A Few Words On Turkey

My negative attitude to the Lisbon Treaty is connected with the issue of Turkey's possible accession, but not in the obvious way.

There are quite a few good reasons to be opposed to, or at least very sceptical of, the accession of Turkey to the EU. I am not going to discuss them, or even the very persuasive arguments from the other side, in this article. I explain why below.

Like Ireland's "bail-out" for its banks, or its cutting of public sector pay, Turkey's accession may just be "one of those things" that have to be accepted (albeit at a high political price) by those who have played no active part in creating the circumstances that have left no other reasonable options open.

For nearly 50 years now, the leaders of what is now the EU have held open the prospect of full membership to Turkey. As with all aspirant members, this has not been unconditional, and problems with those conditions remain (and constitute some of the good reasons for resisting entry). However, Turkey has taken great steps to approach fulfilment of them, and has done so in great measure explicitly for the purpose of moving closer "to Europe".

The electorates of the Union, and that includes those of Greece, Austria and Cyprus, to name but three at random, can not reasonably pretend that this was done behind their backs, or that they were unaware of it before they joined. It may simply be too late to "slam the door" on Turkey now, for reasons of practical geo-politics as well as "honour": we are responsible for the promises repeatedly made on our behalf, at least to some extent, especially when they are not made in secret.

But ...

Does this situation not illustrate the problem of the democratic legitimacy of the Union's governance arrangements ? It is at least arguable that we have been "bounced" into this by Euro-fanatics, to whom the addition of Turkey is an essential part of their sacred "Project"(about the meaning of which it is extremely difficult to get them to be explicit), and who substantially control the setting of EU agendas.

It is not that these fanatics are all bad people, nor that they are not entitled to their (in parts admirable) project, nor that they are always illegitimate in their influence upon the agendas: it is that through their constant control of the Commission and its bureaucracy (to be accentuated by Lisbon), which permits pretty close to a monopoly of initiative at EU level, they are not only immune to, but are insulated from, public opinion in a fashion that is dangerously anti-democratic. One of Declan Ganley's (relatively few) good points is his emphasis on the inability of ordinary voters to vote for or against those with the power to propose legislation.

(Euro-sceptics, no matter how mild, can not get nominated or approved for appointment, and employees who express dissent tend to get dismissed for "disloyalty".)