Further alignment than currently planned would create new issues around steel, cars, genetically modified crops and other substantive issues, diplomats said.
Makes sense. Von der Leyen seems to have come up with “associate membership” on her own with Carney. From an internal EU point of view, it is meaningless , there are no treaties defining it, so at this point it can mean nothing and anything. It also explicitly creates a multi-speed EU which is a controversial idea to being with, and is the clearest indicator that Von der Leyen just wished it half-baked into existence: they don’t seem to have thought through what it means beyond Canada. Does Morocco become eligible for associate membership? Turkey?? What about the UK???
Trump just threatened to tariff and cut trade with all of the EU. Here’s to hoping she can back her words with some spine. But knowing her, I don’t think so, sadly.
She didn’t just come up with it on the spot. It was leaked in advance of her delivering it, so it was clearly language selected with intent and then preserved with intent even after having been leaked and causing some controversy. What the intent is, we still don’t know for sure, but it’s obviously something carefully prepped even if it is not yet fully baked.
I didn’t mean to say she improvised it on the spot. Just that what she said is not something that the EU actual movers and shakers (the member states leaders) have discussed and agreed upon. It comes from the Commission presidency, nothing more. It does shape public discourse of course and creates a “fait accompli” (the phrase is now out of the bag), but it can go down in history as “that thing Ursula said”.
They did? Understandable. I never really understood the problem but I always had an intuition it would be something regarding the constant friction with Greece.
It’s complicated. Greece has historically actually been a huge proponent of Turkey’s EU accession as a way of what we see as “taming” Turkish aggression and border-revisionism. That is still in some ways the official Greek position, although with Erdogan it looks ridiculously fantastical and instead our oligarchy is delusional enough to think that allying itself with Apartheid Israel against Turkey is a good long term strategy.
In Sarah Paine’s maritime-vs-continental power, Greece has been trying to play the game of maritime power logic, i.e., prosperity through rules, whereas Turkey has been following more a continental power logic, that focuses on control of territory. So, the Greek strategy of engaging Turkey through the “web of rules” framework of the EU makes sense. There are however two wrinkles:
The Greek oligarchy has decided that hydrocarbons in the Aegean is going to be a source of wealth for them. So they also want to play the Turkish game of territory control. Turkey has escalated with the Blue Homeland doctrine.
In the short window of the early 2000s when Greece and Turkey were best buds, they decided to push for solving the Cyprus dispute in the EU. It led to the Annan Plan, and then Greek-Cypriot nationalists shit the bed.
But, frankly, the biggest actual opposition to Turkey’s candidacy has always come from prissy Western Europeans who pearl clutch about a Muslim country becoming an EU member. And this became a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I remember reading an article many years ago, with the then very liberal turkish prime minister, where it was stated turkish people spent more time at the cafe than at the mosque and how the belief was more cultural than religious.
Turkey will never be admitted to the EU so long as it continues to illegally occupy 1/3 of Cyprus. Cyprus will never vote to admit them until Turkey leaves.
And given Turkey’s strategy of giving houses and land to uneducated and virtually skill-less peasants from the Anatolian highland, reintegration may never be possible anymore.
Makes sense. Von der Leyen seems to have come up with “associate membership” on her own with Carney. From an internal EU point of view, it is meaningless , there are no treaties defining it, so at this point it can mean nothing and anything. It also explicitly creates a multi-speed EU which is a controversial idea to being with, and is the clearest indicator that Von der Leyen just wished it half-baked into existence: they don’t seem to have thought through what it means beyond Canada. Does Morocco become eligible for associate membership? Turkey?? What about the UK???
I guess she just wanted to send a message, especially to Trump.
Trump just threatened to tariff and cut trade with all of the EU. Here’s to hoping she can back her words with some spine. But knowing her, I don’t think so, sadly.
She didn’t just come up with it on the spot. It was leaked in advance of her delivering it, so it was clearly language selected with intent and then preserved with intent even after having been leaked and causing some controversy. What the intent is, we still don’t know for sure, but it’s obviously something carefully prepped even if it is not yet fully baked.
I didn’t mean to say she improvised it on the spot. Just that what she said is not something that the EU actual movers and shakers (the member states leaders) have discussed and agreed upon. It comes from the Commission presidency, nothing more. It does shape public discourse of course and creates a “fait accompli” (the phrase is now out of the bag), but it can go down in history as “that thing Ursula said”.
Turkey has been waiting to joint for nearly 30 years, I think.
And the UK… Oh, the UK.
Turkey waited so long they gave up. But History is not over.
They did? Understandable. I never really understood the problem but I always had an intuition it would be something regarding the constant friction with Greece.
It’s complicated. Greece has historically actually been a huge proponent of Turkey’s EU accession as a way of what we see as “taming” Turkish aggression and border-revisionism. That is still in some ways the official Greek position, although with Erdogan it looks ridiculously fantastical and instead our oligarchy is delusional enough to think that allying itself with Apartheid Israel against Turkey is a good long term strategy.
In Sarah Paine’s maritime-vs-continental power, Greece has been trying to play the game of maritime power logic, i.e., prosperity through rules, whereas Turkey has been following more a continental power logic, that focuses on control of territory. So, the Greek strategy of engaging Turkey through the “web of rules” framework of the EU makes sense. There are however two wrinkles:
But, frankly, the biggest actual opposition to Turkey’s candidacy has always come from prissy Western Europeans who pearl clutch about a Muslim country becoming an EU member. And this became a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I remember reading an article many years ago, with the then very liberal turkish prime minister, where it was stated turkish people spent more time at the cafe than at the mosque and how the belief was more cultural than religious.
Times long past.
Once Cyprus joined the EU all hope for admitting Turkey was utterly and completely lost.
Turkey will never be admitted to the EU so long as it continues to illegally occupy 1/3 of Cyprus. Cyprus will never vote to admit them until Turkey leaves.
And given Turkey’s strategy of giving houses and land to uneducated and virtually skill-less peasants from the Anatolian highland, reintegration may never be possible anymore.