There is a limit to the number of countries that can be added and that is the number of countries on the European continent. There is a reason why Morocco applied for membership and was denied. We also see Turkey being postponed indefinitely and I'm sure it's for similar reasons as with Morocco.
By 2050 an estimated 80% - 85% of the world GDP will be in Asia. That means the United States and Europe combined will make up some 10% at best. Now where exactly do you see France's or Germany's place as a self-governing country in a world like this? Where? France, Germany, Italy, UK would be to them like Monaco or Andorra is now to France. See the logic now? Look at Russia... In such a hurry to grab territorial assets while it still can and I don't blame her for that. In this world, in order to survive, you need to be big. If you are left out as a small state you will always have lots of inconvenient terms to accept from larger states who handle the world economy. Russia is already big but decided to take advantage of the small states that it once had, before they are taken by the EU.
Something like 3% of Turkey is on the European land and even that was grabbed by the Ottomans from the Bulgarians in the 1800s. By all definitions, Turkey has nothing to do with Europe any more than Saudi Arabia or Irak has.
Right, but how can you delimite Europe?... There's a part of Turkey which is in Europe an a lot of the population of the country is in this little part, and, there's a part of Spain very near to Morocco, etc, etc... The countries who want to come in UE can easly say that they are Europeans, even if it's not really true! I don't think that we must include all the European countries - it's as if we wanted to creat an union with all the Asians or the Africans countries - they are all very differents, you can't put every countries of a same continent together, it can't walk!
It's easy to tell the difference between Europe and non-Europe. European nations are nations founded on principles of the following 3: Christianity, Greek culture (especially Greek philosophy), Roman culture (especially Roman law). These 3 are the basis for every single European nation as well as nations that derived from it like USA or Australia. Turkey meets none of the 3.
Very far to be easy: for Christiany, as exemple, you've got some minority in a lot of countries who have this religion; in Egypt, there's the Coptes, for exemple. And, there's also countries where there's majority of Christian and minority of other religion; you've also got some countries where there's a lot of religions and ethnics groups mixed... It's hard to said that a country is Christian or not! For Greek and Roman culture, a lot of Arabs countries have been influenced by this too. And, there's some European countries wich have been less influenced by that than other; a country as Norway have been less influenced by that than a country as Italy, for exemple. So, there's country who are more or less European, so, you can't delimite the continent.
I don´t think so, 3% european land in Turkey was grabbed in 1800s", in fact, Greece was taken in XIV-XV century, Istambul in 1453, Balkan between XIV to XVI/XVII century.. Turkish conquested what nowadays is Budapest (Buda, Pest, Obuda) and arrived to Wien, Poland, Ukrainia... So, Turkey or it´s better to say The Great Turk or the Sublime Porte.... was very very important in history of Europe (more than countries like X)... I´m according with you about Europe basis: Christianity, Greek philosophy, Jewish moral and Romanization.. I think Turkey has been very important in European history... Regards
The traditional religion of the majority that built and shaped a nation is what's taken into account not the minorities otherwise it would not be fair. Nevertheless most minorities in Europe are also Christian. But the point I'm trying to make is that Christianity in different forms has been the traditional religion of Europe since antiquity while in the case of Egypt it was not. You can't call Egypt a Christian culture... that's just senseless. One Christian minority does not make the country Christian. Yes, they have been, but they didn't keep any of it. They actually resented western (Latin and Greek) culture. But you can't put it that way. The Romans have influenced most of the Western parts of the known world. What remained AFTER it collapsed, that's what makes the point. As soon as the Roman Empire fell apart under different northern/Germanic tribes, its laws and ways of life remained an idealistic model for the populations of Europe. Ever since that moment, the northern tribes tried to emulate the values and civilization of the Roman Empire all the time through the Middle Ages. The Germanic tribes which were in the center of Europe and were very influential were especially fond of the lost Roman culture ever since its decline and how quickly this attitude spread through the rest of Europe is anyone's guess. Most trade went through them since they were Central. Remember that Europe is actually a small strip of land and that up until the 1800s there were no borders and people could roam freely across it. The Norwegians are only 5 million people and they are heavily mixed with the rest of Northern Europe. They are no exception. The Mediterranean, the Black sea and the Marmara Sea are what made the difference and we can still see that today. By the time Mohamed arrived and Islam was invented, the Europeans were already worshiping Jesus as an ancient prophet. The fact that certain countries felt a deep obligation to preserve their Christian identity (like Greece, Bulgaria, Romania) while others did not (like Egypt or Morocco) is the ultimate proof of a well crystaliezd continental Christian entity clearly delimited by the above mentioned seas.
