For a while, they basically put the EU over a barrel via the refugee issue. In return for making some effort to restrain refugee flow, Turkey demanded the prospect of membership (bearing in mind that the talks alone were legitimizing, even without actual membership).
At this point, with EU membership looking less inviting and Turkey looking downright autocratic, it's hard to imagine it will happen. But the talks did their job, helping to shore up Erdogan's standing after Tahrir Square while he consolidated his power.
It's one more consequence of the slow. late reaction to Iraq and Syria: the EU had to sell out to anyone who could offer them some kind of damage control.
For example I saw some posts from turkish people on reddit, where they concluded that the few reaming Kemalists (there was a kemalist purge in 2011, with most of them replaced by Gulenists after some false accusations), would attempt a coup during EU-join talks, because they thought joining EU was a better deal than risking a coup.
When Brexit happened, it became clear the EU was a pointless effort, thus everyone waiting on the EU to put their plans forward, now didn't had to wait anymore, so all the corked schemes will now suddenly go forward.
People I talked with, many told me it wouldn't surprise them if we keep seeing a festival of coups, counter-coups and political manuevers now that EU is not in the way anymore.
> When Brexit happened, it became clear the EU was a pointless effort,
That 'pointless effort' has a population larger than the United States and much of the highest standards of living and productivity on Earth. The daft vote by the least educated and deliberately, cynically manipulated and misled half of one country does not make or demonstrate the EU pointless. If the vote was held today it would not pass.
It's possible that EU expansion is over. We ran out of neighborhood democracies.
If Trump wins in a similar democratic fubar, will the US be pointless?
> The daft vote by the least educated and deliberately, cynically manipulated and misled half of one country
This kind of attitude towards that half is maybe part of the reason they voted that way, education level aside. Not everyone benefited from EU membership.
I agree with Chris2048, in time before the actual vote in UK polish media tried to present both options and their arguments, one of the interviews was really memorable for me, the conclusion was that "no fisherman in UK will vote for stay". Of course I know, that the interviewee did not represent all of their trade and some probably voted stay. But the sentiment of it was very familiar to me, it was just like some polish farmers, mostly living off (very) small farms (<10ha). Before Poland joined EU it was feared that those people will have troubles, and let's be honest: with or without EU being a small farmer really sucks. The way that fisherman spoke about more than a decade of hardship and bureaucracy EU created for them was just what I'm hearing here. About new (higher) norms, about artificial production limits, even the part about how other EU countries are taking advantage of it to kill our industry was easy to relate to... And the emotions, last year in my region woman broke down in cries at paper-filling training, because she just couldn't stand it any more. If this was UK she would vote leave. Sure you may say that in a way she failed to make use of great opportunity EU provides, possibly because of lacking education, and there is some truth in that. But blaming people for being uneducated, stupid and cynically manipulated solves non of the problems, this is just an excuse to deny that EU has any problems at all.
Some people are better off than others. But stating as a fact that the EU was no benefit for some people needs a supporting argument, since it can't be demonstrated empirically (as a counterfactual case).
Agreed. There's no way Turkey can get into the EU, first, because it will never meet EU rules; and second, because any other EU member can veto it. In this case, Greece probably would.
Turkey first applied to join what was then the EEC in 1987. It was declared an eligible candidate in 1997. Negotiations were formally opened in 2005.
Now, in 2016, negotiations have closed on just one out of 35 chapters—‘science and research’, which was completed in 2006, the year after it was opened.
Of the remaining 34 chapters, 14 have been opened for negotiation.
In 2006, the EU decided that until Turkey agrees to remove obstacles to free movement of goods (including transport restrictions) between it and Cyprus, no more chapters will be provisionally closed. Eight chapters (including areas fundamental to EU law, such as free movement of goods and right of establishment and freedom to provide services) will not even be opened.
Basically, Erdogan has given up on the EU, and to be fair, the EU has probably missed out on an opportunity to draw Turkey into its sphere while the chance existed, and while Erdogan was willing to compromise.
I question whether Erdogan was ever seriously pursuing membership. He probably would have taken it, on good enough terms, but I don't think it was a goal. Too poorly aligned with his religious, autocratic tendencies.
The narrative that makes more sense to me is that Erdogan used membership talks to maintain a moderate reputation, creating a retort to both domestic and international critics. It weakened the position of moderate Kemalists at home, and effectively silenced EU criticism (what were they going to say, "he's a dictator and we'd like him in our club?"). The EU was reluctant to back off that course because it would have alienated an approximate ally well-placed to deal with Iraq and the refugee crisis.
At this point the game is played out; Erdogan has his state control, EU membership is less appealing, and the refugee crisis is, if not fixed, at least no longer new. Everyone got their short-term gains, and the talks can go nowhere just like they were before.
However, it would require Erdogan to be quite an intelligent, long-term thinking person. Which, in my eyes, has to be questioned considering how he is so emotional and short-tempered that he picks any tiny, meaningless war he can get, even if it means suing teenagers who "offend" him.
That's what, based on my limited understanding, is what distinguishes him from Putin. Putin is in many ways similar to Erdogan, but he actually knows that many minor fights are not worth pursuing. Which is why we the Internet can create cartoons and collages ridiculing Putin without being sued by him :)
Seeing Erdogan lacking essential personality traits of a good leader, I somehow have a hard time seeing that he is capable of that type of long-term planning. But who knows. He nevertheless managed to get quite far.
Erdogan confuses me for the same reasons as Trump - he's a petty, immature strongman who has no sense of proportion, but somehow he makes enough clever moves to advance his position. I'm not sure if they're political savants, depending on good advisers, or just lucky and grabbing hold of domestic anger.
Erdogan seems to be a joke of despot compared to the likes of Putin or even Assad, and "he's not competent" is probably the best counterargument to any claim of a big, long-term plan. I just wish I understood how he managed to get this far without the abilities that dictatorship usually requires.
That they were recently is surprising to many. IIRC the main bargaining chip that kept them in contention was consideration for the current collection of refugee crises where certain actions by Turkey could help a lot and other could further exacerbate the problems (both from an administrative PoV within the EU and a humanitarian PoV).
At this point, with EU membership looking less inviting and Turkey looking downright autocratic, it's hard to imagine it will happen. But the talks did their job, helping to shore up Erdogan's standing after Tahrir Square while he consolidated his power.
It's one more consequence of the slow. late reaction to Iraq and Syria: the EU had to sell out to anyone who could offer them some kind of damage control.