Redstate

Lest there be any doubt as to Turkey's active participation in the Armenian Holocaust...I would highly recommend the following text:

The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response by Peter Balakian.  

Be forewarned...the images (textual and literal) are graphic...and convincing.

As for the NY Times, "in 1915 alone, the New York Times published 145 articles about the Armenian Genocide"...and that paper has the audacity to publish a headline stating >500million Turks were killed by Armenians!  Oh, I forgot...they don't do research.  

Whether social and economic integration with Europe is in the best long-term interest of Europe and Turkey?  As well as whether the conditions of EU membership will lead to continued (positive) changes in the structure of Turkey's government and society.  (At least the former has been trending to the positive; I don't have enough information on the latter.)

If we truly believe in fostering moderate Moslem states, we must actually foster moderate Moslem states.  That means support for a government in Iraq that (to be sure) is not (and will not be) in accord with American vales; support for a new government in Lebanon, even if it includes Hizbollah (as it surely will, else there'll be another civil war); and support for Turkey, even though they have yet to fully come to terms with their 1915 genocide against the Armenians.

A couple things:

1.  500 million?  You mean 500,000.
   
2. A headline saying "Turkey Claims X Happened" is different from a headline saying "X Happened."  

....is surely not a sine qua non of "fostering moderate Muslim states."  While I agree that the carrot of EU membership has led to some improvement in the Turkish condition, it does not follow from this that Turkey is or ever will be a society on par with those of Europe.  The social values of the Anatolian hinterland are alien and cruel; if the Europeans wish to pretend these people are as one of their own, Godspeed -- or Allahspeed -- to them.

For my part, I find the idea of a Europe divorced from its foundation as historical Christendom to be a bitter joke.

....that some claims don't deserve an airing.  One might as well say, "Scholar claims Holocaust didn't happen."  Factually true, of course, but really....

If a national government (say, Turkey) issued a statement claiming the Holocaust didn't happen, that would be news.  

If you think the Times should have been more critical of the Turkish claim, that's one thing.  Saying they shouldn't publish the story is another. And automatically equating (as opriest seems to) the reporting of a claim with support for that claim is inaccurate.

....issues equivalent statements vis a vis the Armenian genocide all the time, and has for decades.  How this is morally different from Holocaust denial, I have no idea.

In such extreme cases, merely airing the claims constitutes tacit, if unintentional, support.  Imagine, if you will, a "serious" news piece examining the contention that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were merely delousing facilities.

Aren't the real issues whether social and economic integration with Europe is in the best long-term interest of Europe and Turkey?

Even if the answer to this question is Yes, it still does not penetrate to the deeper question -- the one which I believe Mr. Trevino was really getting at. That is the question: What is the long-term interest of Europe and of Turkey?

Obviously the role of Americans in determining the answer to this question is quite limited, but if the "long-term interest" of Europe includes a calculated amputation of all that is truly Christian from her heritage, history, politics, culture and most of all her imagination, then in fact there is no long-term interest for Europe at all, for she is dead.

to become and remain a steadfast NATO partner during the Cold War - when it counted. It was okay for Turkey to be represented in those hallowed halls in Brussels, Mons and Naples - so long as our part-time fair-weather erstwhile allies (French and Greeks) didn't succumb to vapours.  Turkey was (and remains) the only Islamic country in that organization.

Turks represent a significant fraction of the modern German population, and we all are aware of the increasing ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims throughout Europe.

If the so-called Armenian genocide is to be employed as a lever against Turkey's entry into the EU, one might ask why that country would wish to become a member of an effete organization whose countries (going back a little farther) forcibly suppressed and colonized most of the world (including all of Turkey's ME neighbors), participated in the Crusades, committed the pogroms of the Inquisition - then later - the Holocaust.

Essentially, there isn't a major country in Europe that should turn its back upon Turkish membership into the EU on the basis of that country's history; not with their individual and collective history of barbarism around the world (and at home).

The real reason for Euroreluctance to admit Turkey into 'the Club' is as ugly as it is plain to see: Ethnic arrogance and religious bigotry.