By the time the Turks arrived the Greek Empire (Byzantine Empire) had a European culture that went back 2000-3000 years. By that time European culture and Christian Culture was well crystalized in South-Eastern Europe to say the least. The Turks only came to destroy everything. And they did pretty much. Turkey did play an important role in European culture... in destroying it. Greece and Eastern Europe are now only a faint shadow of what it could have been if it wasn't for them!
Well, maybe yes or not. The "turkish" were from many places: greek, albanian, romanian, servian, italian, croatian, bulgarian, macedonian, ukrainian, hungarian were "turk".. admirals, generals, rulers,politicals , Sultans... were from Balkan. Regardas
Maybe you? I'm afraid you haven´t read so much about the Ottoman Empire, have you?. The Empire was formed by people of many ethnicities (and Europeans were very important in the empire: generals, politicians, admirals, governors, Bej, Pacha etc, etc) For example: in 37 Sultans: 31 their mothers weren´t Turkish... (87,78%): 10 sultans´mothers were Greek: Murad I, Bayezid I, Selim I, Suleiman I, Ahmed I, Osman II, Murad IV, Ibrahim I, Mustafa II and Mahmud I (their mothers were´t turkish but greek, 4 Georgian : Selim III, Abdulmecid I, Murad V and Mehmed V, 3 French:Mustafa III, Abdul Hamid I and Mahmud III (their mothers were French women like Edith Piaf)... 2 Abkhazian (Mustafa I and Mehmed VI), 2 Bulgarian : Ahmed III and Mustafa IV, 2 Italian : Murad III and Mehmed III, 2 Serbian: Suleiman II and Osman II, 2 Ukrainian or if you prefer: Little Russian or Ruthenian: Selim II and Mehmed IV, and, finaly, with one mother we can see: Bayezid II´s mother was Albanian , Abdulhamid II´s one was Circasian, Ahmed II´s mother was from Poland and, finally, the Abdulaziz I´s mother was Romanian from Wallachia... How do you say the Great Turk was "turk" by father and mother lines? Also if you like, I can give many origins from Generals, soldiers, rulers, Bey, Pacha, Baja, Visir, admirals, privateers etc etc were italian, french, german, austrian, polish, ukrainian, romanian, croatian, serbian, hungarian, macedonian, albanian, greek, bulgarian, bosnian etc etc and they were "turks" in the Ottoman Empire... only you say than the Ottoman Empire lack of European governors, chairmans, admirals etc etc... Do you want the name of few "turkish" generals born italian? Ottoman Empire was European and had many European working for that Empire.
The Ottomans used to kidnap children from everywhere, turn them Muslim and have them working for them as warriors as well as hire lots of talented mercenaries and talented commanders from across the world with the immense fortunes they looted. A lot of European genes made it into Turkey indeed but that's about where it all stops. They resented Christianity, anything resembling Roman law was alien to them and same goes for the Greek principles that they set out to destroy from the very moment they arrived in Anatolia. In other words they meet none of the 3 requirements for being European. Ever heard of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan? That's where Ottomans are from. But the more modern Turks are actually a mix of countless ethnicities. They did bring people from Europe indeed but they did exactly the same with Africa, the Arab Peninsula, Iran, Pakistan, Irak etc, I think even Mongolia, India and China, is that correct? In other words they don't quite have a clear identity, let alone a European identity. They never wanted to either. One Muslim world was all they really wanted. They would have turned all of the world Muslim if they could. But they couldn't go past Vienna.
Yes, Im according with you now.. Ottomans aren´t european, but not asian or african... Ottoman are mixed people, mostly asian and european. By the way, not only heard, but I´ve been in all the former Soviet Union´s Republics... I´ve been in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenista, Kyrgysztan, Tajikistan etc etc...Turks are related to the Tartars, Mongols, Hungarians, Bulgarians et. In fact hungarian and turkish can understand to each other in their respective languages. The only reason because Hungarians and bulgarians are europeans and not the turkish is because the former are christian and latter are islamic. Regards
