You can say it easily but politicians are as they are. I was happy with Brussels pressuring my countries’ politicians to do a few things they wouldn’t have on their own or even on their voter’s demands. In fact, I would have welcomed some more pressure on certain issues (the situation of Gypsies among them).

I don’t buy into this argument. J?rg Haider, for example, is pro-Turkish membership. Besides, are we going to let ourselves be blackmailed by fascists?

On a cultural level R & B fit much more easily into the EU and have much better educated populations.

The education point is dubious in the case of Romania, EU-serf (though correct in the case of Bulgaria). While the Romanian ?lite are undoubtedly well educated, well, so are the Turkish ?lite. And doesn’t Bulgaria have a large and well integrated Turkish minority?

If the GNP of Turkey doubled till 2015, which is a very optimistic assumption (7% growth per annum), it would still be about the same GNP per capita as Hungary is today. In terms of EU buget Turkey is a net drain for the forseeable future. See:
http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC.pdf

Point taken. I don’t believe that Turkey alone will solve the problem. I just believe it will be a step in the right direction. What I am arguing is that we need to change the way we think about these things, re-order our priorities.

Clearly we also need a major rethink on immigration, and there is some evidence that this is starting to happen.

As for B&R and the other recent 10, we should be aware that these countries are going to face major fiscal liabilities that it will be difficult for them to shoulder alone, since they have rapid ageing and do NOT HAVE substantial provision in place in terms of accumulated wealth to face this.

I am a practising agnostic (with major downside fears) on the future of the EU, but if we accept the bright-side hypothesis of all this working, then we could try to cast our minds forward 10 years and see what specific problems could confront a “federal type” agency in Brussels (and this, IMHO, is what you will need to make the euro work) in balancing needs and resources across the widened EU. Turkey in this context could be a positive factor.

I also don’t think we are talking about such a poor Turkey come 2015.

The same could be said about Bulgaria. Turkey undoubtedly has a much more diverse and dynamic economy than either of those two. Both countries suffer from the same demographic problems that the west does.

On a cultural level R & B fit much more easily into the EU and have much better educated populations.

That’s done for the benefit of the common market and has no element of charity.

While special pleading might have a chance if reform efforts were just a matter of partisan wrangling in Sofia (or Riga or Valletta or Prague…), when the issue is framed as “reform or block EU admission,” change happens.

That is among the chief things that breed an unrealistic, even childish, political culture. Turning Brussels into the bogeyman might work in the short term, but that doesn’t help us. We need to learn that our problems must be solved and the sacrificies thereby necessitated endured because they are our problems, not because Brussels demands it.

Turkey cannot “save” the EU. Its population growth rate is already declining quickly and will continue to do so over the 15 years remaining. Europe is too big and too rich to be saved by someone from outside.

If the demographic change is a huge problem, then Europe can only save itself.

Don’t believe that by admitting Turkey you solve whatever problem you believe exists. Turkey is to o small and too poor to save Europe from whatever it is you think will happen.

This is the accession process in a nutshell. Your transition country has to take on the acquis to gain admission to the EU. Many things in the acquis injure domestic special interests. Many things annoy local potentates. Many things require the bureaucracies to try to be on the up and up, which they often weren’t.

The blue and gold bulldozer pushes all of these narrow interests to the side and clears the field for EU membership.

While special pleading might have a chance if reform efforts were just a matter of partisan wrangling in Sofia (or Riga or Valletta or Prague…), when the issue is framed as “reform or block EU admission,” change happens.

The Union is a mighty engine for the general interest rather than the particular. That this change engine can also spew money gives it more power.

As to why, I’d say it’s like what Truman purpotedly said about his job, “Why do I have to spend all day on the phone getting people to do what they ought to have sense enough to do already?”

Nobody. The idea that an area with a population of the current EU could be given enough external support to matter is unrealistic. Europe must solve its demographic problem itself.
Immigration may be a helpful to that, but it is independent of EU membership. If you take the cynical line you’d want the additional attractiveness of the EU to better be abled to choose immigrants.

This is the approach I am complaining about. B&R really want to join, we have the possibility of bringing considerable pressure on the respective governments and politicians for making changes,

Why would such benefits outweigh the disadvantages of a longer delay? Why would the EU have an obligation to force countries to their own good against their will?

We should be extraordinarily rigorous, as we should be with Turkey.

We are rigorous for our own benefits and as a delay tactic. It has no connection with Turkish welfare.