Personally, it matters little or nothing to me what the Euros decide for themselves, or about the Turks; it's just that the odor of hypocrisy fills my nostrils and the taste of faux elitism sticks in my throat.

We should always value the Turkish contribution to the defense of NATO's southeastern flank -- to say nothing of the valiant Turkish defense of Korea in that war.  Similarly, we should always appreciate what the Red Army did in tearing the guts out of the Wehrmacht.  Doesn't mean Soviet nor Turk gets a seat at the councils of the West, does it?  Doesn't mean we pretend their culture is ours, and their history ours, does it?  Doesn't mean we share the same basic values, does it?  One imagines stout allies autocratic Russia and liberalizing Britain, forcibly uniting in 1815 on the basis of resounding success in military alliance.  Such things are valuable mostly in themselves.

Let us not forget that even as the Turks were steadfast NATO members, they were also constantly threatening war with fellow NATO member Greece, and even de facto went to war with that NATO member in its 1974 invasion and partition of Cyprus.

Turks represent a significant fraction of the modern German population, and we all are aware of the increasing ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims throughout Europe.

This begs the question as to why we would ever encourage this trend.

If the so-called Armenian genocide....

Indeed, Yahuti -- just like the so-called Jewish Holocaust.  The so-called Tutsi genocide.  The so-called Soviet slave camps.  See?  I can be reprehensibly ignorant too.  Only with me, it's pretend.

Essentially, there isn't a major country in Europe that should turn its back upon Turkish membership into the EU on the basis of that country's history; not with their individual and collective history of barbarism around the world (and at home).

You miss the point: what matters is not the history per se, but how the perpetrator deals with it.

The real reason for Euroreluctance to admit Turkey into 'the Club' is as ugly as it is plain to see: Ethnic arrogance and religious bigotry.

Absurd, really.  If the desire to maintain a collective identity and shared values is "ethnic arrogance and religious bigotry," then the concept of the nation -- including that for which you and I both served in uniform -- means nothing at all.

....is surely not a sine qua non of "fostering moderate Muslim states."

So far as it goes, this is a true statement.  But it elides the point in debate:  viz., that admitting Turkey into the EU -- assuming Turkey meets the membership criteria -- will strongly strengthen the hand of Muslim moderates in Turkey (and elsewhere), and seriously weaken the hand of Muslim extremists.  The moderates will have brought home the bacon (so to speak).    

While I agree that the carrot of EU membership has led to some improvement in the Turkish condition, it does not follow from this that Turkey is or ever will be a society on par with those of Europe.

"Some improvement"?  The Turkish government has effected reforms (and strengthened democratic institutions) to a tremendous extent because of the drive to EU membership.  (And this under the leadership of a purportedly Islamist party!)  The Turkish Army has held its hand, and allowed its position to be seriously weakened, also because of the drive to EU membership.  

Again, if Turkey meets the criteria, it should be allowed to join.  To do anything else would be to give the moderates in Turkey the back of the hand.  (As well as being contrary to the economic interests of Europe and our strategic interests in strengthening ties between Turkey and the West.)

As for "on par with [the countries of {Western, presumably} Europe":  Few believed that Ireland would be "on bar with the rest of Europe" in the 70s, and yet it's been a leader.  For that matter, few believed that Japan would achieve the standard of living (or pro-Western approach) that it now has in 1945.  And, for that matter, Poland isn't yet "on par with Europe" -- yet, I'm betting that won't always be the case.

I'll take the my chances with the free market, and the liberalizing effects of free trade; Both have pretty good track records.  

The social values of the Anatolian hinterland are alien and cruel; if the Europeans wish to pretend these people are as one of their own, Godspeed -- or Allahspeed -- to them.

For my part, I find the idea of a Europe divorced from its foundation as historical Christendom to be a bitter joke.

And now we get to the real reason to oppose Turkey's integration into the EU:  The supposed defense of Christendom.  I'm not certain why you believe that Turkey -- which, if admitted, will constitute a fraction of the EU's membership -- will tilt all of Europe to Allah; or why Turkey will be more effective at destroying historical Christendom than, say, the Christians themselves.  Perhaps you can explain.

