Promoting Dialogue and Solutions: What European Legislators Think of Turkey

BThisu proje project Avrupa is co-funded Birliği ve byTü rktheiye European Cumhuriyeti Union tar andafından the Republicnanse edilmektedir of Turkey This project is co-funded by the European Union and the Republic of Turkey

Zerrin Cengiz, Aybars Görgülü, Mehmet Ünlü, Samuel Doveri Vesterbye

“This document is produced with financial support of the EU and Republic of Turkey within the framework of the Political Criteria Grant Scheme. TESEV (Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation) and YFoT (Young Friends of Turkey) are responsible from the content of this document and it can in no way be interpreted as the opinion of the EU and/or Republic of Turkey.”

Turkish Economic and Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation Social Studies Foundation Promoting Dialogue and Solutions: What European Legislators Think of Turkey

Zerrin Cengiz, Aybars Görgülü, Mehmet Ünlü, Samuel Doveri Vesterbye Promoting Dialogue and Solutions: What European Legislators Think of Turkey

Mecidiye Mahallesi, Dereboyu Türkiye Ekonomik ve Caddesi No:41 Kat:2-3-4 34347 Sosyal Etüdler Vakf› Ortaköy-İstanbul Turkish Economic and Tel: +90 212 292 89 03 PBX Social Studies Foundation Fax: +90 212 292 90 46 [email protected] www.tesev.org.tr

Authors: Design: Myra Zerrin Cengiz Publication Identity Design: Rauf Kösemen Aybars Görgülü Page Layout: Gülderen Rençber Erbaş Mehmet Ünlü Coordination: Engin Doğan Samuel Doveri Vesterbye Printed by: İmak Ofset Basım Yayın San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Atatürk Cad. Göl Sok. No : 1 Yenibosna Bahçelievler/İSTANBUL-TÜRKİYE Tel: 0212 656 49 97

TESEV PUBLICATIONS

ISBN 978-605-5332-76-1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced by electronic or mechanical means (photocopies, downloading, archiving, etc.) without the permission of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV). The views expressed in this publication are those of the writers and may not correspond in part or in full to the views of TESEV as an institution. Contents

PREFACE, 5

INTRODUCTION, 7

METHODOLOGY, 14

KEY FINDINGS, 19

ANALYSIS, 23

CHAPTER 1 YES/NO POSITION FOR TURKEY’S ACCESSION , 24

CHAPTER 2 EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICE IN THE SOCIETY AGAINST TURKEY’S MEMBERSHIP, 27

CHAPTER 3 PERSONAL PREJUDICE EXPRESSED BY THE MPS/MEPS, 30

CHAPTER 4 WHAT INFLUENCES PARLIAMENTARIANS’ POSITIONS ON TURKEY?, 32

CHAPTER 5 MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT TURKEY-EU RELATIONS ACCORDING TO THE MPS/MEPS, 36

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE FIELD RESEARCH, 39

GENERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF TURKEY-EU RELATIONS, 41

REFERENCES, 42

APPENDIX 1, 45

APPENDIX 2, 49 4 Yeşil, Muratcan Sabuncu and Yiğit Bayman for their their for Bayman work. Yiğit selfless and Sabuncu Muratcan Yeşil, Burcu Gamba, Aylin cooperation; and support candid his for Prof the Ayhan project; Kaya for contributions valuable her for Gündoğar Senyücel Sabiha thank to like Wewould Acknowledgement that such research could also be extended to the European public level in order to analyse the content of the the of content the analyse to in Turkey. order affairs of state current in the about public dismay European the of level public European the to extended be also could research such that in EU.the I hope And parliamentarians earlier by the generated beliefs anti-accession Turkey lessened finally has of integration European the that see to delighted also am I undertaken. have they that work meticulous the on analysis. and Thus, scientific I would like to welcome such the research, and team extensive research congratulate religious Turkey’sand against cultural intolerance membership. All in all, this is a research skilfully very conducted growing the to due lost being of risk at is diversity cultural promoting of concept European core the that out finds Turkey. in also tendencies research This authoritarian of Kurdish rise the and the developments political domestic democracy, the issue, rights, human press, the of freedom concerns expression, considerable of have freedom freedoms, parliamentarians personal about interviewed the that indicate also research this of findings The scholarship. aforthcoming of have scope the within analysis adiscourse through analysed surely be should it parliamentarians and said, the what on based is finding This narratives. and states member EU of behalf on action politicised and prejudice of forms reveals also It 2005. in the started negotiations all accession the against since odds successful political rather been has level legislative the at integration European Turkey’s that indicates believes that the accession process is affected by political prejudice. This is actually a very striking finding, and it the European of parliamentarians are reportedmajority to be favouring the Turkey’s that reveal membership, findings The but that an evenissues. larger portionsuch solve to available are remedies which and prejudice by rhetoric, legislators’ while analysing to what extent perceptions about the Turkish accession process are influenced national the understand to is research the of objective main The spectrum. political the of sides different from all level, European the at 27 and level national at parliamentarians 30 with interviews conducted team research The levels European and national both EU. in the Turkey’s membership perceive prospective at parliamentarians the which in ways the on light shed to research timely and the YoungIn TESEV and this accountability. context, Friends transparency of Turkey havea (YFoT) conducted press, of freedom rights, human Turkeydemocracy, of about terms in negative still is public European of majority the that seems also It process. accession the for setback major a current creates which Turkey’sEU, the vis-à-vis about affairs of state perspectives conflicting have states member European The bid. membership Turkey’s regarding Union European the from coming signals mixed also are there that stated been has It agenda. public in the visible less relatively become has process EU accession background, this either. Against state in agood not are markets financial and ever, economic the than and harder country the hitting is crisis refugee Syrian the hand, other the On government. coalition a of establishment the in resulted not has Elections elections 2015 June 7 general the the because repeat will Turkey history, its in time first the For times. difficult through going is Turkey Institute European Director, Ayhan Kaya, Preface Istanbul Bilgi University Bilgi Istanbul

5 6 discriminatory rhetoric, while grasping to what extent perceptions about the Turkish accession process are are process accession Turkish the about perceptions extent what to grasping while rhetoric, discriminatory on this parliamentarians topic of objective interviewing is specific The to the fully national understand legislators’ issue. the on data original Turkey-EU creating by of dialogue betterment the to contribute to therefore aimsreport to reveal the nature and scope of such discrimination Turkey’s against membership in order This lost. being of risk at also is diversity cultural promoting of concept European core Simultaneously,the level. for at opposing the EUTurkey’s enforceable standards less objective level, appear State membership the Member at rhetoric political and speech discriminatory cultural growing seemingly With process. accession the affecting continuously is which anti-Turkish trends, and voting bias of trend cyclical a facilitated has rhetoric national and speech in difference socio-cultural forward putting Moreover, references. cultural than rather performance and fairness be to stated is enlargement of basis the as understanding, This better and investigation factors. deeper necessitates other and cultural religious, on based bias socio-cultural to due process membership Turkey’s on that apparent is It Turkey. strain disproportionate a put EU the of towards states member various from electorates domestic and bias legislators certain socio-cultural and intolerance countries, reduce European help various significantly in could legislators which by anti-discrimination expressed on issues of light shed understanding to better aiming a having project by research measures extensive an of findings the reflects report This prejudice. cultural than rather performance political it as and understanding, technical on based improved selection unbiased an as and remains theoretically that enlargement investigation of basis the contradicts further merits turn, in This, grounds. discriminatory other and culture religion, to reference with biases socio-cultural of result a as process the on strain disproportionate its a put Union from European the of divert states member to various from appears electorates and legislators often as predisposition criteria, unbiased political and benchmarks technical on based process, accession The bias. cultural and to national related of problems discrimination regarding Turkey’sa variety pointing towards process accession and prejudice socio-cultural tackling on coverage media and concern scholarly growing is There and prejudice socio-cultural Turkey’s to regards process. with discrimination tackle accession to how of question the face we Here met. fully are criteria membership the of the country. However, from the it Union that should be Turkey if noted and evaluation a treatment fair deserves that Turkey’s membership is from different due any previous especially to accession the size the demography and Turkey’s look, It an optimistic not offer does ispresent. climate are still clear political full aspirations membership full from into the limbo. is current Although left process negotiation and the official problems quite their with internal busy far pretty seem sides is both negotiations, Turkeyaccession the of momentum, start the after decade positive A mid-2015. of this as perspective membership Despite 2005. in started negotiations accession and government any for aspiration policy foreign major Accordingly, 1999 since for EU membership Turkey acandidate decades. Turkey three been leading has past in a the been has (EU) Union European the to membership Full Introduction

7 8 to establish a close cooperation until the circumstances of Turkey permitted its full accession. full its Turkey of permitted circumstances the until cooperation close a establish to EU-Turkey with Turkey’s started to relations the application EEC in The to community’s response 1959. Turkey was 28 with members. deeply integrated world the in unions intergovernmental supranational, largest the of one the is and EU the Maastricht Now Treaties. the Rome union, the of treaties fundamental two the the amended of has signing which the 2007, including in Treaty 2007 Lisbon and 2004 in rounds Enlargement Eastern the as such processes constant reformation through goes still Union The spheres. judicial and environmental economic, social, political, cultural, the as such aspects all including wider much became Union European the of scope the and Finland-) and Norway and union monetary a for basis the common currency. set With this development, the size and citizenship European of concept the created it processes; making decision their and institutions community’s the changed significantly Treaty Maastricht The today. known is it the of signing the to led Treaty in (also Treaty1992 ultimately as Maastricht known on the European Union) the European Union as that which established states, member new integrating more, enlarge to continued EEC The Treaty the included energy. nuclear of also use peaceful ensure the to in order market nuclear European Rome of Treaty safer unified The a formed which Euratom, the as states. known also Community, Energy European Atomic European the Establishing between trade of advancement the to way the European Economic had in Community been by abolished All which 1958. internal 1968, tariffs accordingly gave of establishment the to led eventually which policy trade external common a and farmers European the support politically. of The designed the treaty a establishment common to market, policy common and protect agricultural In 1957, the Treaty of Rome signed was aiming for a among and members, its both deeper integration economically union. apolitical to lead a of hands the to into intended ultimately passed was integration economic state, comprehensive this nation Furthermore, organization. the supranational of framework the within tackled been exclusively had then until which time in of policy For history, the first areas some of the central conflict. help avoid Franco-German another in (ECSC) Community to The was 1951. motivation put a forward new that economic framework and would political and Italy) to this and agreed sign evaluated proposal the Treaty of the European Paris, Coal and establishing Steal France Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, the (Belgium, countries European Six Europe. Western in industries - proposal a with up for a steel and market coal common came - Monnet proposing to the idea establish Jean by French bureaucrat authored time, the at Minister Foreign French the Schuman, Robert 1950 In continent. the in peace lasting long a maintaining of aim the with War World Second the after laid were EU the of foundations The BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON TURKEY-EUROPEAN UNION RELATIONS consecutive five under findings project’s research Turkey Union. both to European the and recommendations policy the with ends Finally, report the chapters. of analysis the on focuses then It bias. socio-cultural of definition the and study the of methodology the Turkey-European onwith information continues relations,Union influenced by prejudice and what remedies are available to solve such issues. The with report starts brief background 2 1

