia[1], making Europe less dependent on Russian favour. Engagement between Turkey and the EU has greatly reduced historic enmity between Turkey and Greece, and held out hope for a solution to the division of Cyprus, showing the benefits of a closer relationship. The EU was created to encourage political cooperation in just such circumstances[2], and Turkey’s entry would be important for strengthening relationships with the increasingly important Muslim countries in the Middle East and breaking down the artificial barriers between ‘East’ and ‘West’.

[1] http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/25/turkey_still_america_s_best_ally_in_the_middle_east ‘Turkey: still America’s best ally in the Middle East?’ by Joshua W Walker, 25^th June 2010

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/09/turkey-erdogan-israel-gaza ‘Turkey: an honest broker in the Middle East’ by Bulent Kenes, 9^th June 2010

Turkey does not have a stable democracy. The military has intervened three times to remove governments of which it disapproved in recent decades, most recently in 1997[1]. The nature of the struggle between Turkey's generals - who try and keep the country as secular as possible (arguably at the expense of the right of the people to decide for themselves which party best represents their views) - and the increase in votes and influence for conservative Islamic political views paves for an unstable political environment which is vulnerable to extremism[2].

Turkey has some dangerous neighbours and its inclusion within the EU would expose Europe to a greatly increased risk of crisis and conflict. The Caucasus is very unstable, with some of its nations looking to Turkey for support for religious and cultural reasons. A Middle Eastern border would heavily involve the EU in the Israeli-Arab conflict and give it a border with an aggressive and unstable Iraq (and Iran), with whom it would share an assertive Kurdish minority seeking statehood. Turkey even has major disputes with Greece, a current EU member, over territory in the Aegean and over the divided Island of Cyprus, where it alone recognises and backs the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, preventing a settlement.

[1] http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2008&country=7508 Map of Freedom in The World: Turkey

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/opinion/01tue2.html ‘Secularism and Democracy in Turkey’, Editorial New York Times, 1^st May 2007

Turkey’s human rights record is improving rapidly, with the abolition of the death penalty and the removal of restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language. "Encouraged by the EU, Turkey has pursued legislative and constitutional reforms liberalizing the political system and relaxing restrictions on freedom of the press, association, and expression. Turkey signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It abolished the death penalty and adopted measures to promote independence of the judiciary, end torture during police interrogations, and reform the prison system. In addition, Turkey has significantly reduced the scope of its antiterrorism statutes, which had been used to curtail political expression, and it amended the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure. Police powers have been curbed and the administration of justice strengthened, due partly to the dismantling of state security courts."[1]

The Kurdish minority is also enjoying better treatment. “The protection and promotion of the rights of the Kurds, which make up about a fifth of Turkey's population, have also progressed… In June, an appeals court ordered the release of Leyla Zana and three other Kurdish parliamentarians who were jailed ten years ago after the Kurdistan Workers' Party was banned."[2]

Surely countries with a history of bad human rights activities should be embraced by the EU, in the hope that the EU will have a positive influence on them. It is true that banning them from membership is an effective punishment but that will not enforce any change. If we wish to see compliance with Human Rights conventions we have to ensure that countries that may contravene them are under its jurisdiction in the first place. Once they are members we can then encourage better behaviour through punishing any further contraventions.

[1] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60100/david-l-phillips/turkeys-dreams-of-accession ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004

[2] http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60100/david-l-phillips/turkeys-dreams-of-accession ‘Turkey’s Dreams of Accession’ by David Phillips, Foreign Affairs September/October 2004

Turkey has a large number of pending cases to be addressed by the European Court of Human Rights[1]. Police use of torture is widespread against PKK members and sympathisers. Turkey refuses even to acknowledge that Kurds have a separate culture and ethnicity, referring to them as 'Mountain Turks'. Peaceful protestors, including (but not only) those wanting improved rights for the Kurdish minority, are still tried and imprisoned under anti-terrorist laws. The UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported that in 1994 there were over 50 disappearances in Turkey, more than in any other country[2]. There are also restrictions on the freedom of the press.

It is true that reforms have begun, but there are questions as to how thoroughly these will be implemented. And in cases where judgments have been put forward by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey is often loath to implement the advice of the court, as in the Loizou Case[3]. Until political dissidents are freed, those accused of human rights abuses are brought to trial and punished, and Kurds are given equal rights, Turkey cannot be judged a suitable candidate for EU accession.

[1] https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1511197 Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, 1^st October 2009

[2]http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/efb18eb4337a6c768025672b003c3b30?Opendocument United Nations Commission on Human Rights

[3]http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/hof.nsf/e4ca7ef017f8c045c1256849004787f5/f2482d21f5843593c12577c7003642f5?OpenDocument  Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, summary Loizuo and others v Turkey

Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the state is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. The new Justice and Development Party (AK) which is currently in government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU.

Regardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. Millions of Muslims already live within the EU; excluding Turkey from membership on the grounds of religion would suggest these European Muslims were second-class citizens in a Christian club. It would also presumably rule out future EU entry for Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step. The EU should welcome a state which could provide a positive example of how Islam is completely compatible with democracy, progress and human rights.

Turkey is not a Christian country but a Muslim one, unlike all the current or prospective EU states, which have been shaped by a shared legacy of Christian values, history and culture. Turkeys AK party has brought on many changes that are interpreted as being non-secular or rooted in Islam. Indeed Turkey’s history represents a clear rejection of any Christian tradition, from the centuries-long Ottoman Muslim conquest of Byzantine Christian territories, to the early twentieth-century population exchange with Greece which removed millions of long-established Christian families from Turkish territory. Most recently, Turks have several times elected to government a party with Islamist roots, suspected of wishing to undermine the country’s secular constitution[1]. Turkey is not as moderate a country as it would seem.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10288919 ‘Turkey denies break with Europe’, BBC 10^th June 2010

Turkey is a large country in European terms, but even if its population would make it the largest single EU member by 2020, this would still only give it some 15% of the total in an enlarged EU of 25 countries or more. This is a much smaller proportion than Germany represented in the EU of 15 before the 2004 enlargement (21.9%)[1], so it is ridiculous to argue that Turkey would dominate EU decision-making. It would not gain full status for many years anyway; an inauguration period, in which it had semi-membership status, would introduce it slowly to the process. Turkey would not be able to change EU policy to suit itself as soon as it arrives.

[1] http://www.demographia.com/db-eu-pop.htm European Union (EU-15) & Constituent Nation Population from 1950 & Projections to 2050, Demographia, 2001 http://www.demographia.com/db-eu-pop.htm

Turkey is too big to be safely included within the EU. The Turkish population - estimated at 65.6 million in 2000 - is on current growth trends forecast to rise to 87.3 million by 2025, making it the largest single state in the EU[1]. As population size determines representation and voting strength in the Council of Ministers, and in the European Parliament, Turkey would be able to dominate EU decision-making and set its own agenda, to the disadvantage of existing members.

[1] http://www.planbleu.org/publications/demo_uk_tur.pdf  Population projections of countries and their coastal regions: Turkey