Obviously the role of Americans in determining the answer to this question is quite limited, but if the "long-term interest" of Europe includes a calculated amputation of all that is truly Christian from her heritage, history, politics, culture and most of all her imagination, then in fact there is no long-term interest for Europe at all, for she is dead.

I continue to fail to see why this argument has so much appeal to you and Josh.  How can bringing Turkey into the EU constitute "a calculated amputation of all that is truly Christian" about Europe's heritage?  Are Europeans so fragile that the addition of a single Moslem state -- a mere fraction of the EU's total population -- must necessarily sound the death knell for Europe and "Christendom"?  Why isn't it more likely that Turkey will be integrated into (and come to share) European ideals?  Or, if integration is indeed impossible (which I do not concede for a moment), that a peaceful coexistence cannot be established?

....admitting Turkey into the EU....will strongly strengthen the hand of Muslim moderates in Turkey (and elsewhere)....

I don't think anyone is contesting the notion that Turkey is a "moderate" Muslim state inasmuch as such a thing exists.  Nor is anyone arguing that denying Turkey EU entry would cause it to slide into full-blown Islamism.  I rather doubt that, frankly.  However, assuming that someone was arguing those points, the questions still remain: First, is it worth dragging down Europe with tens of millions of Muslim Turks simply to save the latter from themselves?  Second, where's the evidence that affluence or movement within liberal societies ipso facto suppresses Islamism?  Have we forgotten that the 9/11 hijackers were middle-class products of Western milieus?

"Some improvement"?

Yes, some improvement.  Get back to me when daughters aren't slaughtered by male family for being human, when Orthodox Christian property ownership is fair and equitable, and when the de facto official Holocaust denial stops.  Oh, and when war rumblings aren't issued at the mention of a "Kurdistan."

The Turkish government has effected reforms (and strengthened democratic institutions) to a tremendous extent because of the drive to EU membership.

All true.  Who is arguing against this?

Again, if Turkey meets the criteria, it should be allowed to join.

Well then -- what happens when South Korea meets the criteria?  Israel meets it now.  How about Morocco?  To quote a fictional great leader, because we can do a thing, it does not follow that we must.

To do anything else would be to give the moderates in Turkey the back of the hand.

False.  There is no significant division in Turkish politics between pro-Western "moderates" and anti-Western "extremists."  The pro-EU consensus is broad and cross-party.  This illusion of spurned moderates, with the implicit specter of a Turkey turning away from modernism, is simply a scare tactic.

As well as being contrary to the economic interests of Europe....

Oh?  There's something economically beneficial in EU membership that an FTA won't cover?  I missed that.

....and our strategic interests in strengthening ties between Turkey and the West.

Again, these ties were never predicated on Turkish EU membership.

Few believed that Ireland would be "on bar with the rest of Europe" in the 70s....

Only economically.  Yet there was never any question that Ireland was a nation of Europe: Christian, liberal, democratic, and with all the history and values to back that up.

I'll take the my chances with the free market....

You, the libertarians and the Marxists all suffer from the delusion that man is primarily an economic animal.

I'm not certain why you believe that Turkey -- which, if admitted, will constitute a fraction of the EU's membership -- will tilt all of Europe to Allah....

All of it?  Not in the short or mid term, no.  Perhaps not even in the coming century.  But in time, the demographics (which, admittedly, are not static things) trend toward that inexorable end.  And it will indeed be an end, of a defense against a 1,400-year old enemy that sought to swamp the Continent time and again.

....or why Turkey will be more effective at destroying historical Christendom than, say, the Christians themselves.

Again, who is arguing this?  Islam grows in Europe because Europeans themselves have abdicated the responsibility for their own defense.  The result seems clear enough:  al Qaeda cells in Germany; Arab insurrectionaries in Belgian cities; extremists in Britain; murder in Dutch streets; seething ghettos in France; bombs on Spanish subways; threats to Italian cathedrals, et al.  The Muslims extant in Europe -- among whom Turks comprise a preponderance, if not the majority -- are already ill-assimilated as a group, and spawn an unusual proportion of alienated fanatics.  To simply open the doors to an entire nation of them is therefore stupefyingly counterintuitive.  Your point is well-taken -- they would be no threat in the presence of an assertive Europe.  But given the lack of one, it makes no sense to eagerly help deal the killing blow.