13AAF6AA849816B2EF3143C82B0599388A Information on EU-Turkey Relations. Retrieved from http://www.etcf.org.tr/EN/Genel/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D3 com/topic/European-Coal-and-Steel-Community Encyclopædia on Britannica article (ECSC) Community Steel and Coal European 1 (15 members in 1995 with the inclusion of EFTA members –Austria, –Austria, members of EFTA in (15 1995 inclusion with the members . Retrieved from http://www.britannica. from . Retrieved 2 This required the the required This 4 3 8 on it declared Turkey for and Partnership Accession an preparing started EC the status, candidacy the Following • • • 24 “The with economy free-market a to model import-substitution an from policy economic its Turkey shifted Meanwhile, re-established. were relations in 1983 elections the in Turkey coup after but military the to due stagnated relations 1980s the of beginning At the years. in 22 completed have would been areas various on Turkey-EEC of legislation harmonization the and services and goods of circulation fully,free the implemented be to were protocol the under conditions all If parties. both between quotas and tariffs of abolition the and trade including integration, deeper for timetable - of signed inthe Protocol Agreement 1970 Additional The - (MPs) a set relations. of parliament for together better were established under the Ankara Agreement and these two institutions brought Turkish and European members a of establishment the through Committee Turkey unioncustoms between Council a Joint alongmembership with Parliamentary EEC. the Association An and full to way the paving at aimed agreement This 1963. September signed in Agreement Association the with Ankara finalized which was framework of an association establishment and groups, to do the necessary research and investigation based on government based decisions and and to investigation work research on and groups, official to do the necessary and of processes adaptation public institutions, to guide the of application decisions made by relevant committees to coordinate entitled the reform was Secretariat The in 2000. established was for EU General Affairs the Secretariat side, Turkish the on step official important an As completed. was process accession the for procedure legal Criteria were essential conditions that any applicant must comply with in order to become a member. These These member. a become to order in conditions with were: comply must applicant any that conditions essential were Criteria 1993 European Council Summit in Copenhagen, it would be able to become a full member if of the that EU. meant The Copenhagen This 1999. Turkey the the Criteria), (alsoafter ‘Copenhagen December the Criteria’ which as Accession had fulfilled known defined been of Summit Helsinki the in membership EU for country’ ‘candidate of status Commission’s the on Based 1990s. turning that, Following point the at in political came the relations end the parties. of two the between established was area in a trade which free 1996, on 1 January Turkeystarted Union between EUCustoms the officially and The enlargement an on focusing of Union. forming aCustoms of eve the on project difficulties the underlined and Turkey in conditions favourable more for asked also It membership. for eligibility Turkey’s confirmed - years two in published and an prepared - of opinion The preparation opinion. the for (EC) Commission European the the to to application Turkey’sfull-membership for forwarded applied council Turkey The 1987 union. in and normalization of point a to came parties both between General General Affairs Council on 26

th March 2001. A framework for regulation of the legal basis of the Accession Partnership was also adopted by the the by adopted also was Partnership Accession the of basis legal the of regulation for framework A 2001. March policy/glossary/terms/accession-criteria_en.htm The European Commission. “Accession Criteria.” Web. 7 2012. Sept. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/ of theas a establishment economy free-market and the of liberalisation foreign trade. the implement effectively to capacity institutional and administrative forces; market and competition with cope to capacity the and economy market afunctioning criteria: economic of minorities; protection democracy, guaranteeing the of of rule institutions law, stability criteria: political rights human for and respect and “The 24 “The of membership. th January Decisions” refer to a liberal economic program that made structural changes in the Turkish economy such such economy Turkish the in changes structural made that program economic aliberal to refer Decisions” January 4 th February 2001. With the 2001. of of adoption part February these the an two documents, important 1999 Regular Progress Report on Turkey, on Report Progress Regular 1999 th January Decisions (1980) Decisions January 3 ”. In the light of these developments, relations relations developments, ”.these of light In the acquis the European Council gave Turkey the Turkeythe gave Council European the and ability to take on the obligations obligations the on take to ability and

9 10 financial growth. growth. financial and protection health and consumer security, and freedom justice, rights, fundamental and judiciary statistics, media, chapters: eight the to rights, justice, freedom and security, education and culture, foreign security and defence policy defence and security foreign culture, and education security, and freedom justice, rights, chapters more 6 of opening the 2009, in Later institutions and provisions budgetary and financial instruments, structural of coordination and policy regional policy, ones; following the including decision) Council the by blocked previously was which of 9 8 7 6 http://www.abgs. from Retrieved Kanun.” Hakkında Görevleri ve Teşkilat Sekreterliği Genel Birliği “Avrupa Bakanlığı. AB 5 ( acquis French the when 2013 February Foreign Minister announced that 12France in was favour of opening one of on the blocked chapter 22 chapters; of the EU occurred framework negotiation the concerning development Another to the relations. European and Enlargement for Commissioner the Füle, Policy,Neighbourhood Štefan and Egemen Bağış the Turkish by Minister for EU Ankara with Affairs the aim of in bringing new dynamics launched was agenda’ ‘positive new a 2012 May in point, stagnation a to coming Turkey-EUrelations despite and developments these of light In Ministry. Prime the with cooperation in grounds going to be provisionally closed until Turkey fulfils its commitments its fulfils Turkey until closed provisionally be to going are chapters the of none and 2006 December 11 on Decision Council EU the by blocked are chapters 8 closed. been was negotiated have them of none negotiate, to haveopened be been far,So chapters 13 more although in 2006. closed provisionally to chapter first The chapters. related subject- 35 into a divided is communautaire implement acquis the and purposes, practical adopt For acquis. EU to the of part expected considerable is Turkey which through communautaire” “acquis the of chapter each of In the 2005, October Accession began Negotiations with officially the screening process, meaning the examination areas. aforementioned the and negotiations on work to continues which in 2011 for EU Affairs provide service, financial services, agricultural and rural development, fisheries, transport policy, customs union and and union customs policy, transport external fisheries, relations. development, rural and agricultural services, to financial freedom and service, provide establishment of right goods, of movement free the are blocked currently are which chapters eight 12 11 10

en.htm EuropeanPress Database. Release Commission. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-359_ the-european-union.en.mfa http://www.mfa.gov.tr/relations-between-turkey-and- from Retrieved Relations.” “Turkey-EU Affairs. Foreign of Ministry http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmfaff/1567/156711.htm#note425from Retrieved Contents.” Committee Affairs -Foreign Role Turkey’s Regional and “UK-Turkey Relations Commons. of House http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/downloadFile.do?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=2281 from Retrieved 58-68. Union, European the Economic Community and Turkey between following the enlargement Association an of the European Union. (2005). establishing Journal Official of Agreement The European the to PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL document: official the For the-european-union.en.mfa of “Turkey-EU Foreign Affairs. Ministry Relations.” Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.tr/relations-between-turkey-and- gov.tr/index.php?l=1&p=289 en.htm EuropeanPress Database. Release Commission. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-359_ from http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/France-wants-to-give-new-boost-tofrom Retrieved 2013. Turkey.” with February Talks EU 15 of Chapter New Opening Backs “France London. in France of Embassy einl oiy n Codnto o Srcua Instruments Structural of Coordination and Policy Regional

10 11 Within the framework of the Positive Agenda, working groups were established on issues relating relating issues on established were groups working Agenda, Positive the of framework the Within 8

In to addition these, in that France it declared 2007 will not allow the opening of 5 (onechapters Right of establishment and freedom to provide services, company law, information society and and society information law, company services, provide to freedom and establishment of Right

(freedom of movement(freedom for workers, energy, and judiciary fundamental 5 The Secretariat General for EU Affairs later became the Ministry Ministry the became later Affairs EU for General Secretariat The and this was was this and Research and Sciences – 25 Chapter ) 12 O 5 oebr 03 h E ad Turkey and EU the 2013 November 5 On . 6 under the Association Agreement. Association the under ) was further blocked. further ) was economic and monetary monetary and economic 7

Those Those 9 . 19 17 16 2015. the on March views on 19-20 in Ankara held EP.the was and JPC of meeting Turkishby the Assembly National latest The exchangeGrand to platform a as serves The process. still accession JPC isTurkey body between the only parliamentary and the EU since then 1965, established (JPC) Committee Parliamentary Joint The Additionally, 18 15 14 13 Reports Progress regular the EU, the and Turkey between relations of developments latest the Concerning manner. Parliament irregular an in Turkish side other the the by of territory the ratified on residing was are or entered agreement The 2013. having side, of by persons the each readmission, orderly and for rapid the procedures of reciprocity, on basis the December establish, 16 “ on authorities, the by indicated Dialogue As 2014. June in Liberalization Visa a and launched Agreement Readmission the signed EU the and Turkey when made was step significant recent relatively A relations. dynamic better stalemate. of The French underlined Turkey’sministry years as a importance key three and that partner engagement for further is necessary after track on back talks accession the putting chapter, this on talks started officially Since 1998, the Commission annually publishes a Progress Report on Turkey, and based on these reports, the the 10 on adopted reports, was which of these latest Turkey” the on on “Resolution a adopts (EP) based Parliament European Turkey,and on Report Progress a publishes annually Commission the 1998, important Since an showcased also It relations. deeper and further like migration. forming issues Turkey regional shared EU on the between and co-operation of in terms in development parties both of will the revealed Agreement signed in December 2013, increasing cooperation in the field of energy and justice and home affairs affairs positive. found quite havehome been and justice and energy of field the in cooperation increasing 2013, December in signed Agreement economic integration further with the Institution, EU, Ombudsman launching an of of a Positive establishment Agenda forces, and Visa Liberalization security Dialogue, the the Readmission of oversight judicial civilian fourth packages, and reform third the developments; the Among underlined. been have issue security and policy foreign own region and in the The wider need neighbourhood. on for security, cooperation energy migration policy,further three its in actor all significant a Inas Union European the to criteria. partner important an political be to regarded the been Turkey Turkeyhas reports, regarding that developments reported the has concerning Commission especially the picture years, mixed three a last presents the In EU. the of perspective the from perceived Turkey how is on and situation current the on information of source important an constitute EC the by published

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-ab-iliskilerine- from Retrieved Web. İlişkileri.” -AB “Türkiye Bakanlığı. İşleri Dış Türkiye

Parliament. Turkish the by Agreement EU-Turkey Readmission the of Ratification the on Malmström Cecilia by Statement key_documents/2014/20141008-turkey-progress-report_en.pdf Turkey The European Report. Progress Commission (2014). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/ documents/2013/package/brochures/turkey_2013.pdf Turkey The European Report. Progress Commission (2013). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_ documents/2014/20141008-turkey-progress-report_en.pdf Turkey The European Report. Progress Commission (2012). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_ plans on enlargement policies. The Progress Reports are written separately for each official and potential candidate candidate countries. potential and official each for separately written are Reports Progress The policies. enlargement on their plans explaining Commission the by adopted papers Strategy Enlargement annual the to additions are Reports Progress The genel-bakis.tr.mfa 26 June 2014. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-210_en.htm from Retrieved 2014. June 26 http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/France-wants-to-give-new-boost-tofrom Retrieved 2013. Turkey.” with February Talks EU 15 of Chapter New Opening Backs “France London. in France of Embassy 15 13 17,18,19 agreement readmission EU-Turkey the of objective main the

” 14 The signing of this agreement signing agreement this of The th of June, 2015. 2015. June, of is to to is 16

11 12 not compatible with European values for cultural and identity reasons. The 2011 Transatlantic Trends survey survey Trends “ Transatlantic only 2011 that The reasons. revealed identity and cultural for values European with compatible not 21 20 and change to difficult more are views elite the however time, the throughout change can opinion public the that argued be can It lawmakers. European the by shared is attitude negative this much how measure to important is Even there is public though opinion negative regarding a Turkey’srelatively to membership the Union,European it feeling. public this of heart the at lie to seems identity Muslim its and Europeans among “unpopular” quite be to considered also Turkeyis deadlock, procedural the to addition In EU. the of part the on decisions political on of enthusiasm the Turkish due side. are blocked Out currently to of 17 the the Chapters 35 chapters, negotiation from of lack “increasing the interest” Union’s side to accept Turkey as a full member. This, of course, a triggers lack behind in the this reason to media attention comparison is the paysThe era. primary little post-2005 the relatively in circles Turkey.and nor the policy-making at side reports the of bright usually the looks EU’s Ankara bittersweet from neither the public, too much attention did not attract It reports three should progress be that noted the past intellectual media, and development. rural and law, agriculture property society information employment, and policy security, social and change, freedom climate justice, and rights, environment fundamental and judiciary of areas the in progress significant and effort show to Turkey However expected is relations. the external and of research and chapters science finance, trade, several regarding acquis in alignment its advancing is Turkey that us tell Reports Progress three the general, In Additional the with comply Agreement. to Ankara Turkey the of Protocol for call Commission’s the is reports the all in attention draws that issue One spectrum. political the across dialogue peaceful of lack a and country the in polarization political increasing an reported commission The 2013. December of scandals corruption the after especially observed be can law of rule the and judiciary the of independence the on concern Growing mark. question a is practice in seriously taken of protection and for for aligning and packages laws efforts with the EU acquis are each time appreciated respect but whether these reforms are the on noted trend democratization and constitution new downward afor law.of Attempts rule and democracy practice, in a rights fundamental is there However process. settlement the to be isProgress on for and the of reported a a protection minorities, settlement legal efforts peaceful foundation better can which trend, ameliorating an and reports three fromobserved the year 2012 to 2015 concerning the the resolution of the issue both on the legal basis all and in practice. in mentioned exclusively is Issue Kurdish The 23 22 It also indicated that “ that indicated It also Turkey opinions regarding their form they when fore the to come values and norms cultural identity, European of components major the UK the and Spain Poland, Germany, “ indicate France, in poll opinion an of Results polls. opinion and surveys various in indicated as public European the by differences, cultural and religious its on based poorly,mostly Turkey rated is http://www.academia.edu/3075715/ State. Member aFuture Turkey as of Perceptions European (2009) Hakan. Yılmaz,

reports/pdf/SR007/eu.pdf http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/ (Editor). Kitchen Nicholas Union. European F. the Turkey and (2005). Hakura, reports/pdf/SR007/eu.pdf http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/ (Editor). Kitchen Nicholas Union. European F. the Turkey and (2005). Hakura, reports/pdf/SR007/eu.pdf http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/ (Editor). Kitchen Nicholas Union. European F. the Turkey and (2005). Hakura, Problems_of_Europeanization_and_European_Perceptions_of_Turkey_as_a_Future_Member_State though the European publics see ‘economic welfare’ and ‘democracy’, two seemingly non-cultural factors, as as factors, non-cultural seemingly two ‘democracy’, and welfare’ ‘economic see publics European the though ”. 21 Other indices and surveys have also found that Turkey is a disliked country among Europeans, Europeans, among country disliked Turkey a is that found also have surveys and indices Other 31% of Europeans and 62% of political elites accept that and Europe Turkey values share and common accept 31% 62% elites of of political Europeans a mere 21% and 51% respectively are enthusiastic about Turkey joining the EU the joining Turkey about enthusiastic are respectively 51% and 21% a mere

