Tuesday, 9 March 2010

The Policies of Britain's Political Parties on Turkish EU Accession

This week a debate-cum-discussion took place at Chatham House, featuring those in charge of foreign policy in each of Britain's three major political parties. If you're so inclined, you can read the full transcript of the debate, or even watch video of it here.

The topic of Turkey's potential EU accession came up. So let's see what passes for vigorous debate in Britain's pseudo-democracy.

First up was David Milliband, potentially the next Labour leader and Britain's current foreign secretary.

"On, I think, Turkey, I'm glad you called it; you said it should be in the list of rising powers. I think it is remarkable that in this country we have three political parties supporting the position of Turkish entry into the European Union. I think it's a very, very significant, I think it's the only country in Europe that's got that degree of consistency. I wouldn't want to be held to it, but I
think it's very, very important. There is a massive debate going on within Turkey, as well as within the EU, and it think they're two sides of the same coin, really. I am very, very clear that for reasons of energy, never mind for bridge-building with the Islamic world, the relationship of the EU to Turkey is of major geo-strategic importance over the next 20 years, and it's absolutely
clear that if we turn the European Union to effectively a sort of Christian club, where you can't come in because you're a country of 80 million Muslims, that is a terrible message to send, but in substantive terms, we're absolutely shooting ourselves in the foot on the energy front."

On to William Hague, the Conservative shadow foreign secretary:

"...I won't labour the point about Turkey. There is cross-party agreement I think for us to turn Turkey away from the EU would be catastrophic strategic error for European nations, but we are in agreement about that..."

Last and least was Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat shadow foreign secretary:

"On Turkey I think there's agreement. I'd just go further. The significance or strategic significance of Turkey, given that it borders Syria, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, Georgia, I think, I'm not sure if my map’s right. But it's a huge player there."
[Note: in case you think I'm making this up as a joke, I'm not.]

He goes on:
"But on that basis in terms of energy issues facing the EU, in terms of drug trafficking, a whole range of issues, Turkey is absolutely critical to. And I think we've got to talk to our other European partners, who are worried possibly in times of recession, about the issues of mobility of labour across the EU. Let's, we've got to face up to these issues. Truth is the European Union will
be stronger with Turkey there. Our economies will be more prosperous."

How will our economies be more prosperous? What the hell does he mean? Does this fool even know that Turkey already has full free trade with the EU as if it was already a member state? There is no conceivable way that Turkey's admission to the EU could make the EU more prosperous.

Davey continues:
"We've got to have a more grown up debate about immigration within the European Union, because it's a real strength, and Britain I think could be a real strong voice in that area."

Immigration is a real strength? This guy is still living in the multicultural Marxist dreamworld of 30 years ago. It is frightening how out of touch these "elite" politicos are with ordinary people.

According to a recent survey, 69% of the British population think immigration has had a detrimental effect on society. 54 per cent said immigration would be the main issue in the upcoming election or the one that would decide the way they voted.

But that doesn't matter in the Soviet Republic of Britain does it? There is overwhelming public opposition to immigration, especially the immigration of Muslims. But there is cross-party consensus in favour of it. There is overwhelming public opposition to the admission of Turkey into the EU. But there is cross-party consensus in favour of it. In Britain democracy is like a wrestling match, a contrived combat spectacle among people who pretend to be fierce rivals but, in reality, go out to the pub together after the lights are off and the punters are gone.

No comments:

Post a Comment