[Quantum_Wizard]

Brenda wrote:

Heh, According to Wiki, its a Eurasian Island country Now who's right?

Well, the word "Eurasian" refers, of course, to both Europe and Asia, so that doesn't say much. Wikipedia is a bit vague on the matter. The article on Geography of Cyprus says:

Quote:

it is located south of the Anatolian peninsula (Asia Minor), or modern-day Turkey, of the Asian (or Eurasian) mainland. As such, it may be included in Western Asia or the Middle East
...
It is sometimes included in Europe

Looking at a map it should be clear however that geographically Cyprus is in Asia. Saying that it were in Europe and Turkey (east of the strait of Bosphorus) in Asia would be inconsistent.

[Brenda]

I agree with you. Damn, there goes my argument

[BartSimpson]

The US markets took a crap yesterday based on the collective belief that the Greek bailout plan will fail and that the Euro, as a currency, will collapse.

[Quantum_Wizard]

martin14 wrote:

Russia is also a non issue politically, it only needs to be said that
most of Russia actually lies in Asia, not Europe.

Russia probably wont join in the foreseeable future, but geography is still one of the least relevant reasons. Cyprus is wholly in Asia but was admitted. When Denmark joined most of its land area was in North America (Greenland).

Russia has something like 75% of its population is Europe.

There much more significant reasons why Russia probably wouldn't be admitted to EU even if it wanted to join.

martin14 wrote:

The amount of Turkish territory west of the Bosphorus is very small.
If that area separated from Turkey, it would join the EU tomorrow.
But the rest of the country is in Asia.
The other EU members are firmly in whats commonly called Europe,
with no discussion needed about the borders.

Cyprus is in Asia.

[JJ]

Technically Cyprus is in the water, which means it can claim to be part of just about anything.

[CKASlacker]

martin14 wrote:

Actually, the day after Serbia signs the accession treaty, the Turks might as well
pack it up and go home, because with unanimity required, the Serbs will NEVER agree
to Turkey joining. 1389, 1448, and all that.

Perhaps because North America has such a short history in comparison to Europe (never mind the far East!), I've never been particularly wrapped in ancient (to me) historical reasons for doing things. Yes, the Ottoman empire did horrible things 500 years ago. But I admit that's my own opinion, and Europeans may have longer memories.

martin14 wrote:

I only remind everyone it was the Poles who had the suggestion that Christianity
be entrenched into the EU constitution.. thats a pretty clear statement of the Polish opinion on Turkey.

That's interesting -- I didn't know that fact. I'm glad that didn't get entrenched into the constitution since I believe religious freedom to be of the highest importance, although I imagine that suggestion wouldn't have prevented that. Still, I don't like mixing church and state at any level.

martin14 wrote:

Border control in very wild and foreign areas of the middle east, and establishing
EU borders next to some really batshit countries.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, the list goes on.

These areas are poorly controlled already, and trying to establish an EU net
in these areas would be next to impossible. You would need to turn all these
border areas into military zones.

Remember, once you are in the Schengen area, thats it.. no more checks.
Yes, I know full well these are separate agreements, but it becomes a question
of opening the door. The Turks, upon entering, would have every right to demand entering Schengen as soon as possible.

This is a really relevant point -- one that I hadn't actually considered. Although it's unlikely to be said out loud, for this reason alone I can see great resistance to ever allowing Turkey or Russia from joining -- the sheer impossibility of properly patrolling those wild border areas. And as you said, once you're in the EU, you're in -- free movement allowed within any member state.

[martin14]

Thank you Slacker.

I have met quite a few Serbs in my time in Europe, in fact most East Europeans are
very suspicious of Turkey.. centuries of domination tends to do that.

The Polish bit was 2003-2004, just before they joined.
Several countries tries to get a reference to Christianity put into the
new EU Constitution.

It didnt pass. http://www.religioustolerance.org/const_eu.htm
But the Constitution didnt pass either.

And thank you for reading the last bit. You are right, it will never be said openly.
But the last expansion to the borders of Ukraine, Belarus and Turkey cost tens of millions for new technology, new border units, new police, new everything.
And it still doesnt work properly.

[Psudo]

Greg Mankiw has an interesting blog post about the Euro, Greece, and the handling of currencies.

[Quantum_Wizard]

I think that the Euro has in fact made things easier for Greece. Were Greece not part of Eurozone, with this much debt it probably couldn't have found lenders willing to hold Greek debt denominated in Drachma. However, if their debt were denominated in a foreign currency such as $ or €, then devaluation would besides helping exports also increase the debt in Drachma terms even further. There would be no alternative to sovereign default.

But maybe in the long run it would have been better for the Greek to suffer the consequences of their fiscal irresponsibility earlier.