”. 23 ”. 20 22

ebrhp oe ifcl. oee, f hr i a eaiey ek oi-utrl is oad Tre’ EU Turkey’s towards taken. are steps bias necessary the socio-cultural weak relatively a is then discourse, Turkey’s and societal in membership the if political to membership the a Union become reality can there if However, difficult. more membership Turkey’s make eventually will this and Europe in opinion public the shaping on impact direct a have will the it exists, from EU the into accession Turkey’s against discrimination of perspective inlegislators member states possible and their decision making the patterns. It is clear that on if such discrimination focusing by literature the in gap significant a fills study this Therefore, public. the of views the extent great a to shape they importantly, more

13 14 http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/research/meps-in-the-2014-19-european-parliament-the-rise-of- 25 through face to face meetings is seemingly unprecedented. seemingly is meetings face to face through from a diverse selection of EU member states. In terms of research novelty, a study of this scope this of study a novelty, research of terms In states. member EU of selection diverse a from decision their and states member parliamentarians with in interviews semi-structured through on iscollection data The study based legislators making patterns. of perspective the from EU the into accession Turkish against 24 of existence the concerning Turkey.literature against the discrimination in socio-cultural gap policy-oriented based, research important an fills study This SIGNIFICANCE METHODOLOGY THE OF pro/anti-Turkey and sentiments factors. personal concerns, influence, party pressure, voter perceptions, societal team, analysis the by recurrently in listened and to presented analysed well prejudices as with detail the criteria, reveal as personal accession cross-referenced and read was and data hand collected one the the All other. on the analysis on quantitative reporting of qualitative necessities the with accordance in team analysis the by evaluated been party has data the All pressure, set. data the voter throughout pro/anti-Turkey and factors out concerns sentiments, mapping personal by positions, accomplished concretely is This EU. the MPs/MEPs into the of accession Turkey’s processes regarding making decision personal the on focuses also analysis the aspect, this to addition In Turkey’stowards bias of the of extent existence socio-cultural EU discourse. membership in and societal the political surrounding opinions Turkey-EU their namely the The part, second the analysis, relations. out is and YFoTby carried to TESEV ascertain gathering experts topics on EU the across from (MPs/MEPs) parliamentarians with semi-structured interviews involves that research field a included collection Data analysis. data quantitative and qualitative is consisting by followed of phase both data collection The first approach. methodological a two-tiered adopts study EU, this the into process Turkey’s accession surrounding topics significant most the evaluate and identify to order In INTRODUCTION Methodology 26 size and diversity of the sample renders it entirely unique by any standard. By analysing the legislators’ opinions opinions legislators’ the analysing By standard. any by unique entirely it renders sample the of diversity and size of Turkey) in to The groups. addition and 27 7 MEPs countries from political at different 16 the Parliament European Assembly National Grand the at 4 and Parliament British the at 5 Bundestag, the at 8 Parliament, French the at 5 with from interviews 30 parliamentarians national (8multi-partisan parliaments at the Belgian Federal Parliament,

&TEPAV also Internazionali Affari Instituto by published EU-Turkey in Relations” Prejudice and Impact “Conditionality, primarily on EU-Turkey relations. See http://www.lse.ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/EPRG/MEPsurveyData.aspx See EU-Turkey relations. on focus or primarily method interview face aface-to adopt not does it that fact the to due ours from different categorically is this However, study 2015. of as conducted being is survey another 2010, and 2006 2000, in conducted surveys three the to In addition politics. EU regarding issues several on data extensive collected has Data” Survey MEP “EPRG the that noted be It should euroscepticism/meps2014-19 fromwith legislators across the European Union. Retrieved from http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/quaderni_e_09.pdf method interview the adopt not does it However, Turkey’s accession. EU in prejudice socio-cultural of issue the upon dwells http://www.lse.ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/EPRG/pdf/Hix-Scully-Farrell.pdf ofMembers the European Parliament’. Retrieved from the of Survey aNew from Evidence Parliamentarians? European or (2011) ‘National Farrell David and Scully Roger Hix, Simon

24 More specifically, it looks at areas of socio-cultural discrimination discrimination socio-cultural of areas at looks it specifically, More 26 Within the framework of this project, we conducted conducted we project, this of framework the Within

25 conducted conducted

with respect to the existence and types of socio-cultural bias against Turkey’s against bias EU membership. socio-cultural of types and existence the to respect with picture clear a present to aims study this analysis, its Through Turkey’smembership. regarding stances populist Such states. and member contradictory including across states, member EU of leaders bias political of speeches in found be can socio-cultural bias to socio-cultural due framework defined objectively an be should what from Yet legal and economic criteria. political, defined and at procedures objectively times, the discourse seems to divert technical on based solely be to considered are which process, accession the of aims stated the with contradiction ednis hogot U ulc opinion. public EU throughout tendencies 32 31 30 29 28 27 2 Article in to referred values the respects which State European Treaty, Maastricht The as known also 1992, of Union European the on Treaty The of 49 article to According DEFINING SOCIO-CULTURAL PREJUDICE years. the over academics and officials by unnoticed gone not to has regard membership with Turkey’s prejudice socio-cultural explicit sometimes and implicit fact, In negotiations. the of progress the issues other and disagreements such as the EU’s political in are policy influential enlargement this bias is regard, considered yet also to socio-cultural hinder technicalities, Procedural 2015. and 2008 between stalemate political Turkey’s accession in negotiations but quickly 2005; in into ran 2007, difficulties with the EU started which to led a prejudice. election local and domestic such tendresults to manifest strong discriminatory towards sentiments Turkey accession into on and its the EU studies, based numerous to According countries. European across cycles election domestic scrutinizing when evident most is grounds socio-cultural on Turkey’s accession about scepticism The practices, European and national discriminatory to due discourses. and policies jeopardized being is it Accordingly, process process. the accession Turkish whether the of questions objectivity the question to reasons actual are there demonstrates whether systematically study this membership, EU its against bias socio-cultural and Turkey concerning positions of their respective governments, political parties, and constituencies. and parties, political governments, respective their of positions and the direct represent part in The to believed is research parties. this throughout MPs/MEPs the political by given information their unprecedented mirroring also to while considered locally, are and nationally parliamentarians constituents as their important represent is societal This EU. and the political into the both accession Turkey’s understanding towards in sentiments significance great of been has MEPs and MPs from acquired

prevail.” Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:12012M/TXT from men Retrieved and women prevail.” between equality and solidarity justice, tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, which in in a society States Member the to common are values These minorities. to belonging persons of rights the including rights, human for respect and law of rule the equality, democracy, freedom, dignity, human for respect of values the on founded is Union “The pg: 218-233. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1351-0487.2006.00452.x/full from Retrieved 218-233. pg: EU. the Turkey and Perspectives: Future and Prejudices, New Battles, Ancient (2006) Isiksel. Türküler and Seyla, Benhabib, Retrieved from http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/quaderni_e_09.pdf from Retrieved RELATIONS. EU-TURKEY IN PREJUDICE AND IMPACT CONDITIONALITY, (2007) INTERNAZIONALI. AFFARI ISTITUTO http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_35420-544-2-30.pdf?140519123322 from Retrieved Europe. in Parties Populist National and Right-wing Demagogues: the F. Expanding (2013). &Hartleb, K., Grabow, default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/essay_turkey_barysch_25sept07-1392.pdf http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/ from WHY. Retrieved AND TURKEY ABOUT THINK WHAT EUROPEANS (2007). K. Barysch, http://www.andrassyuni.eu/upload/File/Forschung/Andrassy Beitrage IB/8-BIBEbnerdeff.pdf http://www.andrassyuni.eu/upload/File/Forschung/Andrassy from Retrieved Membership. EU towards Turkey’s Road and Diplomacy -Cultural Culture? European as Culture Turkish (2014) Adrian. Ebner, 27 Furthermore, the last European Parliament election results indicated an increase in right leaning leaning right in increase an indicated results election Parliament European last the Furthermore, 28 Given this situation, our use of new data directly and personally personally and directly data new of use our situation, this Given 32 and is committed to promoting them may apply to to apply may them promoting to committed is and

31 This is in direct direct in is This Any y n “A

15 16 38 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/copenhagen/co_en.pdf 37 36 35 unprecedentedly utilized specifically within the official discussions about Turkey’s EU accession. EU Turkey’s about discussions official the within specifically utilized unprecedentedly been nevertheless has it defined, clearly not was concept the although that notion the to out pointed has Düzgit http://eu.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/12/aydin_turkey_eu_relations.pdf 42 http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/2009/08/1381.pdf 41 http://www.tepav.org.tr/upload/files/1252667182r9668.Absorption_Capacity_Of_The_Eu_And_Turkish_Accession_ 40 http://eu.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/12/aydin_turkey_eu_relations.pdf 39 34 33 analyses. various through concept the of elusiveness the addressed have experts policy and Scholars that: summit notion. defined vaguely a beyond go to able been not has 1993, of Summit the membership, EU for benchmarks of concept unbiased and clear provides framework mentioned above the Although • • • Union”. the of member a become framework by which countries need to abide in order to be considered for membership. These criteria are: criteria These for membership. considered be to in order abide to need countries which by framework how vaguely it was defined in 1993, she stated that: stated she in 1993, defined was it vaguely how without being rigorously defined, yet with the implication that it stands for an objective reality” objective an for stands it that implication the with yet defined, rigorously being without that argued have al. et Emerson

from Retrieved aWay Out?” There Is Relations: Turkey-EU of Souring (2013) “The Senem. Aydın-Düzgit,

en.htm?locale=en European Commission Retrieved Press Database. Release from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_DOC-93-3_ CEPS Policy Briefs, (1-12), 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/2009/08/1381.pdf from Retrieved (1-12), 1-24. Briefs, Policy CEPS Union?. European the capacity’of ‘absorption this is what Just (2006). S. &Aydin, G., Noutcheva, J., Clerck-Sachsse, de M., Emerson, European Council in Copenhagen, Conclusions of (1993). the Presidency Retrieved from glossary/terms/accession-criteria_en.htm European Commission Glossary. “Accession Criteria”. Web. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/ acquis_en.htm European Commission Glossary. “Acquis”. Web. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/glossary/terms/ rather than a formal criterion of accession. Applied to Turkey, however, the debate focused upon Turkey itself, and and itself, Turkey upon focused debate the however, Turkey, to Applied accession. of reform to criterion itself EU formal the upon a calls than that ‘consideration’ rather a as treated actually was it round, enlargement previous the “In an also is integration, countries” candidate the and European Union the both of of interest general the in momentum the consideration important maintaining while members, new absorb to capacity Union’s “The acquis the implement effectively to capacity institutional and Administrative forces; market and competition with cope to capacity the and economy market afunctioning criteria: Economic of minorities; protection democracy, guaranteeing the of of rule Political institutions law, stability criteria: rights human for and respect and of membership. CEPS Policy Briefs, (1-12), 1-24. Retrieved from Retrieved (1-12), 1-24. Briefs, Policy CEPS Union?. European the capacity’of ‘absorption this is what Just (2006). S. &Aydin, G., Noutcheva, J., Clerck-Sachsse, de M., Emerson, Definitions_And_Comments.pdf from Retrieved Comments” and Definitions Accession: Turkish and EU the of Capacity TEPAV “Absorption (2007) TXT/?uri=celex:12012M/TXT Treaty on the European Union. Consolidated version (2012). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ “absorptioncapacity”, 35

33 which has formally been part of the accession framework since the Copenhagen Copenhagen the since framework accession the of part been formally has which

“the term ‘absorptive capacity’, however, has slid into the official usage of the EU EU the of usage official the into slid has however, capacity’, ‘absorptive term “the Furthermore, the Copenhagen Criteria of 1993 have set an explicitly objective objective explicitly an set have 1993 of Criteria Copenhagen the Furthermore,