The question here is one of what Europe is.  In a saner age, this was easy enough to answer: Europe was the land roughly coterminous with the bounds of Western and Eastern Christianity.  There were exceptions -- no one ever argued that the Coptic, Ethiopian, Malabar or Monophysite Christian lands were part of Europe, for example -- but the definition roughly held throughout history.  Beginning with the Enlightenment era, and continuing roughly through the end of the Second World War (or even 1989, depending) Europe also came to signify the area wherein the ideas, if not the practice, of what we came to understand as classical liberalism formed the paradigm for governance and society.  Europe and European heritage, in short, was Christian and free.

None of the above describes the Turkish heritage, which is Muslim and autocratic, and only emerged into something resembling a liberal democracy in the past 15 years or so.  Even the strict geographic definition of Europe doesn't fit Turkey: Since when did Europe encompass the Tigris and Euphrates valleys?  Border on Iran?  And what commonality do the peoples have?  An English village self-organizes along principles of simple democracy: a Turkish village goes along clan lines or accepts an outside-imposed headman.  Upon finding his daughter pregnant out of wedlock, a Dane is apt to find her prenatal care; a Turk may well slit her throat.  A German has largely reconciled the roles of religion and state in their respective spheres; a Turk still wrestles with the question of Islam and its public demands.

For the European Union to accept Turkey is to mock what coherence the idea of Europe ever had.  It becomes merely a customs union and a free-travel zone.  It becomes a bureaucracy unmoored from the heritage that spawned it.  It does not stay "Europe" as Europeans have understood it from the Dark Ages to Churchill.

Why isn't it more likely that Turkey will be integrated into (and come to share) European ideals?

Interesting tacit admission there.  I wonder why you're unwilling to let that happen before calling Turkey "European"?

Or, if integration is indeed impossible (which I do not concede for a moment), that a peaceful coexistence cannot be established?

Who is denying that such a coexistence is impossible?  Why must that coexistence take place within the EU?

First, is it worth dragging down Europe with tens of millions of Muslim Turks simply to save the latter from themselves?

Where is the support for your premise that Europe will be "dragged down" with tens of millions of Muslim Turks over the medium to long term (i.e., five-to-ten years)?  Was it "dragged down" by tens of millions of Poles?

The whole point of economic integration is not to save the less-developed integratee "from itself," but because it also provides benefits to the more developed partner.  Yes, there are costs; however, on net, economic integration works.  Indeed, it's not merely by chance that  the EU has continuously expanded since its inception.

Second, where's the evidence that affluence or movement within liberal societies ipso facto suppresses Islamism?  Have we forgotten that the 9/11 hijackers were middle-class products of Western milieus?

You're confusing the exception with the rule.  9/11 (and 3/11, to a lesser extent) are shocking in part because of their perpetrators.  They do not establish a rule that membership in the middle class causes radicalism. Nor do they imply that the generally-accepted rule -- that membership in the middle class almost always decreases radicalism -- is false (indeed, the contrary, for 9/11 is in many respects the exception that proves the rule).

You, the libertarians and the Marxists all suffer from the delusion that man is primarily an economic animal.

No, I suffer from the "delusion" that man is primarily motivated by self interest.  In general, free markets harness that self interest -- turning selfishness into a public good.  (Note the "in general"; I'm not oblivious to the market's limitations.)

Incidentally, I see no reason why you differentiate between a FTA and the EU in this manner.  If allowing Turkey to take part in a joint European defense is your concern, you should want Turkey kicked out of NATO; yet, you argue the precise opposite.  I presume that you also have no major problem with monetary union.  Thus, what you really must be getting at is the free movement of labor in the EU; because this is a variation of your "demography uber alles" argument, I'll address it below.  

But in time, the demographics (which, admittedly, are not static things) trend toward that inexorable end.  And it will indeed be an end, of a defense against a 1,400-year old enemy that sought to swamp the Continent time and again.

