turkcyp wrote:Hey, I believe the virtue of rational decision making. I believe that even human beings do not realize why they do make decisions, there are always some underlying rational reasons behind every decision (unconscious rationalism). Even at the decisions you make without thinking.
You may then say “What about habits” Habits are also formed as result of most of the times unconscious rationalistic thinking. And even after you form habits you tend to evaluate them once in a while to check up their rationality with the changing time and environment.
IN the example you gave above for example you claimed that one country may push for something even though it is against the benefit of the whole. My argument is this, if one country is pushing for some thing then apparently she prefers it. And the reasons she prefers it because it is beneficial to her.
I may accept that it may not be beneficial to the others but if the total harm to others is greater than the benefit to one, then there are collective decision making mechanism where other can stop one getting what she like. The fact that others does not oppose ones pushing one thing to much, is because that one gains much more than the others total loss. (the critical element in this reasoning is the existence of collective decision making mechanism, where little harms to many can be added together…)
This is rue for accession of RoC and for Turkey as well. And for every other country.
OK, understood. We have a difference of opinion!
As for the second part, this is why I included that 'not blatantly against' caveat there... Provided there's at least some merit in Turkey's accession, others won't oppose it.
turkcyp wrote:I have never said that Turkey is indifferent than any other country. Every country has its pluses and minuses, and Turkey is coming with full of minuses, that is why EU will be imposing a lot of restrictions to Turkey. I have not denied that.
What I have said was Turkey will not accept just about anything, and it is a negotiation process. For example, I do not believe permanent restrictions in case of Turkey case is necessary. Eu is judging Turkey for what it is right now not what it will be in 10 years time. With the prospect of EU membership, prosperity level will go up in Turkey reducing outward migration. Plus a temporary restriction just like in the case of Poland may just suffice.
But again, this is only my view, but any outcome will be result of negotiation between Turkey and EU. EU will not be just putting his demand and Turkey will be accepting them. But because Turkey need EU more than EU needs Turkey, the balance is most probably will be tilted towards EU.
That is how this process works.
About permanent derogations. Why do you say about Malta? Malta has permanent derogations in EU acquis communautaire in terms of foreigners getting property in Malta. Apparently it can be done. It is just a matter of negotiation and will. As in case of RoC being forced to accept Eu lw being suspended in north. That was the best RoC can get out of the negotiations. What was she expecting? Eu to come and say to Turkey? Get out of Cyprus, for the sake of 600k GCs. Realize that it is always give and take. EU will never jeopardize its trade relationship with Turkey (not talking about membership but trade) for 600k GCs. Same is true for Turkey for 200k TCs. We are just a simple paws in a bigger game here.
Yes, agreed. I just thought you were arguing that Turkey should not be subject to derogations. But you are saying that if they come out of the accession talks, they might be accepted, right?
turkcyp wrote:RoC accepted all those conditions because they desperately needed to get into EU, so that they can get what they want in Cyprus without an agreement, but simply by just imposing the current existing situation in south to north as well, in time. So that they can use the EU card to get more out of Turkey. But there is always a limit that EU will let you use that card.
Hehe, this is preaching to the converted.
I agree with what you wrote here. Again, I thought you were saying that Turkey should not accept any conditions by the EU, because none have been imposed on any other of the 10 acceding members, and I used the RoC as an example to illustrate how some countried have been subject to conditions. It's clear now.
