Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#1
Mr Cameron expressed his anger last night that the negotiations to get Turkey into the European Union had taken so long. He promised to speed things up and to fight for their inclusion. These werent soft lilly livered words from Mr Cameron, quite the opposite, and show someone with a strong commitment to the European Union. This will surprise many, as I thought he was more or less just going along with the european flow as it were, but on the contrary he is fighting its cause. Surprised me and will surprise many, especially those few 'old tories' who see the EU as a kind of plague.
Those among us who harbour thoughts of the EU's expiration will be sadly disappointment. Its not folding anytime soon.
On another angle... last night William Hague, who visited Dover during the election, spoke out in Brussels solidly about our united EU sanctions against Iran, which were agreed late yesterday. Curtailments in co-operations over oil, gas, etc and curtailments in exports in these areas will badly hit Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Mr Hague was positive about how a united EU can have a very big impact in situations like this.
This is another example of the positive power of a solid European Union. Sanctions from a lonely UK on the outskirts of everything useful, would have no effect whatsoever.
Good to see the new government embracing the modern world and with no talk of withdrawal on anyone's lips.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#2
I can not agree on that one Paul,as for withdrawal from the EU that fight is far from over.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
i doubt whether many paid up blue party members would agree with dave.
the new intake in the commons is made up largely of eurosceptics, this latest statement will be seen as more buttering up of the yellows.
#4
Good report Paul, thanks.
Vic, good to see you're banging the same old drum of yestyerday's thinking. Thinking that is certain to consign UKIP to the political scrapheap.
Howard, the sceptics are in the minority and a dieing breed and the sooner they jump ship and join UKIP the better. The new generation of voters has no time for Eurosulking.
Modern Britain needs to fully embrace the EU and make it's mark right at the centre of decision making. Good to see DC and WH leading the way.
#5
As expected, no surprises there then!
Oh well, we`ll soon be opening our doors to God knows how many thousands
of Turks ( just what we need, another influx of muslims ). Still, I mustn`t forget that this will enable any British person to go and work in their country so that`ll be useful, not! I wonder how good their benefit system is?
Contrary to your usual view Sid, I would expect the UKIP membership to grow and become stronger after this crass statement by the boy Dave.
As for sanctions, yes, that`s a positive move but not as important as you`d believe. It never seems to affect people at the top of the regime and it certainly hasn`t altered North Korea`s way of thinking and likewise the same could apply to Iran.
Sid, if you actually think that eurosceptics are in the minority then why are we denied a referendum to prove what our people want once and for all. I think we all know the answer to that eh?
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
#6
It is a good point though. The mountains of the Kurdish areas are already a major backdoor into Europe for many of the dispossessed and poorer people of the middle east. The Iraqi and Iranian border regions with Turkey are vast, largely unpatrolled and virtually impossible to hold effectively as it is. Turkey joining the EU with it's perceived economic attractions could potentially seriously upscale the influx of unchecked illegal migrants into Europe from outside Turkey with economic repercussions throughout all the EU Member States. I'll leave others to determine if this is a good, indifferent or bad thing.
#7
As an addition to my previous post it might interest some to realise the actual reason behind Cameron`s comments regarding Turkey.
Just over a year or so ago Pres. Obama told an audience in Ankara that it was important that EU member states did all they could to "anchor" Turkey in Europe. He wants this to happen and has clearly given our Dave his instructions on his recent visit to his boss in the good old USA. Following his remit, Dave has responded accordingly.
Perhaps Obama should remember that whilst he`s been elected President, he`s been elected President of the United States only. This doesn`t mean he has the power to decide which country enters, or does not enter, the EU.
Perhaps we could suggest that he takes down their border with Mexico!
Formal accession negotiations with Turkey have been going on since 2005 but have run into difficulties over their human rights record, it`s long running feud with Cypres and complaints about little progress towards meeting the complex EU membership criteria.
Turkey is a country of approx. 80million people, a large number of who, no doubt, would see a move to the west ( ie., the UK! ) as a no brainer.