Your extrapolation relies upon the presumption that (among other things) integrating Turkey with Europe will not change Turkey; and, yet, the evidence suggests the opposite.  Indeed, your reliance on the supposition that because Turks maintain partially-segregated communities now, three generations down the line they will do the same is misplaced.  Current reviews suggest that second generation Turks living in current EU countries are far more assimilated than first generation Turks; third generation Turks are more assimilated than second; etc.  Don't confuse a (wholly predictable) moment of cultural conflict with a trend.  So long as the EU continues to function, the EU will change Turkey more than Turkey changes the EU.  

I am out of time at the moment, but will check back and address your points w/r/t terror cells in Germany, et al., at my earliest convenience (which, unfortunately, may not be until tomorrow; an evening of work calls.)

". . . Doesn't mean Soviet nor Turk gets a seat at the councils of the West, does it?  Doesn't mean we pretend their culture is ours, and their history ours, does it?  Doesn't mean we share the same basic values, does it? . . . "

Where is it written in the EU charter that all members must share cultures? Histories? Your so-called 'Basic Values?' Further, Russia hasn't been encouraged to petition for membership in the EU, nor has it been promised membership at some later time. Turkey has. It is not complex:  If the members of the EU do not wish Turkey to have a seat at their councils - they need only say as much - openly and officially.

So far as concerns Turks constantly threatening war with Greece - the wonder is that it hasn't yet occurred on any major scale given the aggravation and incentive provided by the Greeks.

I am unaware that 'we' have been encouraging the Germans in their absorbtion of Turkish culture and migrant populations. I was under the impression that they were accomplishing that task on their own.  Perhaps you are aware of some discrete diplomatic or cultural impetus 'we' have been providing along that line.

Indeed Trevino, the 'reprehensible ignorance' you impute to me on the general topic of 'so-called genocide' is all the less convincing given your admirable option to respond to honest comments with  ad hominem insult. You may have yourself convinced that your affliction is 'pretend' - but your words belie that diagnosis.

". . . You miss the point: what matters is not the history per se, but how the perpetrator deals with it. . ."

Admirable view, really.  But, not just because you make the claim. I would imagine that the manner with which the perpetrator deals with his criminal history might not be similar to that of the victems, who might be less forgiving than others. Either way, the history remains unaffected, and what better metric do we have to anticipate the future? Am I missing this point as well?  Have the Europerps performed some ultra acts of contrition that merit forgiving and forgetting for their crimes far more so than Turkoperps?

You really think it absurd to attribute ethnic considerations and religious bigotry to Euroreluctance in admission of Turkey to the EU. What of this then:  "Doesn't mean we pretend their culture is ours, and their history ours, does it?  Doesn't mean we share the same basic values, does it?"

Perhaps I have a slight advantage in the formulation of my own views on this. I have often attended official functions in Europe where the Turks were discussed - in their absence, of course.  And, I have been a social guest in several nationally diverse European homes when the Turks were discussed - in their absence. All of which brought me to the conclusion that Turks are eschewed ethnically, first, then on the basis of their religion. However, given my reprehensible ignorance on these matters, it is altogether possible I completely misinterpreted my experiences.

Finally, I do not share with you the notion that whatever comes to pass in the formation of the EU is similar to the formation of the United States of America. I do not see a nation forming. Nations already exist there and whatever organization they may amalgamate to form in future - I hardly think I would be willing to equate them to this country for which you and I both served in uniform. Our ancestors built this country from scratch. The Euros are fabricating a supranational organization upon the back of centuries of less than harmonius social and cultural relationships and conflicting national priorities.

if Bosnia and Albania ever get their economic act togetner thety too should be barred from the EU because of their Muslim population?

Turkish ascension to the EU is good.  Not good for the EU, good for the US.  Bad for France and Germany.  The EU keeps tinkering with their voting procedures so that France and Germany can't be outvoted.  The US should quietly aid the UK in removing itself from the EU, and the US should support any accumulation of persons and states that disrupts Franco-German dominance of the EU.  They deserve each other and we should help them find each other.