36 It has been concluded at the end of the the of end the at concluded been has It 34 and ability to take on the obligations obligations the on take to ability and . 41 37 whereas Senem Aydın Aydın Senem whereas 42 By stressing stressing By 38,39,40

categorised as socio-culturally biased. socio-culturally as categorised personal any been have grounds Accordingly, geographical and/or ethnic religious, themselves. to due criteria accession interviewees the from diverting the statement by reasons geographical and/or ethnic religious, on we among havefocused parliamentarians, on specifically anti-Turkey which discourses accession have been based ‘absorption Therefore, in the population. countries’ our analysis on the of existence prejudice the Turkey’sagainst EU membership nor Criteria) Copenhagen The and or of the to refers stemming ethnic any from background limitations membership the affiliation religious EU.capacity’ Acquis the by (The geography criteria of terms accession in the country neither European a Furthermore, as categorized been officially has it that assertion to the relation in prejudice socio-cultural define to ‘ethnicity’, decided and ‘geography’ ‘religion’. the That Turkeyreinforces status candidacy have an been official granted has already of we part study the on this prejudice in of themselves, existence the parliamentarians present clearly and understand to order in definition, concept’s 45 44 http://eu.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/12/aydin_turkey_eu_relations.pdf 43 rigidly of instead answers deemed lengthy and whenever detailed facilitate issues questions The MP/MEPs. the supplementary by important add or relevant to interviewees for socio- ground of scope providing the while facilitates discussion, it cultural because was method interview semi-structured the for opted we why reason The methodology. interview semi-structured the with accordance in prepared was questionnaire interview The parliamentarians 57 of total a section, introduction the in briefly outlined As EXECUTION OF THE INTERVIEWS scrutinized. further be could officially accession Turkey’s against prejudice of waynormalization for the the paves itself concept the whether for and stand might capacity’ ‘absorption What thorough comprehension of the current situation and to develop a sustainable roadmap for the future. future. for the roadmap asustainable develop to and situation current the of comprehension thorough to have a of Service Negotiations the Action Commission;Enlargement European and the Union European External and for Neighbourhood Directorate-General the at Parliament; European the of Unit Area Economic European and Enlargement the at their Brussels: in on officials European based with meetings situation three held current team research the the Finally, expertise. evaluate parliamentarians Turkish how to as understanding better a gain to order in but legislators, European among membership EU Turkey’s against bias socio-cultural understanding It should be noted that the Turkish parliamentarians were interviewed not for the analysis itself, which focuses on to present a picture well-informed of order Turkey’s in accession into the EU,conducted including any was and inconsistencies relevant issues. selection This enlargement. EU and Groups, Turkey with dealing Parliamentary Committees as or well Delegations as Committees Affairs European Committees, Affairs Foreign parliaments’ be their not could who parliamentarians of advisers from chosen forwere primarily this study interviewed makers law various The policy themselves. at the meetings present the with held were meetings additional YFoT. and 3 TESEV from Furthermore, teams research by Brussels in Parliament European the at and Turkey UK, the Germany, from Retrieved aWay Out?” There Is Relations: Turkey-EU of Souring (2013) “The Senem. Aydın-Düzgit,

for Turkey’s full accession to the Union”. the to accession full Turkey’s for may alone not with be the criteria complying formal sufficient enlargement, the that, the Eastern unlike message conveying with the EU citizens, and unpopularity culture its size, population, features: and unchangeable its unchanging particularly See “Appendix 1” for the detailed list for each parliament. each for list detailed the for 1” “Appendix See European Union?. Retrieved from http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/2009/08/1381.pdf the capacity’of ‘absorption this is what Just (2006). S. &Aydin, G., Noutcheva, J., Clerck-Sachsse, de M., Emerson, 43

45 were interviewed in France, Belgium, Belgium, France, in interviewed were 44 Considering the ambiguity of the the of ambiguity the Considering

17 18 another question. The second question expands upon the types of prejudices the parliamentarians deemed deemed parliamentarians the prejudices of types positively. question the answered they had the present upon expands question second The question. another it it should be also noted that the low rate response is due also to the of busy schedules the group target in question. may have initself manifested our findings research as a slight positive bias toward the issue at hand. Nevertheless, the of part the on inclination positive towards talking about EU-Turkey parliamentarians interviewed a relations and Turkey’s be accession mayin general which there that believe we conducted, and confirmed interviews of number the Given team. research the by once least at request for a meeting contacted were Parliament European the from MEPs 400 Turkey) and and France Germany, Belgium, UK, (the parliaments national the from MPs 300 personal prejudices, if the any, reveal of (seeto the parliamentarians Analysis, detail Chapter 3). in It should presented be noted that and a total of analysed approximately criteria, accession the with statements cross-referenced These then were above. detail in outlined criteria accession pre-defined the to contradictory opinion biased order to detect whether the themselves parliamentarians had expressed any and/or socio-culturally geographically in team analysis the by re-read/re-listened was recorded, or written whether Europe,in collected Finally,data all societies. respective their in or Europe in Turkey’s membership against bias socio-cultural of existence the about believe they what depict outstanding The interviewees. (see the and presented were 2) Analysis, Chapter then analysed in by order to the parliamentarians uttered all responses across responses the in similarity or equivalence repetition, a been had in were The one findings of listed question by order this to one there specific see for whether parliamentarian each question yes/noTurkey, following the asked we against prejudice socio-cultural of existence the regarding believe MPs/MEPs what discern concretely to Inorder the regarding believed they Turkeywhat against prejudice in Europe. and socio-cultural of prevalence constituencies; and cultures party their by what influenced to were they parties; and extent countries constituencies, their in formulated was image Turkey’s how stances; own their vis-à-vis Turkey’s EU prospective membership; the anti/pro-Turkey according factors to which they had formulated The questions were formulated with the specific aim to the understand positions of the European parliamentarians time. same the at revealed were stances political and European the All intrusively. or of their own countries yet on their the topics; views to dynamics chosen express judgementally had the opportunity interviewees formulated were questions the nor interviewer the of attitude ones, restricted which allowed for openness and throughoutauto-criticism the research. Furthermore, neither the 47 46

Yes Do youbelievethatthereareanyprejudicesagainstTurkey’smembershipduetosocioculturalfactors? semi-structured interviews. semi-structured the of framework general the with team research the provided which questions of set complete the for 2” “Appendix See semi-structured interviews. semi-structured the of framework general the with team research the provided which questions of set complete the for 2” “Appendix See 47 No to each parliamentarian which was immediately followed up by by up followed immediately was which parliamentarian each to 46 48 2. 1. Findings Key Do yousupportTurkey’saccessiontotheEU? Pro-Turkey Factors

given that the recent Eurobarometer has indicated that 48% of the EU public opposed further EU enlargement further opposed EU public the of 48% that indicated has Eurobarometer recent the that given levels European and national the at both public, EU the of representatives the of opinions the with accord in not opinion is public that in favour Turkishof a – 4/5 asserts majority – approximately Union. outcome This accession Turkey’ssupport Our findings that into suggest 81% parliamentarians accession the of European the participating primarily contribute to the pro-Turkey accession position on the part of the parliamentarians. parliamentarians. the of pro-Turkey part the the to on position contribute accession primarily relations European Middle-East in play Turkey would role the and decade last the over success economic its that the idea demonstrates Our of also research Turkey being a cultural the bridge West between and the East, Standard Eurobarometer 82 (2014). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb82/eb82_publ_en.pdf from Retrieved (2014). 82 Eurobarometer Standard 20 25 10 15 0 5 Bridging Eastand West Culturally 19% 81% Economic Growth Yes No European Relations Middle East-

48 .

19 20 4. 3. Type ofPrejudice factors? Do youbelievethatthereareanyprejudicesagainstTurkey’smembershipduetosocio-cultural aspects, mainly Turkey’s Ottoman past as expressed by some of the parliamentarians, are believed to be be to believed are parliamentarians, public. European the of eyes in the prejudices widespread the most the among of some by expressed as past cultural Ottoman Turkey’s assumed mainly aspects, historical Furthermore, while participants country. the to Muslim according factor a accession anti-Turkey another is as out Turkey stand that differences fact the is prejudice accession socio-cultural Turkey’s of form against major the that expressed participants total the of 66% exist, membership In terms of prejudices Turkey’sagainst due the factors to believe socio-cultural which the EU parliamentarians socio- that believe public. European the among exist Turkey’s EU membership against prejudices prospective cultural parliamentarians European interviewed the of 94% that indicate findings research The 40 20 30 10 0 Religion 35 94% 4% 2% Cultural 11 No Yes No Remarks History 5 7. 6. 5. 8. What isyourparty’spositiononTurkey’saccessiontotheEU? Does yourpartyaffectdecisionsvis-à-visTurkey?

outcome asserts that there is a remarkable discrepancy between what the MPs/MEPs believe regarding the the regarding prejudice existence of against believe Turkeysocio-cultural among MPs/MEPs the European public the and their own what stances. personal between discrepancy remarkable a is This there minority that finding. research asserts small outcome unexpected an a was only – EU the representing to accession – Turkey’ regarding figure prejudice any This expressing membership. EU prospective Turkey’s about prejudiced as categorized be could opinions personal have participants the of 6% only that suggest findings research The of the political spectrum. political the of right the at parties of Turkeymembers were towards EU’senlargement support not did parties political their that stated who that 9 given out participants of by 10 the study revealed in been Europe. This has wing parties Our findings point notion that out Turkey’s to the widespread EU among membership the right is popular less positions. party their on remarks no 8% expressed whereas Turkey’s to regard accession with line official havean not do parties political their that indicated participants the of 9% Furthermore, membership. Turkey’sEU of favour in not are parties their that expressed 19% while Union European the to Turkey’saccession support parties political their that stated participants the of 58% an effect on their decisions vis-à-vis Turkey, only 13% addressed that they were influenced by their parties’ parties’ their by influenced were they that positions. addressed 13% only Turkey, vis-à-vis decisions their on effect an have not did parties their that stated 40% of figure significant a While Turkey’saccession. on EU positions their regarding parties their of influence the under were they not or whether enunciate not did participants the of 47% 58% 47% 19% 13% 8% 9% 40% 2% 2% 2% Neutral In Doubt Eurosceptic Anti-accession No ConcreteRemarks No Yes Pro-accession No Remarks No OfficialPartyLine

21 22 10. 9. Do yourvoters/thepublicaffectdecisionsvis-à-visTurkey? the domestic political developments and the rise of authoritarian tendencies in Turkey. tendencies authoritarian of rise the and developments political domestic the about concern remarkable is there parliamentarians, freedoms,personal freedom of expression, freedom of the press, human democracy, rights, the Kurdish issue, the of part the on that indicate findings our Finally, opinion. public by influenced partially or fully were they that addressed 13% only Turkey’s on accession, EU positions their regarding public the or voters their of influence the under were they public the or voters their from pressure any or not whether Turkey. express regarding vis-à-vis their decisions did not clearly feel 38% While of the participants not do participants the of 49% that suggest findings Our 38% 4% 49% 9% Some No ConcreteRemark No Yes policy recommendations for both parties have been developed. developed. have been parties for both recommendations policy some the which to according situation detail, the of picture in overall the evaluate to indicated meant Turkish are the MPs with As meetings legislators. European with interviews the on focuses solely section this Parliament, through in-depth perception Turkeyanalysis towards from bias various parliaments across socio-cultural the reduce European help Union, and including understand the to European was action the of objective specific the Since Parliament. European the at 27 to addition in Kingdom United the Germany,and Belgium, France, of parliaments It should be noted that the analysis inpresented these sections is on based 26 conducted in interviews the national 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. follows: as are sections analytical following The questions. correlated several through collected data of comprise which of all accessibility, and conciseness of sake the for categories five to down narrowed been has framework interview statements semi-structured the and of approach developments detailed and political broad The criteria, parliamentarians. European accession participating by the provided to regards with findings the presented have we which after qualitatively, and quantitatively analysed been have study the of findings the all section, this In Analysis MAJOR CONCERNS REGARDING TURKEY-EU RELATIONS FOR MPS/MEPS MPS/MEPS FOR RELATIONS TURKEY-EU REGARDING CONCERNS MAJOR TURKEY? ON POSITIONS MPS/MEPS’ WHAT INFLUENCES MPS/MEPS BY THE EXPRESSED BIAS PERSONAL MEMBERSHIP TURKEY’S AGAINST SOCIETY IN THE PREJUDICE OF EXISTENCE ACCESSION TURKEY’S FOR POSITION YES/NO

23 24 a continuing anti-Turkey opinion EU public in the trend accession 51 50 enlargement EU further opposed public EU the of 48% that indicates Eurobarometer,which recent the the by of reinforced is idea opinions This the levels. European an and with national the accord at was both in public, EU – not the of is representatives accession opinion Turkish public that of favour asserts figure in This finding. majority research 4/5 unexpected a approximately representing – outcome This Union. Turkey’s support into the European accession parliamentarians Our that 81% of suggest findings the participating Accession Yes/No Position for Turkey’s Chapter 1 49 ranking the pre-determined pro-Turkey factors in terms of priority of terms in factors pro-Turkey pre-determined the ranking Turkey,also of while favour in being for reason primary their express to requested were question first the to yes had had an on effect their personal convictions regarding Turkey’s EU membership. who The answered participants which factors the about asked were parliamentarians the Turkey’response, Against or ‘Pro initial their on Based of parliamentarians put forth geographical reasons for their anti-Turkey for their stance. reasons accession geographical forth put parliamentarians of rights human regarding 30% remaining situation 10), the (7of out position their for grounds aforementioned the the expressed participants and of majority transparency media; the of freedom tendencies; authoritarian “ interviews): the from directly several forward put (quoted were membership anti-Turkey accession being for EU reasons uttered Turkey’s most The for stances. personal their regarding support reasons of lack their expressed who parliamentarians The anti-Turkey an had they stance. why accession reasons the express verbally

Do yousupportTurkey’saccessiontotheEU?

