Turkey and the future of the EU

Because the Brexit process, which signifies the United Kingdom's exit from the Union, has entered its final junction, the European Union will be experiencing a bit more intensely these days an atmospheric pressure of the "I'm coming" kind.

Undoubtedly this is not the only issue on which the EU feels pressure. The trade wars declared by the USA under Trump's presidency, and the economic troubles to which these wars contribute seriously, carry the potential to turn the already existing economic stagnation into a serious crisis.

On top of that there are problems that come with the debates about NATO's status and that threaten continental security. There is the search for a common European army for the EU, and against it there is the stick shown by the USA, which hosts more soldiers in Germany than German soldiers. On the other hand there is the fact that this stick cannot protect Europe against Russia.

And there is also the problem of refugees, from all the crisis regions of the world, above all Syria, trying to make a dash for Europe and demanding a share of Europe's prosperity.

Of course, more important is that all these problems pile on top of one another and raise the extreme right in nearly all member countries and develop opposition to the EU project itself.

From within the equation formed by all these developments, how does the EU's future look?

If such an EU is to have a future, it is very clear that it can come out of this largely by involving Turkey more strongly in the equation. There are of course many factors straining the EU project. Above all, the democratic participation criteria it has created within itself are gradually heading toward paralyzing decision-making mechanisms.

Even the decisions that are taken and have to be implemented begin to work against the project, that is, against the EU. When the membership rights granted to countries that joined the Union later and that in fact owe their existence to the protection of large countries are used in a way that determines the fate of the entire Union, there is no measure that can be taken against it.

Admittedly the control of the patron states over the small states cannot be denied in practice, but even this control can cost very dearly, and this price may in the future prevent the Union's sustainability. Here is the situation of Greece and Cyprus and the prices Germany has had to pay to keep them under control.

Truly, in the face of the crises the EU has entered, the "serves them right, let them see what happens to them" attitude on Turkey's behalf may perhaps have a psychological justification, but it is not possible to say it is reasonable.

Britain may have many reasons of its own for seeing nothing in the EU project in its own interest. Truly, one should not regard these reasons as absolute either. In my opinion the motivations that led to leaving the EU project are emotional and ideological rather than rational, and both sides will come out of this separation harmed.

Turkey, however, is not Britain, and it is neither necessary nor possible for it to produce similar grounds and discourses for itself from Brexit.

It must be seen that the cost to the EU of a kind of Trexit coming onto the agenda today would be far beyond estimates. Perhaps Turkey's presence adds far more power, validity and value to the EU than Britain's presence. Of course the benefit is two-sided. There is not even a need to say that Turkey benefits from EU membership to the same extent.

Moreover, it must be seen that the EU can receive the greatest and most effective support from Turkey in order to overcome all these problems it faces.

It is very clear that the EU needs Turkey more than ever. Everyone in Europe who can look at the matter more sensibly sees this. But it is of course not possible for Turkey to continue this relationship by ignoring the exclusionary dissenting voices within the EU. The EU too needs to change its approach. The bad part is that the EU's capacity to move in order to change this attitude is very weak. Because there are limits that reduce its capacity to move and thus narrow its political space considerably.

For example, how will the provocative effect of the Turkey report prepared by Kati Piri, who serves as the Turkey Rapporteur on behalf of the European Parliament and which would propose the complete suspension of Turkey's EU membership application, be eliminated? I am afraid there is no solution to this.

Kate Piri will present this report and this report will be debated for hours by the European Parliament and an atmosphere that will provoke both sides against each other will form.

The process regarding Kati Piri's becoming rapporteur is determined within the European Parliament in a way open to everyone. That is, it is an inevitable result of the game of democracy in Europe. Even those who worry most sensibly about the fate of the EU and who see the provocation it commits unfortunately cannot prevent this process from running in this way.

Although it is known that she is biased and ill-intentioned against Turkey, there is no rule preventing her request to be rapporteur from being accepted, and the future of a gigantic project like the EU can fall victim to such ill intent.

Knowing this, deciding what we want and taking appropriate measures is of course up to us.