The Main Arguments for and against Turkey's entry to the EU Essay

The Main Arguments for and against Turkey's entry to the EU - Essay Example Since 1959, when Turkey sent in its application to join the European Union (then known as the European Economic Community), Europe has been pondering over the fact whether a primarily Islamic nation lying mostly outside European geographic borders can really be made a part of the Union. While Turkey and EU have a common past of contractual relationship for many years, which led to the negotiations for accession in 2005, the former has always been perceived as an outsider, with whom Europe established relationships primarily for security reasons. The decision to start official talks on Turkey’s EU membership was made on 16 December 2004, while the accession negotiations started on 3 October 2005. This met with a hurdle, when Austria and Germany asked for permissions to allow ‘privileged partnership’ for Turkey without actually making it a full member. With other member states not agreeing to this clause, accession negotiations started, aimed at a full membership. H owever, negotiations have been adjourned on many instances since 2006, primarily due to objections raised by Cyprus, which is against Turkey’s accession to the EU membership (Barber, 2009). This is owing to the fact that currently the island of Cyprus is divided, wherein the Turkish troops have occupied its northern part and its ships are denied entry into Turkish ports. Austria and France have also declared their intention of holding a referendum on Turkey's EU membership. Currently, out of 35 accession chapters eight have been adjourned, which has effectively interrupted the membership negotiations. Owing to this, there has been a sharp fall in pro-EU support amongst the Turks, where a majority believe the accession process is biased and close-ended (Sayfa, 2013). A closer study reveals that majority of the EU member states never considered the EU-Turkey relationship as an essential part of the EU integration. Even after nearly five decades of EU’s relationship with Turkey, the perspective did not change, on the other hand the feeling of alienation increased on both sides (Cendrowicz, 2009). While a majority of the Europeans viewed Turkey as an outsider, the Turks felt that Europe as a political entity cannot be trusted, especially after the Treaty of Sevres post WWI, and furthermore after viewing unwillingness on part of the EU to assist Turkey once the accession negotiations started. In this context, the essay analyses the highly controversial issue of Turkey’s integration into the EU, and highlights the main arguments for and against Turkey's entry to the Union. Discussion Hurdles to the EU accession based on legal principles There were six member states that created the European Community for Coal and Steel (primarily states from Western Europe) in 1952, later known as the European Economic Community or EEC (1957), and which is now referred to as the EU. The preamble of the EEC treaty stated very clearly that this treaty aimed at cre ating a close union among the European people. In the same treaty, Article 237 stated that all European states are eligible to become a part of this Community. This article has since them become the foundation for integration, and is an essential aspect in the political and legal basis of the EU and the Union’s policy to unite Europe. This aspect has been reiterated in the 1993 Maastricht Treaty and had been considered in the proposal for 2004 drafting of the treaty for the Constitution for Europe, ratified by all EU member states. This treaty states in Article I-58 that all European states are free to enter the Union. Thus, here the main emphasis has always been on ‘European states,’ and all contractual provisions become a part of the common law framed by the different European treaties, binding

Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Ethics - Essay Example This is particularly true when it comes to fellow professionals or protecting the reputation of our particular field. While â€Å"whistleblowers† are praised for their courage and integrity, the personal cost of â€Å"doing the right thing† can mean death to a career. Such behavior can also seriously affect the career of fellow professionals. A good example of the problems involved in balancing ones duty to fellow professionals and doing the right thing when one sees something wrong is clearly laid out by Michael Davis in Thinking Like an Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession. Davis outlines events leading up to the now infamous Challenger disaster brought on by certain engineering decisions regarding the questionable safety of ORings (4 Codes and Ethics of the Challenger, p 43-44). In reading the account the â€Å"blame† seems to fall upon one man, Robert Lund, vice president of engineering at Morton Thiokol, manufacturer of faulty ORings which were blamed for the tragedy. A team of engineers had recommended the flight be scraped, but Lund, with pressure from various people at the Space Center, was persuaded to allow the project to go forward. Space Center officials were â€Å"appalled at the evidence on which the no-launch recommendation was based.† (p44). Lund was in a professional bind. Should he take the advice of fellow engineers at Thiokol, or go with the recommendation of officials at the Space Center most of them engineers, to go forward. There was a lot of money at stake for Thiokol, and Lund knew it. The reputations of engineers were also at stake. He had to choose between duty to fellow professionals and pressure from outsiders to â€Å"think like a manager.† (p44) He chose the latter to disastrous results. It is easy as a professional to judge Lund’s decision in hindsight. Should he have blown the whistle then? Did he even think it necessary?