A quick look inside the mind of those who wish us over

There is a long, heavily footnoted article on Public Service.co.uk. Written by a Dean Carroll it is titled,

How selective should the European Union be when selecting its future members?

Apart from the obvious answer, not very, it gives a very clear view into the muddled thinking, selective quatation and generally almost insane optimism that goes on instead of a rational thought process inside the minds of those who wish to see the complete dominance of the European Superstate.

I do not have the time to fisk the piece properly, but do go and have a look, I will just cut out a few of the prime examples of what I mean here,

He quotes with ruthless abandon, approvingly,

Tackling this question, Fouskas maintains that a '…strong, united EU' could indeed assimilate former Soviet satellites states, solving border disputes and easing ethnic tensions through its '…powerful instruments of conflict management and resolution'. He claims: 'The ultimate goal should be the creation of a non-hegemonic, social democratic Eurasian administration under the aegis of Eurasian powers.' Fouskas concludes '…after the failure of Third Way socialism in the 1990s, Europe's political unification can only be the work of a new socialist political class, which should seek a permanent understanding with all democratic, Christian and anti-nationalist forces'.

Sounds a blast doesn't it?

Only by cementing a sense of European solidarity and identity, albeit by economic means, will Europe avoid a return to the sectarianism of its past and enter a metaphorical new Pax Romana era of prolonged piece(sic).

There is an imperative,

The polar opposite to integration is disintegration and no progressive European leader will countenance regression when there is an opportunity to proceed forwards by propelling EU norms to new geographical territories.

And what of difference?

Pure homogeneity must not be the goal – rather it should be celebrated heterogeneity through a partnership of countries adhering to some universal traits and values as well as establishing unbreakable partnership links that in future must define the supranational body. With this approach, the EU can truly become a global actor in the policy areas of trade, the environment, humanitarian aid and even in terms of military capabilities while fostering peace, development, social equality, economic prosperity, civil liberty, individual freedoms and scientific and intellectual innovation.

But remember that that wouldn't be homogenous, no perish the thought. Indeed it is when he starts talking about Turkey and Islam that he just disapears into a world of phantasticical geopolitical dreams.

Only such affirmative action will counter suspicions of Eurocentrism66, which critics suggest results in the EU extolling only fundamental western belief systems as narrow prerequisites for states hoping to gain accession – including Muslim nations like Turkey. Continuing to class Turkey, for example, as an '…outsider' or partitioning the Southern Mediterranean and the Western Balkans through the concept of '…otherness is a dangerous and outdated strategy when considered against cross-border concerns and the need for energy and military security in a globalised age.

Turks are often stereotyped by Europeans as authoritarian, Muslim, and unconcerned with social and gender equality despite the flexibility of the Koran, which separates religion from politics by devoting only a tenth of its 600 verses to legislation. Such prejudice is unhelpful as, already, some 18 million of the EU's total population of 500 million are Muslim citizens concerned with pluralism, democracy and individualism in the main. Turkey's EU membership could, indeed, spur greater diversity and cultural cohesiveness in the European community as well as improved relations between the West and Arab and Muslim states. It could be argued that this would be a step towards '…moving on from the politics of the polis, founded on borders, to that of the cosmopolis, founded on sharing' as Archibugi puts it.

Such deep ignorance of one of the worlds great religions (only 10% is legislative! As if faith and belief can be calibrated on an abacus) should disqualify this chap from commenting further. But he claims that the key interests of the majority of the EU's 18 million Muslims are 'pluralism, democracy and individualism' Errr... Evidence young man, lets see the evidence of that before we start welcoming the 85 million Turks into our country.

No doubt Mr Carroll will be extolled.