Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
In the poll site you will find Tables 2 and 3. We have:
Question 2: "Do you think that Turkey should be invited to join the EU?" Question 3: "If Turkey were to implement reforms desired by some EU member states, should it be invited to join the EU?"
From here they derive table 4: "Total for allowing Turkey into the EU (combining yes responses from Tables 2 and 3)".
NOW LOOK at above of table 3: "Base: Adults who were not sure * OR DID NOT THINK * Turkey should be invited to join the EU"
instead of
"Base: Adults who were not sure Turkey should be invited to join the EU".
which is correct. but then, had they do so, and you would obtain, for example, 29.51% (before rounding), not 40%, in the upper leftmost square.
Fo'ks, doesn't that recalls you a nice 2004 joke on Diebold's voting machines from hell?
Good video though.
For Table 3, with the example of Britain, the base is the 46% who answered No to "Do you think that Turkey should be invited to join the EU?" PLUS the 31% that wasn't sure, altogether 77%. Now, 21% x 77% = 16.17%, I guess with the fractional percents it is a bit more, giving the 40% total. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Plus, do you criticise even asking people who answered the general question on Turkey's accession with a No? On that criticism, I have to disagree: the question of Table 2 does NOT distinguish people who would not let Turkey in as it is right now, but are open to the accession of a further reformed Turkey; and people who would not let it in under any circumstances and don't want accession talks either. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
let me put in another perspective. how many those of said "yes" were assuming that turkish society would change?
the lack of discrimination is valid both ways!
...
notice that the not clarifications of the amount of requireds reform is not questioned, and that itself is sufficient to generate a bias. because what may be enough for N. may not enough for M. this omission is not innocent. it is a forged agreement.
No, I don't.
OK. I think where we could agree is that the unqualified question about whether Turkey should be allowed to join the EU is a stupid question. Personally, I think more specific questions should have been asked of everyone (such as: "Allow Turkey to accede if it fulfills all conditions?" "allow to accede once there is deeper integration?" "Do you think Turkey is able to fulfill all conditions... in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?"). *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
ONE - which part of the respondents to question 2 (T2Q) should answer to the question of table 3 (T3Q)?
TWO - which question or questions should substitute T2Q? ...........................
there is a connection between the two points, and I think that if we address question II first we may still agree on question I. so in this post i'll address question II; in a next, parallel, post i'll address question I. post titles codify this.
PUD-TWO will be discussed bellow .............................
It seems many different reasons can justify why one opposes or is in favour of Turkey becoming a member of the EU. we have:
Factors extrinsic to Turkey, such as
- is the EU ready to take new members? (>> is it mature, in terms of decision processes? >> are the new members states already integrated, and so we can continue enlargement under?) ) - can the EU take any more members at all? (>> may there be a limit number of members-states before the decision process colapse? OR >> may there be a limit number of member-states after which the founding members cannot obtain the advantages from participating in the association that justifies their financial support to the cohesion of the group?)
- factors specific to the entrance of Turkey ( >> the fact that Turkey is mostly in Asia (96% of its territory >> is Turkey a European culture? >> is Turkey too big and poor? >> was it not Turkey a country which kept SE Europe under its control for hundreads of years? >> is the geopolitical agenda of Turkey compatible to the one of major european powers?)
(Resuming) PUD-TWO Main Result: These are too many questions. they deserve a serious poll on their own.
Corolary a you cannot possible discuss the turkish accession problem in detail in this poll. Corolary b therefore the poll should be limitted to T2Q. T2Q is not a bad question. you just cannot elaborate from it.
In table 4 fnQ2 is mixed with all of of Q2. therefore the mixture in T4 (no question here) is enriched in fnQ2 and depleted in aQ2.
-------------------------
was this answering style too pompous for you?