It is time to replace the 'Atlantic' Alliance with a "Anglophone" alliance- the UK, India, and Australia, should be our primary allies. [we should be sending missionaries to Canada and New Zealand to a) find out what part of the language they don't get or b) teach them all french.]

Re: Even the strict geographic definition of Europe doesn't fit Turkey: Since when did Europe encompass the Tigris and Euphrates valleys?  Border on Iran?

The Roman Empire. Not to mention the Hellenstic kingdoms. What we now call the Middle East was actually split between two civilziations, Greco-Roman on one hand and Psrsian-Mesopotamian on the other, with the Levant, Anatolia and North Africa firmly in the Greco-Roman camp. Historically moreover Anatolia was part and parcel of "Europe" in all but the geographic sense well into the Middle Ages. Even the Ottoman Empire was a sort of bridge civilization between the core of Islam and Christian Europe. Perhaps if the Turks in the 1500s had been defeated by the Mamelukes and Persians (and denied thereby expansion east and south from Anatolia) Turkey might have been a purely European empire. Perhaps the grwoth of Europe back into these historical European regions shoudl be seen not as a threat but as a restoration.

But what may be returning to "these historical European regions" is not Europe in any concrete sense, but merely a rotten leftist bureaucracy in the form of the EU.

Would that a restoration of the historically Christian lands of the Greek East could indeed be consumated! But alas: "Europe" in the form of the EU is a diseased, exhausted hulk of a once-great civilization; there is no strength in it that can stir men's souls; its greatest asset is merely that it holds out the promise of profit.

For the European Union to accept Turkey is to mock what coherence the idea of Europe ever had.  It becomes merely a customs union and a free-travel zone.  It becomes a bureaucracy unmoored from the heritage that spawned it.  It does not stay "Europe" as Europeans have understood it from the Dark Ages to Churchill.

The EU is merely a customs union and a free trade (and travel) zone.  It will become more only if its constituent parts -- parts that may, or may not, include Turkey at some point -- actually become something else.  (Excuse the tautology.)  It's not at all clear that it will happen:  I'm relying on the Economist here, but further integration is reportedly facing stiff resistence across much of the contintent (including France, of all places).

Thus, from my perspective, the major flaw in your and Paul's thinking is the assumption that Turkey's entry into the EU is a referendum on what it means to be European.  It's not.  It's a referendum on whether the customs union, monetary union, and free trade zone should expand.  (The referendum on being part of a military alliance occured much earlier, with the entry of Turkey into NATO.)

Also, the notion of "Europe" itself being a "national" identity is -- contrary to your historical parade -- an extremely recent invention, and not an entirely accepted one.  You seem wrapped up in a kind of identity politics, albeit of the very weird kind, positing some eternal and unique "European" identity that didn't begin to exist until, umm, about twenty years ago.  Viewed for what it was rather than through your new lens of "Europeanism," there was no European identity in the (say) 1800s.  But there were the French, Italians, Germans, English, Poles, and, yes, Turks as well.

von

Again, who is arguing this?  Islam grows in Europe because Europeans themselves have abdicated the responsibility for their own defense.  The result seems clear enough:  al Qaeda cells in Germany; Arab insurrectionaries in Belgian cities; extremists in Britain; murder in Dutch streets; seething ghettos in France; bombs on Spanish subways; threats to Italian cathedrals, et al.

Europeans have "abdicated the responsibility for their own defense"?  They are not attempting to hunt down terror cells?  They're calling for (what, American?) forces to enter into Europe and protect them?  Friend, I need to subscribe to whatever magazines that you get, 'cause nothing in the 'zines I subscribe to -- and nothing in the news and other reports I watch and read -- suggests any of this is remotely the case.

Re: But what may be returning to "these historical European regions" is not Europe in any concrete sense, but merely a rotten leftist bureaucracy in the form of the EU.

Europe is Europe regardless of who is charge of the place. Governments are ephemeral phenomena when measured across the lifespan of civilizations, and the objections to Turkey's membership in the EU are largely cultural not political.