See “Appendix 2” for the questionnaire. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb82/eb82_publ_en.pdf from Retrieved (2014). 82 Eurobarometer Standard Standard Eurobarometer Archives. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb_arch_en.htm 19% Turkey’s internal political developments; repression on personal freedoms; increasing increasing freedoms; personal on repression developments; political internal Turkey’s 81% 50 . 51 . The remaining participants were asked to to asked were participants remaining The . Yes No 49 and there has been been has there and . hl a While ”.

“I used to support it (Turkey’s accession to the EU). I no longer support it. Given the the Given it. moment.” the at support accession for all at longer ready is Turkey Idon’t think no politics, Turkish I domestic EU). the to accession (Turkey’s it support to used parliamentarian stated that “I 52 and 2004 in countries European Eastern post-communist developed less economically the to enlargement its the all of result a as EU Almost the of part the on experienced factor. challenges economic The decade. last Turkey the of over accession success pro-Turkey prioritized another as including Turkey’s the not ones supporting participants, EU the membership, economic upon and touched praised out stands growth economic Turkey’s ‘equal stakeholder. for all’ ‘Christian a being EU Club’ would no would longer likely make be a criticism; it while policy the an valid EU’s and international the domestic of notion The increase. peculiarities. hybrid would its to due world effectively non-Western the more and populations Europe in Muslim stability European both to relation ethnic in actor indispensable an domestic as seen Turkeyis that handling assert could one Accordingly, of odds the – EU the inside noted that a also – Muslim leading by secular country. a accepting 10 parliamentarians like Muslim country Turkey as culture political its of terms in equally but location, geographical of because only not is This parliamentarians. TurkeyEast. is considered to be a and significant unique that case should join the EU according to most interviewed that Turkey the assertion confirm isfindings clearly the a as West These and regarded bridge cultural the between Turkishaccession. of favour in being for factors selected commonly most the were 3 the these to listed, factors provided 12 the of list Out the participants. from accession pro-Turkey being for factors priority three top the indicates graph This 2”. “Appendix in seen be could which 1B question to response in parliamentarians the by expressed 3priorities top the to according ranked numerically been have graph this in figures The Figure1 have to their believed voiced are – Turkey in reforms domestic lacking and to contributed this change on of the Examples of this whom part stalemate these include parliamentarians. parliamentarians political the of consequence a as EU-Turkey – of relations deterioration the that suggests This years. few past the over heart of change a had they It should be that stressed 2 out of the parliamentarians 10 who do not Turkey’s support accession expressed that Pro-Turkey Factors

This possessive adjective has been used in order to ensure the anonymity of the parliamentarian. the of anonymity the ensure to order in used been has adjective possessive This 20 25 10 15 0 5 52 concern over the compatibility of Turkey’s political agenda with the EU philosophy as one one as philosophy EU the with agenda political Turkey’s of compatibility the over concern Bridging Eastand West Culturally Economic Growth European Relations Middle East-

25 26 solved or settled unless Turkey is fully involved as a cooperative NATO Turkey EU partner. unless and acooperative as involved is fully settled or solved to be inside the EU repercussion not expected are havingare and direct and unrest indirect civic and refugee flows Turkey the as a mediator necessary in European of relations. Middle-East Recent of escalation armed terrorism, conflicts, parts remaining the with contextualized if as it in the appears recent the weigh developments see interviews, Middle heavily When East on why parliamentarians accession. Turkish of favour in be to parliamentarians ial, u fnig sget ht ideEs Erpa rltos ak 3 rank relations European Middle-East that suggest findings our Finally, economic why on impact Turkey’s EU. the an into support accession have parliamentarians why reason amain to as out stands growth believed are Eurozone the in crisis financial on-going the as well as 2007 rd mn te roiy atr for factors priority the among rus eiv i te oin ht hr ae ned oi-utrly ae ngtv bae aant Turkey’s against biases negative based socio-culturally indeed are membership. there that respective these notion of the representatives in the of believe 90% groups than more their interviewee, the or for geography population specific a countries’ of the public or citizens own EU of totality the to parliamentarians’ refers it whether that the is figure this about general, significant is What in constituencies. public European the of combination 53 formulation its in individuals of group specific a address directly not did it that meaning fashion, open-ended an in asked was question this since that noted be should It existed. directly asked whether or not they believed prejudices against Turkey’s membership due factors to socio-cultural Turkey, socio-cultural against prejudice were they socio-cultural of existence the regarding think of MPs/MEPs the that what discern believe parliamentarians European concretely to order In public. European the participating among exist membership EU Turkey’s prospective against the prejudices of 94% research, our to According Turkey’s Membership Against Existence of Prejudice in the Society 2 Chapter factors? Do youbelievethatthereareanyprejudicesagainstTurkey’smembershipduetosocio-cultural

See “Appendix 2” question number 5. number question 2” “Appendix See 94% 4% 2% No Yes No Remarks 53 te nwr my ae opie o a of comprised have may answers the ,

27 28 eae t Ilmpoi, eohba n cnen aot nerto. h ana rprs ulse b the by published context social general the on reports light shed 1997 since annual(ECRI) Intolerance and Racism The against Commission European integration. about concerns and xenophobia Islamophobia, to related could These factors be and understood better evaluated in relation to the ever-increasing trends societal in Europe other. the on legislators European to Turkey’s contributed to are considered ties havein the significantly eyes of historical the same “Europeanness” Turkey’s is background historical believed to have made it a less EU popular candidate among the European public, not hand one the on while that is emphasize to It isIraq important European”. not is Turkey or that say cannot you but European European, not is Syria say can You is. it as Turkey modern and is people Turkish with Europeans up of bound identity the inextricably and culture the that And centuries. the over Europe on impact enormous had has Period, during stated our interview As one parliamentarian that Turkeybelieve the continent. with European ties due historical isits always a been and has country European European according to a number significant of the 16 of participants, them have also expressed that they personally Turkey considers non- public European the why reasons the of one be to believed are reasons historical Although have” we history the It’s Vienna. violent” to very is population Turkish that arrived reasons historical of and because idea “we this to that have expressed reaching were that Ottomans the and seen It’s felt, been suffered. has it then And imperialism. Turkish in experience the have to things, of experience an has Europe that stated parliamentarian One public. European the in prejudices widespread most the among be to participants the to according while mainly aspects, historical Turkey’s factor past as Ottoman expressed by some accession of anti-Turkeythe are believed parliamentarians, another as out stand differences cultural Assumed country” aMuslim is it because only but democratic nor economic, neither is Turkey want is a Muslim country. In this regard, one participant stated that they that stated participant one regard, this In country. Muslim a is Turkey that fact the to due is Turkey’s accession against prejudice socio-cultural of form major the that expressed Turkey’s against prejudices participants 53 total the of out 35 one. referenced socio-cultural frequently most the as out believed comes “religion” exist, membership parliamentarians the which to due factors the of terms In interviewees. of number total the exceed mentioned of number factors total the therefore wanted, they as factors many as mention to liberty at were parliamentarians The the interviews. during said MPs/MEPs participating the what of repetition numerical the on based are graph this in figures The Figure2 54 Type ofPrejudice

Used in order to ensure the anonymity of the participant. the of anonymity the ensure to order in Used 40 20 30 10 0 Religion 35 Cultural 11 History 5 “Turkish influence, especially going back through to the Ottoman to the Ottoman through going back especially influence, “Turkish Size Population of the 4 Country/ 54 “the only reason why the EU does not not why EU the does reason only “the believed

Ignorance 3 . Other . while another another while 3 “because 57 and https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Annual_Reports/Annual%20report%202013.pdf 56 55 in worrisome developments European societies. the to attributed be could which of predominant most the Europe, Turkeyin against prejudices socio-cultural of membership. EU Turkey’s existence the against in believe significantly prejudices parliamentarians European that shaping out point also findings in these Furthermore, repercussions have to believed is culture of European trend growing and general more of cores the the against fundamentally is Islam that to notion the ever-increasing The societies. reference European within in Islamophobia with interpreted be also only but not situation, should Turkey-specific a report of our of framework findings the that believe we observation, this Given reports ECRI three last the In others. among xenophobia and intolerance racism, of issues the to regard with Europe in recent report, which was published in July 2015, it was asserted that: asserted was it in July 2015, published was which report, recent political parties; religious discrimination and intolerance; and Islamophobia have spokenout. been Islamophobia religious discrimination and intolerance; and parties; political

integrate into European societies and therefore as a security threat”. asecurity as of therefore and rise societies European The into integrate communities. Muslim of reality the ignore and inherently andas extremist violent Islamist movements in secularism, is manipulated to unable general portray Muslims often as and unwilling toIslam and see that democracy views of in values expressed European often to is opposed This Islamophobia. of trend growing a witnesses also “Europe www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Annual_Reports/Annual%20report%202014.pdf European Commission Racism and Against Intolerance (2014) on ECRI’s Annual Reports Retrieved from Activities. https:// https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Annual_Reports/Annual%20report%202012.pdf from European Commission Racism and Against Intolerance (2012, 2014) 2013, on ECRI’s Annual Reports Retrieved Activities. The ones published in 2012, 2013 and 2014. 2014. and 2013 2012, in published ones The https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Annual_Reports/Annual%20report%202014.pdf 55 , a growing over concern the and racism within rise of of the populist framework xenophobia, neo-Nazism 57

and In the most most the In

29 30 Throughout the research, only 6% of the participants the of 6% only research, the Throughout accession the from diverting statement biased. as categorised have grounds been aforementioned these to due personal criteria and/or Any religious themselves. ethnic, interviewees on the based by been reasons have geographical which discourses have we accession Accordingly, anti-Turkey capacity’. on ‘absorption focused of notion specifically vaguely-defined the to related be a way any as in found not they that be could believe we can and Criteria) ethnicity Copenhagen The nor were and Acquis geography, (The notions nor criteria accession religion the three of neither any in that benchmark these fact why the to reason due is The for opted grounds. with specifically defined ‘geographical’ was and/or prejudice’ ‘religious’ ‘socio-cultural ‘ethnic’, of notion to the reference detail, in section methodology the in explained As by the MPS/MEPS Personal Prejudice Expressed Chapter 3 58 right-wing political parties. parties. right-wing political east the Turkey’s of against members all are also they are towards and EU membership 3 parliamentarians mentioned above of the Ankara from different, bit a is which part one and etc., and Istanbul were very sure that could be part of Europe part be could that sure very were is Europe of is identity the question what the me for So Europe… of I part be borders. could has Israel says Europe another or of that part be accept should to Turkey say have you we when mean, and geographically Europe, of part not is Turkey of part Most Europe? “ asserted participant One arguments. their in European, geographically not Turkeyis that notion the namely reasons, geographical to however,referred participants, 3 All negotiations. accession the within discussed be should that factor no a as framework, forward ethnicity methodological or religion our brought to parliamentarian according remarks prejudiced made who parliamentarians 3 the of Out parliamentarians. the of prejudices personal the reveal to detail in analysed and criteria accession the the with by cross-referenced then one were by statements one detected The team. re-read/re-listened analysis was Europe in collected data all criteria, accession the to contradictory opinions biased socio-culturally any expressed themselves parliamentarians the whether determine to order In similar have participants same the themselves. of biases 6% only public, European the among exist membership EU prospective been has This stances. personal Turkey’s against prejudices own that socio-cultural believe by reinforced our finding that while 94% of the participants their and public European the among Turkey socio- against of prejudice existence the cultural regarding believe MPs/MEPs the what between discrepancy remarkable a is there that prejudice regarding Turkey’ finding. This to asserts research outcome the accession EU unexpected – another was any expressing not majority significant a representing – figure This membership. EU Turkey’sprospective about