Does anyone seriously think this move would benefit us. ( apart from Sid of course! )
Guest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
#8
I totally support Sid on this one and would point out that there is already a thriving economy between Turkey and the EU.Germany's strong economy is based upon a strong Turkish presence in it's population actively encouraged post WWII by the German government,some 20% of Berlins population is Turkish. The Turkish economy is bouyant and is wide ranging and would be an asset to the EU and unlike the last entrants would not require economic aid upon admission. To suggest that Turkey would become the back door entry for untold illegal muslims is beyond belief and is the desperate refuge of the ill informed.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#9
One question: Would the eastern e.u. states effectively open their borders to Turkish citizens? I doubt it! Only us and some others!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
I am not in favour of Turkey joining, but then I want out as well.
What is important if they join is to take advantage of transitional arrangements over immigration and not to have the open door that Labour had with the Eastern Europeans.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#11
greece will raise the issue of the occupation of northern cyprus.
i cannot see turkey joining anytime soon.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
#12
Interesting, I never even mentioned the word 'Muslim' in my post. Illegal migration networks are not defined by religious beliefs, which I would have thought pretty obvious. There may well be benefits of Turkey joining the EU, but there is an element of risk too - the routes via Kurdistan have been for many years a major route for illegal migration into Europe. I'm rather shocked to read that some here are unaware of them or wish to disregard the issue.
On another note, how does the issue of Cyprus fit into the picture?
#13
Ken, are you actually saying that we won`t be affected immigration wise by Turkey`s possible admission to the EU? I seem to remember that Labour`s track record on immigration numbers and statistics was always an absolute farce. You`re not by any chance using their old formula are you?!
Barry is right in saying that the only way to avoid our usual "open door" policy is to ensure that certain limits are in place prior to admission.
You are correct, however, in stating that there is already a strong Turkish presence in Germany. I`m not so sure though that this is seen as a good thing by the majority of Germans coupled with the fact that Angela Merkel is critical of their entry into the EU.
Guest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
#14
There are some very valid points raised by everyone and especially the issue of Cyprus and the willingness of DC to ensure we are not swamped by those seeking to avail themselves of our benefit system. There is already a thriving Turkish community within the UK as there is a similar UK one within Turkey and each appears to have intergrated well with the other.
Apologies to Phil,you did not mention muslims and you are right to highlight the pathway through Kurdistan as the major route for illegal immigration and as such we the UK must be extra vigilant in our efforts to thwart it although reducing the Border Agency does not appear to support this.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#15
I don't want to make an inappropriate statement here, but I think that eastern e.u. states already assured themselves that everything would be one-sided! By having a much lower average income than western e.u. states, they practically assured themselves that no-one from the Wst would go th them to find work (I'm not referring to the odd holiday maker or well to-do banker) and that many from the Eas would go to the West to find work.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#16
They also assured themselves against immigration from non e.u. states, as there is no presence of such immigration in eastern e.u. Somehow, the Tories-Libs, as new Labour before them, never brought the topic of natioanl average salaries in the e.u. up. nor the total indisposition (no entry) policy of e.u. states to non e.u. citizens.
The massive difference in antional avarege wage between eastern e.u.states and western ones accounts for many factories closing down in the West and re-opening in the East (of Europe), as production is much cheaper that way, and the same products that the West once produced are niw imported. It's clearly all to the personal advantage of the money-counting factory owners in the West who crossed over,
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#17
These in fact count their personal gains in money, and don't count the unemployed in Western Europe and Bitain left redundant, northe unemployed who leave school and can't find a job as the factories are gone, or full of workers from the East, who, although earning a minimum wage here, are earning the equivalent to a high wage in the East of Europe.
Hence, the whole context is based on unfairness and foul play!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#18
Note the referrence to western Europeans being unfairly treated; the UKIP is Europe-friendly and strives for fair-play and fair commerce and a fair chance for citizens in their own Country. It has nought to do with little Englanders.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#19
post 16 refers to no-entry policy of EASTERN e.u. states to non e.u. citizens. de facto, albeit unofficial!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#20
The financial beneficiaries of this policy of different national avarage salaries in the e.u. are of-course not the average people, but people who have gains to make in their wallet!
Well, that I suppose will earn me a rebuke! I'm taking cover!