Re: But alas: "Europe" in the form of the EU is a diseased, exhausted hulk of a once-great civilization

Hyperbole, Paul. The fact that some European countries have some left of center governments does not mean the place is hopeless, any more than the fact there were some absolute blithering idiots (the Spanish Hapsburgs, the late French Bourbons, some of the Stuarts of England, the late Romanovs...)  sitting on thrones a couple hundred years ago meant the doom of European civilization then.

Re: its greatest asset is merely that it holds out the promise of profit.

You know, that has been a standard criticism (often by the Europeans themselves!) of the United States since the days of the Founders, that ours is a culture obsessed with money and profit to the detriment of higher matters. For that matter I recall Napoleon sneering at Britain as a "nation of shopkeepers".

dude, I know its fashionable to be Indophilic nowadays, but please dont drag my mother country into these European squabbles.

Besides, the Gujrat pogram would likely disqualify India from any seat "in the councils of the West", under Josh's criteria, so its kinda a moot point.

I don't even understand why Europeans want to be part of teh EU, so It's difficult for me to get lathered about Turkey's admission either way. However, as a rule, I think Americans have about as much right in telling the EU who they should and shoudln't admit to their union as they do in ours.

....as I'm otherwise tied down:

The EU is merely a customs union and a free trade (and travel) zone.

Very wrong, this.  It's explicitly a vehicle for much more.

Very wrong, this.  It's explicitly a vehicle for much more.

I think that you'll find a range of opinions across the continent as to whether it truly is a "vehicle for much more."  Europe does not entirely consist of the EU-as-nation-state camp; indeed, even a majority of the French (depending on how the questioned is posed) are not in the EU-as-nation-state camp.  

Your argument-by-reference-to-the-extremes is a bit like arguing that Pat Robertson speaks for all Republicans, or represents the "Republican view".  In fact, there are many "Republican views" (as well as other, non-Republican views; returning to the case of the EU, the Euroskeptic view).

Hope your day goes well.

Trevino, I'm not sure what your argument is here. Turkey can't join the EU until they atone for their massacre of Armenians? Or is it because Turkey murdered millions of Armenians early in the 20th Century and have not yet atoned for it, they do not share Western European values necessary for integration into the EU?

I can assure you that Turkey will not join the EU in the next decade, or probably not even in the next two decades. Turkey will not join the EU until it completely divorces the military from political decisionmaking, abolishes the death penalty outright, guarantees equal rights for women, and adopts a whole host of other liberal reforms from the European acquis communitaire. That could take some time, and in fact, the effort could prove to make Turkey a less moderate Muslim nation, if the current 80-90% of the population who favor EU accession ASAP change their mind when challenged on some of their less enlightened traditions.

Well then -- what happens when South Korea meets the criteria?  Israel meets it now.  How about Morocco?  To quote a fictional great leader, because we can do a thing, it does not follow that we must.

Funny you should mention Morocco. Morocco sent a letter to Brussels accompanying an application to join the EU (in the Eighties, I believe.) The application was returned, unopened.

The laws governing accession to the EU specifically state that countries seeking membership must hold territory inside the geographical continent of Europe. Turkey has an in under that arrangement. So too, potentially, does Russia. Neither Israel, nor South Korea, nor Morocco will ever be part of the European Union.

Repent brother, assimilate or die!

Europe has no oceans to protect her, therefore they pursue a more nuanced approach.

 It's indeed more than a customs union and free trade zone - it's also a single market, which requires the free movement of capital and labor between all participating countries. For instance, not only can Germany not enact a tariff in order to protect its thriving lawnmower industry from competing lawnmower makers, they can't pass a law restricting lawnmowers above a certain decibel level which the main German lawnmower producer happens to have.

This is where the political engine comes from. If Germany has some legitimate concern about lawnmower decibel level, it can address it at the EU level. More likely, the lawnmower industry of another EU country would complain about different restrictions in different countries, and the EU Commission would propose legislation to remove the barrier.

Try reading Tony Judt's "A Grand Illusion?" about the history of the EU and its future sometime.

A-woogie woo! A woo woo?

Oh, goo goo!

(Isn't this the most adorable baby troll ever, kids?)