This to corresponds 3 parliamentarians. ”.Similarly, another parliamentarian thatstated“ ” while another said “ said ” while another 58 made statements which could made be statements as categorized prejudiced Turkey has two parts: one of them is European, this is is this European, is them of one parts: two has Turkey What is Europe, what is the identity of of identity the is what Europe, is What If Turkey ended at the Bosporus, we we Bosporus, the at ended Turkey If ”. It should be here noted that all while geographical reasons are not considered as a source of societal prejudice by the parliamentarians, they they parliamentarians, the parliamentarians. the of by part the on prejudice of form main the as prejudice forward come societal of source a as considered not are frequently reasons geographical most while the as out comes “religion” grounds, parliamentarian due referenced factor to religious believe prejudices which against Turkey’s the parliamentarians no membership exist. Finally, on although based that prejudice stressed same personal be the any should of expressed it 6% only Furthermore, public, themselves. European biases the have among participants exist accession Turkey’s against prejudices that assume participants the of 94% while as positions personal own their and public European the among membership EU Turkey’s prospective against prejudice of existence the to respect with believe parliamentarians interviewed the what between divergence the demonstrates clearly it that is research this of findings significant most the of One have to accept that Europe has borders.” that has Europe have to accept we and geographically Europe, of part not is Turkey of part Most Europe? of identity the is what Europe, is “What

31 32 Positions on Turkey? Parliamentarians’ Influences What Chapter 4 difficult because of the EP’s supranational character when compared to national legislatures. national to compared when character EP’ssupranational the of because difficult in outcomes the EU. behaviour is to the policy analyse crucial However,legislative Understanding this is relatively 61 60 59 no. t hud e oe hr ta wie hr my em o e drc crepnec bten h 19% the between correspondence direct a be to seem may there while that here noted be should It Union. 31 of that the stated 53 of total their Turkey’s support the participants political parties accession to the European stances. own their formulate should they how to respect with public the or voters their of part the on influence on pressure how they should there behaveis or party Turkey’sabout speak and membership if they feel significant Turkey’s group positions; whether regarding questions of their party/political a accession, series were they asked Turkey’s EU membership. In order how to European their formulate understand MPs/MEPs regarding own stances This focuses section on these possible which factors could be considered parliamentarians’ positions to affect on Turkey. vis-à-vis decisions their affected electorate and the position their parties’ whether Accordingly,and voter pressure. parliamentarian we each affiliation asked party participants: all to common are which factors these of two at looked we MEPs, and MPs both of comprised research our Because pressure. voter and factors economic EPGs, of influence affiliations, party national states, member are which of some mechanisms, making decision and behaviours voting MPs/MEPs’ shape that factors 19% the and stance anti-Turkishaccession an had parties their that expressed who parliamentarians the of segment What isyourparty’spositiononTurkey’saccessiontotheEU?

10 parliamentarians. 10 parliamentarians. Parliament”. Retrieved from http://www.epin.org/new/files/MRAarticle.pdf European the in Behaviour Voting of Study Case AQualitative Story: the of Side “Another (2008) Kluger. Maya Rasmussen, 61 h opsd h poes hmevs se hpe 1 YsN Psto fr ukys ceso) 4 Accession), Turkey’s for Position Yes/No - 1 Chapter (see themselves process the opposed who 58% 19% 8% 9% 2% 2% 2% Neutral In Doubt Eurosceptic Anti-accession Pro-accession No Remarks No OfficialPartyLine 59 There are various various are There 60 influence of their parties on their personal stances also stated that their parties were pro-Turkey accession. This This pro-Turkey were accession. the parties their that about stated also remarks stances personal concrete their on no parties their of made influence who participants 25 the of out 18 that stressed be should substantial it Accordingly, a have the to of experience part tangible data. other of the with cross-referenced is it when trend different lack a on to out points result this that or believed is it comment, reluctance pressure as party such about reasons, speak openly several to to parliamentarians attributed be could outcome 47% this Although positions. parties’ their by influenced were they that addressed Turkey, 13% only vis-à-vis decisions their on effect an 40% have not of did figure parties their that the significant stated a under While were accession. they EU Turkey’s on not positions or their whether regarding enunciate parties their not of did influence participants the of 47% displays, graph above the As interviews. the yes their since clear or all no stated at position the beginning of on of the the parliamentarians indecisiveness part political their that of being pro did into or not the fall anti-Turkeybinary parties indicated However, accession. into this did figure not translate participants the of 23% that is question specific this of finding important Another spectrum. political the of right the at parties of Turkey members were towards EU’s enlargement support not did parties political their that stated who that 9 given by out the of study participants 10 confirmed and in revealed been Europe. This has wing right parties Turkey’sthat notion the among widespread the popular is EU less membership Weverify our that findings believe left-wing one for except spectrum parliamentarian who said: political the of right the at located are accession, anti-Turkey were stances that their parties’ who expressed openly of the parliamentarians 10 parties that the political It should be stressed anti-Turkeybeen accession. always had and was line official party’s their that out pointed also politics domestic and developments internal Furthermore, one participant who said that they changed their position about Turkey’s accession due to Turkey’s not. that they were pro-Turkeyopenly expressed were officially their parties although parliamentarians accession Does yourpartyaffectdecisionsvis-à-visTurkey? personally but also for my political party, that is very important; EU should not be some kind of an open, as large as as large as open, an of kind some well”. as be EU political not astrong demand that should politics EU international in important; challenges are there that Ithink very possible. is that party, political my for also me but for And remains. personally integration European of deepening the concerning question the fulfilled, are criteria the all if “Even 47% 13% 40% No ConcreteRemarks No Yes

33 34 Turkey’s EU accession. The breakdown of this figure by party position could be found in detail below. found in detail be could position party by figure this of Turkey’s breakdown The EU accession. about stances their formulate should they how about lines party official their from pressure credible any feel not did their decisions or regarding Turkey.positions of the participants portion that a significant indicates This figure Another point that needs to be dwelled upon is the 40% that stressed that their parties did not have an effect on parties’. and its members. members. its and leaderships parties’ the between congruity ideological an or consensus tacit a pressure, official is there whether address to possible be not would it members, their affect parties which in ways the on focus specifically not did in a number of ways,evaluated be such could that since we as our believe study that answer an In of spite the fact Finally, our positions. that shows believed study they that by were 13% their influenced of parties’ the participants these that trend general a to denotes parliamentarians figure this that conclusion the to us anti-Turkey, brought was position personal their that expressed pro-Turkey from parties parliamentarian no that finding our with combined figure, 62 Do yourvoters/thepublicaffectdecisionsvis-à-vis Turkey? Party affiliationofparticipantswhofeltnopressurefromtheirparties

The 18 parliamentarians whose parties are pro-Turkey accession. accession. pro-Turkey are parties whose parliamentarians 18 The 10 0 4 8 6 2 Anti-Turkey accession 5 62 did not feel the need to express their the between parallel own positions and the ones of their In doubt 38% 1 4% 49% 9% Neutral 1 No officialline 3 Some No ConcreteRemark No Yes No Remarks 2 Pro-Turkey accession 9 issues. issues. some form feels of from pressure the public on number their Turkeyof decisions vis-à-vis parliamentarians related in However, the voting significantly that behaviour of only our the reveals parliamentarians. 13% study of the total iies ant e underestimated. be cannot citizens their ignore to not politicians on create they pressure the and Turkishmembership of supportive not are citizens Turkish towards “Attitudes study their In Hans and arena. Gerhards countries”, European 27 in citizens among political EU the in membership the in express they that ideas and behaviour formulate their politicians the how on impact important an had has pressure voter that revealed have studies Some country” the in majority the against rule cannot you that stated who participant one by exemplified as EU enlargement regarding decision final a make to relevant still is opinion public part that their official expressed pro-Turkey- and were in positions personal community their Turkishboth although the – others by three direction, influenced accession pro-Turkey heavily a in were constituency they that stated participant one While analysis. on their them voters which Turkey, on did their havedecisions vis-à-vis an effect by to needs further be scrutinized 65 64 63 9% The public. the by influenced partially or fully were they that addressed 13% Turkey, only vis-à-vis decisions their on effect an had public the nor voters the neither that stated 49% of figure significant a While accession. Turkey’sEU on positions their regarding public the or voters their of influence the were or under they not whether express did clearly not 38% participants of the demonstrates, figure above the As percent the against voting of odds the increases Turkey toward opinion public favourable the in increase “…a that concluding by findings one-percent Turkey statistical concerning with votes parliamentarians’

the impact of member-state, European party groups and national party affiliations on a special status amendment vote for for vote http://www.meliksah.edu.tr/ayuvaci/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/EP-on-Turkey-full-text.pdf from Turkey,” amendment Retrieved status aspecial on affiliations party national and groups party European member-state, of impact the of analysis an accession: Turkish on members parliament European the of behavior voting (2013) “The Abdullah. YUVACI, arbeitsbereiche/makrosoziologie/mitarbeiter/lehrstuhlinhaber/dateien/Why_not_Turkey.pdf http://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/soziologie/ from Retrieved Turkey?” Not “Why (2010) Gerhards. Jürgen and Silke, Hans, 5 parliamentarians ”. 63 65 segment of the participants, the ones who stated that there was influence on the part of the public or or public the of part the on influence was there that stated who ones the participants, the of segment The general findings of such research are that even a small change in the public opinion matters matters opinion public the in change small a even that are research such of findings general The 64 Another scholar underlined the importance of public pressure on on pressure public of importance the underlined scholar Another . “For such an important issue like EU enlargement, enlargement, EU like issue important an such “For special status special argued that most of the EU the of most that argued amendment by 9.3 by amendment

35 36 analysis of these outstanding topics. outstanding these of analysis detailed a to dedicated been has section this participants, the of majority a rather by up interviews brought the were during frequently issues particular some that fact the to Owing question. specific a asked being without important or relevant deemed they about issues the upon touch to parliamentarians interviewees the for ground Turkeyprovided European it since the among notions prevailing the understanding for beneficial parliamentarians) 53 particularly total the of out (42 them of was method interview portion semi-structured the that shows outcome This issues. such about opinion their expressed significant a relations, Turkey-EU hindering were they believed concerns the about asked directly not were participants the although interviews, the of course the During Relations According to the MPS/MEPS Major Concerns About Turkey-EU Chapter 5 of themeetings. during theinterviews.Itshould benotedthatsomeparticipantsmentionedmorethanoneconcern duringthecourse Figure3 The figures in this graph are based on the numerical repetition of what the participating MPs/MEPs said Hostility towardscriticismofthegovernment Freedoms (Personal,expressionandpress) Political DevelopmentsinTurkey Independence oftheJudiciary Fundamental/Human Rights Distancing fromKemalism Distancing fromtheEU Authoritarianism Minority Rights Armenian issue Kurdish issue Homophobia Cyprus Issue Democracy Secularism Security 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 6 7 7 7 8 10 12 12 12 14 16 16 18 70 69 68 67 and the media, Turkey is now classified as a country without a free press and with only partial internet freedom. internet partial only with and press free a without country a as Turkey media, the classified now is and inAlevis” 2015.minority and Muslims and Sunni processes, majority judicial between and tensions mechanisms greater anticorruption in interference political pronounced more to due arrow trend According to index, the same Turkey’s “partly free” with “a as defined been overall freedom has status downward 66 belong. states member EU the been has Turkey which to Unit, categories the democracies”, “flawed Intelligence and democracies” “full following Economist’s regime” “hybrid a as The classified by published 2014” Index “Democracy the to According the democracy. and rights human press, the of in freedom expression, of freedom the as outlook such issues general Turkey’s arena regardinginternational aforementioned the with to understood better reference be could concerns These process. the of future the and present past, the about legislators European of in been since stagnation these have2006, figures would be of in utmost significance relations EU-Turkey the understanding perceptions widespread and Negotiations Accession the As EU- years. restraining previous was the over believed relations they Turkey what of framework the within reasoning their contextualised these, who voiced parliamentarians the but participants, the of part the on groundlessly addressed not were concerns these developments and political the rise tendencies of inauthoritarian Turkey. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the Kurdish democracy, of issue, the human press, freedom of rights, expression, the domestic freedom freedoms, These numbers demonstrate that among European parliamentarians, there is remarkable concern about personal declining course which went down to #154 from #98. from #154 to down went which course declining category in the overall study. overall the in category 149

freedom of expression, which is very sad” very is rights; which expression, of freedom human relations, international to approach now by Turkey’s but many of disillusioned big rather us feel a was I EU the of member now full a supporter. becoming Turkey of huge supporter passed a probably been is have I tact because for time the think “I th World Press Freedom Index (2015). Retrieved from http://index.rsf.org/#!/index-details/TUR from Retrieved (2015). Index Freedom Press World http://index.rsf.org/#!/index-details/TUR from Retrieved (2015). Index Freedom Press World Vbs4Gvmqqko https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/turkey#. world the in freedom the for Index (2015) House Freedom country/turkey#.Vbsw4Pmqqko https://freedomhouse.org/ from Retrieved media. the and press the of freedom the for (2015)Index House. Freedom Articles/421a313a-d58f-462e-9b24-2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2014) Index. Retrieved from Democracy http://www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/ imprisoned journalists who nonetheless continue to face prosecution and could be detained again at any time. Turkey’s Turkey’s time. any at again 40 detained be around could of and 2014 in prosecution face release to continue conditional the nonetheless to who all above journalists due imprisoned was It context. in put be must index the in rise “Turkey’s out of a total of 180 countries by “the 2015 World Freedom Index” which corresponds to the second worst worst second the to corresponds which Index” Freedom World 2015 “the by countries 180 of total a of out

69 66 It should also be noted that between 2006 and 2014, Turkey’s ranking followed a followed Turkey’s ranking 2014, and 2006 between that noted be also should It Moreover, as reported by the Freedom House index for the freedom of the press press the of freedom the for index House Freedom the by reported Moreover,as 70 The latest study of 2015 expressed that: expressed 2015 of study latest The could be really helpful if Turkey does his homework” his does Turkey if helpful really be could This perspective. our from problematic really are things the all system, ofwe speak justice about independence if rights, fundamental about speak we If situation. the overcome to able is Turkey if doubts serious some have we moment the for criteria in political the in particular, in Turkey for this And politics. demographic, social, categories; different obligatory inside is is which Communautaire that Acquis all and Communautaire; process,negotiation it has to stepa by step in to implement the Acquiscountry candidate a as that know to has Turkey homework. do its to has Turkey of all, “First 68 Furthermore, Turkey was ranked ranked was Turkey Furthermore,

37 38 deterioration of Turkey’s image in the international arena related to the issues of freedom, democracy and and Turkey’s of EU. join the to questioning dedication a potential democracy freedom, of issues and the legislators European of part the on to concern growing a to the contributed have to related believed is Accordingly,rights, fundamental arena understood. international the better in be image Turkey’s could of concerns deterioration their addressed parliamentarians which in context the that believe we consideration, into taken are studies and indices international these of assertions the When 71

World Press Freedom Index (2015). Retrieved from http://index.rsf.org/#!/index-details/TUR from Retrieved (2015). Index Freedom Press World orders – actually worsened, showing that freedom of information continues to decline” to continues information of freedom that showing worsened, –actually orders “underlying situation” score – covering such areas as cyber-censorship, lawsuits, dismissals of critical journalists and gag 71

5) 4) 3) 2) 1) Based on the Field Research Recommendations Policy 10) 9) 8) 7) 6)

but would also likely make it a more reliable international actor in the Muslim world. Muslim in the actor international reliable amore it make likely also would but Muslim population, of its on the part to and gaining more credibility stability ethnic domestic to its contribute Turkey only not would accepting that and Club’ ‘Christian a as outlook negative its of aware be should EU The secure order in collaborations or EU Turkey’s East. Middle partnerships in the stakeholder prominent prioritize along-term, becoming should military EU predominantly the East, shorter-term, Middle over the in membership actor indispensable an as seen is Turkey Since international Turkey’s of EU. the into accession and benefits domestic the promoting efforts diplomacy public expand should EU the and Turkey Both own their with line in opinion Turkey’s regarding positions public membership. the influence to and process accession the about public the inform to criteria. accession the among is which and Therefore, should European politicians representatives make efforts public and diplomacy of policy-oriented none reasons historical or religious socio-cultural, to due biased against remarkably prejudice is represent they expressed public the that public believe them European of majority the significant a membership, of Turkey’sEU representatives the of portion small a only Although ig osraie ate wih r i cag i Erp sae smlr olve wt ter Turkish their with worldview similar a share Europe in charge in are which parties conservative wing right- the Especially parties. political European leading the with relationship be close in engage should should Turkey process enlargement the and EU the for priority discrimination. targeting programmes such into a incorporated be to ought diversity cultural Promoting level. European the at implemented and developed be should membership for of Muslims to Turkishaccession inagainst reduce criteria discrimination Europe the objective and maintain Turkey’s against Accordingly, membership. EU prejudices efforts socio-cultural the and Europe in xenophobia and Islamophobia the increasing between the should parallel makers address and policy legislators European areas. related in all acquis the with harmonize to in order process Turkey reform the boost should increase. eventually would for EU membership support Turkish affect opinion the so that public also would but side of in decisiveness, on European the terms outlook regarding foreign approach Turkey-EUpolicy would relations not only to of contribute the Turkey’sbetterment to need parties political Turkish that Turkey’sto regards common,supra-partisan with membership.Aagenda EU determined believe and clear a develop we MPs, Turkish with conducted we meetings the on Based makers. policy European to efficiently more out reach and developments political domestic complex the explain better to order in Brussels in as well as countries EU major in visible and active Turkey more be should

39 40 12) 11) part of the accession framework since the Copenhagen Summit of 1993. Summit of Copenhagen the since framework accession the of part been formally has it since formulated clearly be should capacity’ ‘absorption of notion vaguely-defined The process. accession the to commitment its show to democracy. and Accordingly,rights freedoms, it needs in to develop image order policies to repair its internationally and of issues the regarding arena international the in outlook negative its of aware be should Turkey Turkey. EU and the between therefore counterparts; a close cooperation seems aas must in order to trigger a new round of rapprochement 5) 4) 3) 2) 1) the Future of Turkey-EU Relations Recommendationsfor Policy General membership. The EU should open the to chapters closed encourage Turkey for full the to major reforms undertake necessary borders. its inside of programs aid humanitarian and plans settlement further developing by influx refugee Syrian the of management the for responsibility assume should EU The the in only not reforms and integration further areas. for in other also but sphere economic way the pave eventually would which TTIP in Turkey including consider should EU the Union, Customs the of development the to addition In enhanced. further be should EU the Turkey into of integration economic subsequent the Turkey and and EU the between Trade prejudices socio-cultural existing the diminish Turkey citizens. against its and help might turn in which public European the with citizens to citizens Turkish allow Turkishof engagement for further would incentive a be positive would This countries. EU to the member freely travel that protocol liberalization visa the finalize to efforts make should EU The in Turkey. reforms promote and role opposition constructive this playing continue should EU The level. policy-making the on influence no almost has and leverage this lost Union the years, of couple Inpast the fields. in many process reform the accelerated eventually which politics, domestic The EU had a on strong leverage Turkey in role and inopposition had Turkishplayed 2000s a early constructive

41 42 be, din “uks Clue s uoen utr? Clua Dpoay n Tre’ Ra twrs EU IB/8-BIBEbnerdeff.pdf towards Road Turkey’s and Diplomacy Web. 2014. Cultural Andrassyuni, - Membership.” Culture? European as Culture “Turkish Adrian. Ebner, Web. 2014. Unit. Intelligence Articles/421a313a-d58f-462e-9b24-2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf Economist The Index. Democracy http://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/quaderni_e_09.pdf TEPAV.& Internazionali Web. Affari EU-TurkeyInstituto in 2007. Prejudice and Relations. Impact Conditionality, summits/copenhagen/co_en.pdf EU.” EU.” Benhabib, Seyla, and Türküler Isiksel. “Ancient Battles, New Prejudices, and Future Perspectives: Turkey and the www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/essay_turkey_barysch_25sept07-1392.pdf K. Europeans “What Barysch, think about Turkey and Center why” for European Reform, 2007. pg: Web. 1-6. Web. 2013. Stiftung, Böll Heinrich Out?”, Way a There Is Relations: Turkey-EU of Souring “The Senem. Aydın-Düzgit, abgs.gov.tr/index.php?l=1&p=289 Bakanlığı. Birliği Avrupa TC Kanun. Hakkında Görevleri ve Teşkilat Sekreterliği Genel Birliği Avrupa www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Annual_Reports/Annual%20report%202014.pdf Annual Reports on ECRI’s Activities. European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance. 2014. Web. https:// www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Annual_Reports/Annual%20report%202013.pdf Web. 2013. Intolerance. and Racism Against Commission European ECRI’sActivities. on Reports Annual www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/Annual_Reports/Annual%20report%202012.pdf Web. 2012. Intolerance. and Racism Against Commission European ECRI’sActivities. on Reports Annual 58-68. Union, European The of http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/downloadFile.do?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=2281 Journal (2005).Official Union. European the of enlargement the following Turkey and Community Economic the European between an Association establishing PROTOCOL the to Agreement ADDITIONAL Web. policy/glossary/terms/accession-criteria_en.htm 2012. Sept. 7 Glossary. Commission European The Criteria. Accession References ocuin o te Presidency. the of Conclusions Constellations http://eu.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2013/12/aydin_turkey_eu_relations.pdf (2006). pg: 218. Web. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1351-0487.2006.00452.x/full pg: (2006). 218.

uoen oni i Cpnae. 93 Web. 1993. Copenhagen. in Council European

http://www.andrassyuni.eu/upload/File/Forschung/Andrassy Beitrage Beitrage http://www.andrassyuni.eu/upload/File/Forschung/Andrassy

http://www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/ http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/

http://www. https:// https:// http://

(ECSC). Community Steel and Coal European the capacity’of ‘absorption this is what Briefs “Just Policy CEPS Union?” European S. Aydin, & G., Noutcheva, J., Clerck-Sachsse, de M., Emerson, ne fr h fedm n h wrd Fedm os. 05 Web. 2015. House. Freedom world/2015/turkey#.Vbs4Gvmqqko world. the in freedom the for Index pdf berlin.de/soziologie/arbeitsbereiche/makrosoziologie/mitarbeiter/lehrstuhlinhaber/dateien/Why_not_Turkey. Turkey?” Not “Why Gerhards. Jürgen and Silke, Hans, http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SR007/eu.pdf Web. 2005. Economics, of School London (Editor). Kitchen Union.” Nicholas F. European the Hakura, “Turkey and Europe” in Parties Populist Web. http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_35420-544-2-30.pdf?140519123322 2013. National Stiftung, Adenauer Konrad and Right-wing Demagogues: the “Expanding F. Hartleb, & K., Grabow, Web. 2013. Feb. http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/France-wants-to-give-new-boost-to 15 London, in France of Turkey.Embassy with Talks EU of Chapter New Opening Backs France edu/fac-staff/boaz/pol357/jan27.htm 2015. July 8 Web. Francisco. San of University History. and Background Brief Union: European Web. 2015. Inc., Community Britannica Encyclopædia archives/eb/eb82/eb82_publ_en.pdf Web. Commission. European 2014. Autumn 82, Eurobarometer Standard resgroups/EPRG/pdf/Hix-Scully-Farrell.pdf of Survey the of Members from Retrieved the European Parliament’. New a from Evidence Parliamentarians? European or ‘National (2011) Farrell David and Scully Roger Hix, Simon Data.” ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/EPRG/MEPsurveyData.aspx Survey MEP “EPRG (2000-2010). Farrell David and Scully Roger Hix, Simon Parliament.” Rasmussen, Maya Kluger. “Another Side of the Story: A Study Case Qualitative of Voting Behaviour in the European opinion/archives/eb_arch_en.htm Web. 2015. July 31 updated, Last Archives. Eurobarometer Standard Opinion. Public Web. release_DOC-93-3_en.htm?locale=en 2015. April 21 updated, Last Commission. European Details. Release Press turkey#.Vbsw4Pmqqko Index for the of freedom the and press the Web. media. Freedom House. 2015.

28 (2008): 11-18. Web. http://www.epin.org/new/files/MRAarticle.pdf (2008): 28 11-18. Association Studies Political

http://index.rsf.org/#!/index-details/TUR , 2006. 1-24. Web. http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/2009/08/1381.pdf 1-24. , 2006.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/European-Coal-and-Steel- nylpda rtnia Eccoæi Bianc Online. Britannica Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia FreieUniversitatBerlin http://www.lse.ac.uk/government/research/

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/ https://freedomhouse.org/country/ . 2010. Web. 2010. .

http://europa.eu/rapid/press- http://ec.europa.eu/public_ LSE Web. . http://www.polsoz.fu- http://www.usfca. http://www.lse.

43 44 Treaty on Union. the European EUR-lex. Turkish_Accession_Definitions_And_Comments.pdf Web. 2007. May TEPAV, Comments”, and Definitions Turkish and Accession: EU the of Capacity “Absorption Aslı. Esen, Toksabay en.htm Turkish the by Parliament. European Agreement Commission, 26 Readmission EU-TurkeyJune 2014. Web. the of Ratification the on Malmström Cecilia by Statement Rise of Euroscepticism?” Rise of Euroscepticism?” Whitaker, Richard, Simon Hix, and Galina Zapryanova.“Research: MEPs in the 2014-19 European Parliament: The Web. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmfaff/1567/156711.htm#note4252012. Contents. Committee Affairs Foreign - Role Regional Turkey’s and Relations UK-Turkey Web. Bakanlığı. bakis.tr.mfa İşleri Dış Türkiye İlişkileri. AB - Türkiye turkey-and-the-european-union.en.mfa 2015. July 21 Web. Affairs. Foreign of Ministry Relations. Turkey-EU key_documents/2014/20141008-turkey-progress-report_en.pdf from (2014). Commission Retrieved European The TurkeyReport. Progress key_documents/2013/package/brochures/turkey_2013.pdf from (2013). Retrieved Commission European The Report. Turkey Progress key_documents/2014/20141008-turkey-progress-report_en.pdf from (2012). Commission Retrieved European The Report. Turkey Progress EN/TXT/?uri=celex:12012M/TXT of the impact of member-state, European party groups and national party affiliations on a special status status special a on uploads/2014/06/EP-on-Turkey-full-text.pdf affiliations party national and groups Web.Turkey,”for party vote2013. University.amendment Meliksah European member-state, of impact the of analysis an Turkish on accession: members parliament European the of behavior voting “The Abdullah. YUVACI, 2009. State.” Member Future a edu/3075715/Problems_of_Europeanization_and_European_Perceptions_of_Turkey_as_a_Future_Member_State as Turkey of Perceptions “European Hakan. Yılmaz, (2015). Index Freedom Press World Web. http://index.rsf.org/#!/index-details/TUR in-the-2014-19-european-parliament-the-rise-of-euroscepticism/meps2014-19

http://www.tepav.org.tr/upload/files/1252667182r9668.Absorption_Capacity_Of_The_Eu_And_ University of Leicester ( version Consolidated

. Web.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/research/meps- http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-210_ http://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-ab-iliskilerine-genel- 2012). Web. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ Web. 2012). http://www.meliksah.edu.tr/ayuvaci/wp-content/

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/relations-between- http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/ http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/ http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/

House of Commons, 4 Apr. 4 Commons, of House http://www.academia.

Appendix 1 Appendix 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 17 16 PARTICIPANTS FROMTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENT Javier Jaroslaw Walesa Vajgl Ivo Ertug Ismail Ilhan Kyuchyuk Helga Stevens Heidi Hautala Engel Frank Barandiaran Fernando Maura Ernest Maragall Benifei Brando Bodil Ceballos Pabriks Artis Bashir Amjad Alyn Smith MEP Kati Piri Kati Jordi Sebastia

Lopez Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska) (Platforma Platform Civic Upokojencev Slovenije) Stranka ( Demokratična Slovenia of Pensioners of Party Democratic The Deutschlands) (Sozialdemokratische Germany of Party Democratic Social The Freedoms and Rights for Movement Alliantie) New Flemish Alliance (Nieuw-Vlaamse liitto) (Vihreä Finland of Greens The chrétien social luxembourgeois) Christian-Social People’s (Parti Party Progreso y Democracia) Union, and Progress Democracy Nova Esquerra Catalana Democratico) (Partito Democratic Party gröna) de (Miljöpartiet Party Green Sweedish Unity Party Conservative NationalScottish Party POLITICAL PARTY dels Socialistes de Catalunya) Socialistes dels (Partit Catalonia of Party Socialists’ The Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid) de van (Partij Party Labour Compromís) Commitment Coalition (Coalició

(Vienotība)

Partei

(Unión Democrats) (Christian Party People’s European the of Group for Europe Democrats and Liberals of Alliance the of Group and Democrats Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists for Europe Democrats and Liberals of Alliance the of Group Group and Reformists European Conservatives Group of the Free Greens/European Alliance Democrats) (Christian Party People’s European the of Group for Europe Democrats and Liberals of Alliance the of Group Group of the Free Greens/European Alliance and Democrats Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists Group of the Free Greens/European Alliance Democrats) (Christian Party People’s European the of Group Group and Reformists European Conservatives Group of the Free Greens/European Alliance GROUP and Democrats Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists Group of the Free Greens/European Alliance and Democrats Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists

45 46 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 5 4 3 2 1 PARTICIPANTS FROMTHEUNITEDKINGDOM PARTICIPANTS FROMTHEEUROPEANPARLIAMENT Tomas Zdechovsky Tiziana Hadjigeorgiou Takis Renate Sommer Poc Pavel Paul Rübig Gahler Michael Marietje Schaake Marc Tarabella Knut Fleckenstein MEP Sir TonySir Baldry Lord Clement-Jones Lord Balfe Fabian Hamilton Clwyd Ann MP

Beghin unie) a demokratická Party(Křesťanská People’s Czechoslovak – Union Democratic and Christian The Five Star Movement (Movimento 5 Stelle) Laou) Ergazomenou Komma (Anorthotiko People Working of Party Progressive Union)Demokratische Union Democratic Christian (Christlich- demokratická) sociálně strana (Česká Party Democratic Social Czech The Volkspartei) People’sAustrian Party(Österreichische Union)Demokratische Union Democratic Christian (Christlich- 66) Democraten (Netherlands 66 Democrats Socialiste) Parti (Belgium Party Socialist Belgian Deutschlands) (Sozialdemokratische Germany of Party Democratic Social The POLITICAL PARTY

Partei

The Conservative Party The Conservative Liberal Democrats Party The Conservative Party Labour The Party Labour The PARTY Democrats) (Christian Party People’s European the of Group Europe of Freedom and Group Direct Democracy Left Green Nordic - Left United European the of Group Confederal Democrats) (Christian Party People’s European the of Group and Democrats Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists Democrats) (Christian Party People’s European the of Group Democrats) (Christian Party People’s European the of Group for Europe Democrats and Liberals of Alliance the of Group and Democrats Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists GROUP 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 1 8 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PARTICIPANTS FROMFRANCE PARTICIPANTS FROMGERMANY PARTICIPANTS FROMBELGIUM MP Pierre Lellouche Paul Giacobbi Meyer Habib Dumont Laurence Mezard Jacques MP Brecht Vermeulen Fatma Pehlivan Griet Smaers Griet Meyrem Almaci Raf Terwingen Anonymous Anonymous Wouter de Vriendt Heinz-Joachim Anonymous Dorothee Schlegel Dietmar Nietan Anonymous Andreas Nick MP Philipp Missfelder Michelle Müntefering

Barchmann Union for a Popular Movement (L’union pour un Mouvement Populaire) et progressiste) Republican,Radical, républicain, (Radical, and Democratic Progressist démocrate Union and (Union Independents of et Democrats des Indépendants) Démocrates citoyen) et républicain socialiste, (Groupe &Citizen Republican Socialist, (Président du groupe du et Démocratique Social Européen) Rassemblement Senate French the at Group Rally Social and Democratic European the of President PARTY Union) (Christlich-Soziale Union Social Christian Deutschlands) Partei (Sozialdemokratische Germany of Party Democratic Social The Deutschlands) Partei (Sozialdemokratische Germany of Party Democratic Social The Linke) die (Partei Left The Union) Union Democratic Christian (Christlich-Demokratische PARTY Christian Democratic Union (Christlich-Demokratische Union) Union Democratic Christian (Christlich-Demokratische Deutschlands) Partei (Sozialdemokratische Germany of Party Democratic Social The Deutschlands) Partei (Sozialdemokratische Germany of Party Democratic Social The PARTY New Flemish Alliantie) Alliance (Nieuw-Vlaamse Socialist Party Differently (Socialistische Partij Anders) (Socialistische Differently Partij Party Socialist Christian Democratic and Democratic en FlemishChristian Vlaams) (Christen-Democratisch Green (Groen) Christian Democratic and Democratic en FlemishChristian Vlaams) (Christen-Democratisch New Flemish Alliantie) Alliance (Nieuw-Vlaamse Democraten) (Open enOpen Liberalen and Flemish Democrats Liberals Vlaamse Green (Groen)

47 48 6 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 OTHER PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS FROMTURKEY Anonymous Türmen Rıza Pavey Şafak Erdemir Aykan MP Giles Portman Giles Grunert Thomas Patrick Paquet Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous NAME Nationalist Movement Party (Milliyetçi Hareket MovementNationalist Partisi) Party Republican People’s (Cumhuriyet Party Halk Partisi) Republican People’s (Cumhuriyet Party Halk Partisi) Republican People’s (Cumhuriyet Party Halk Partisi) PARTY The Service European Action Union External Turkey Division of Head Turkey and Adviser Europe: Enlargement and European Economic Area Unit of Head Negotiations for and Neighbourhood Enlargement The Directorate-General Turkey Unit, of Head Acting Grünen) 90/Die (Bündnis Greens ‘90/The Alliance from MP aGerman of Adviser Policy (Christlich-Soziale Union Social Christian from MP aGerman of Adviser Policy (Christlich-Soziale Union Social Christian from MP aGerman of Adviser Policy TITLE/AFFILIATION

Union) Union) Appendix 2 Appendix 1-) DoyousupportTurkey’saccessiontotheEU?Yes/No interaction betweentheEuropeanParliamentandTurkish Legislature,etc.) committee oversightinEUaffairs,improveinter-European parliamentarysupportforTurkey,more 1e) SuggestREALmethodstoadvancerelationsbetweenTurkey andtheEU(e.g.moreTurkish 1d) Howcouldyou(andyourposition)practicallyhelpimprove thechancesofTurkishaccession? 1c) Haveyoualwayshadthisstance? (from 1to11,beingthemostimportant) 1b) Pleaserankorexplainyourviewsonthefollowingpro-Turkeyfactorsintermsofpriority: 1a) Why?WhatisyourprimaryreasonforbeinginfavorofTurkishaccession? If youranswerisYES,pleasecontinuewiththispart: Promoting DialogueandSolutions:WhatEuropeanLegislatorsThinkofTurkey Others (Pleasespecify)…………………………………………………………………………………………..... European Accession/enlargementbroadly Transatlantic relations Middle-East-European relations Russian-European relations Energy dependence Domestic ethnicstabilityinEuropeasaresultofacceptingMuslimcountryinsidetheEU Bridging EastandWestculturally EU ForeignpolicyambitionsintheMiddleEast Military defense Economic growth Demographic Social StudiesFoundation Turkish Economicand This projectisco-fundedbytheEuropeanUnionandRepublicof Turkey Bu proje Avrupa Birliğive Türkiye Cumhuriyetitarafındanfinanseedilmektedir

Yes No

49 50 1d) DoyoubelievethattheEUshouldprovideassistancefor the solutionoftheseproblems? 1c) Doyoubelievethattheproblemcanbeovercome? 1b) Whataretheissueswhichdon’tconvinceyouofTurkeyenteringEuropeanUnion? 1a) Haveyoualwayshadthisstance?Yes/No If youranswerisNO,pleasecontinuewiththispart: If youranswerisYES If youranswerisNO Social StudiesFoundation Turkish Economicand what changed your stance if that isthecase? whatchangedyourstanceifthat whatformulated/influencedyourbeliefs? This projectisco-fundedbytheEuropeanUnionandRepublicof Turkey Bu proje Avrupa Birliğive Türkiye Cumhuriyetitarafındanfinanseedilmektedir

4-) PARTYCULTURE/VOTERDEMANDS 3-) TURKEY’sIMAGE 2-) AnotherformulaforTurkeyotherthanmembership? foreign policyandEUaffairs/accession? 4d) Howdoyoutransferknowledgetoyourvoterbaseandcommunicate withthemregarding 4c) Howdoesyourpartyaffectdecisionsvis-à-visTurkey? 4b) Doyoubelievethatprejudicescanbeovercome?How? 4a) Howeffectiveispublicpressure,especiallyfromyourvotersonyou? 3d) WheredoyougetyourprimarysourcesofinformationregardingTurkeyfrom? 3c) Howisitshapedinsideyourparty? 3b) Howisitshapedinyourcountry? 3a) Howisitshapedinyourconstituency? If NO,whynot? If YES,whatisanalternativeoption? Social StudiesFoundation Turkish Economicand This projectisco-fundedbytheEuropeanUnionandRepublicof Turkey Bu proje Avrupa Birliğive Türkiye Cumhuriyetitarafındanfinanseedilmektedir

Yes/No

51 52 or takenseriouslyasacandidatemember? 7-) DoyoubelievetheaccessionprocesscouldchangeinnerdynamicsofTurkeyifitweretojoin/ 6-) DoyoubelieveTurkeywouldchangeinnerdynamicsoftheEUifitweretojoinit? 5-) DoyoubelievethatthereareanyprejudicesagainstTurkey’smembershipduetosocioculturalfactors? If NO,whynot? If YES,inwhatways? Yes If NO,whynot? If YES,inwhatways? Yes Yes Social StudiesFoundation No No No Turkish Economicand This projectisco-fundedbytheEuropeanUnionandRepublicof Turkey Bu proje Avrupa Birliğive Türkiye Cumhuriyetitarafındanfinanseedilmektedir

Promoting Dialogue and Solutions: What European Legislators Think of Turkey

Zerrin Cengiz, Aybars Görgülü, Mehmet Ünlü, Samuel Doveri Vesterbye

Turkish Economic and Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation Social Studies Foundation