olivefarmer

Civil war means different things to different people. Turkey is a very large country in both Europe and Asia. It has many ethnic minorities. When people think of Greece not many will think of the Muslim minorities in the north of the country. Likewise Turkey has many suppressed/oppressed groups.
The PKK. The PKK emerged in the 1980s as the main militant wing championing a separate homeland for Turkey's Kurdish minority, whose cultural identity had for decades been harshly suppressed by the Turkish state. An estimated 40,000 people died in about three decades of hostilities, until a cease-fire was announced by Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK's jailed leader, in 2013.That has since stalled.
U.S. officials say the Turkish strikes on the PKK had nothing to do with Washington's coordination with Ankara over the fight against Satanic State. But, in the rhetoric of Turkish officials, the war on the militant group and the Kurdish guerrillas is all part of a joint struggle against the terrorists in Turkey's midst. That to me is a "civil war".
Satanic State. People wrongly think of these people being confined to Syria. For quite a while in recent times they were openly receiving arms, fighters and money smuggled via Turkey's porous border. This is particularly the case in the South East of the Country- an area that I doubt sees tourists. Assad once said there are I think it was 51( or maybe)81 countries supporting Satanic State. Turkey was included in that number because it suited as they were fighting the Kurds. That to me is a "civil war".
DHKP-C, Leftist radicals in Turkey -Revolutionary People's Liberation Party.Erdogans party has lost the iron control it once had over the country. Peoples' Democratic Party have taken seats, or HDP, a motley bloc of leftists and Kurds, some directly linked to the PKK

So I looked up the definition of a civil war :
A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies.

I say that fits in with my definition.

On the BBC today :
Turkey has begun security operations* against Kurdish rebels in the country's south-east and in Iraq after yesterdays PKK bomb in Ankara.

* means people being killed, arrested and probably imprisoned without trial. We don't know because no one is monitoring. Too busy with Syria!

Blass

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/turkey


Well I certainly don't agree and going from the Foreign Office Over 2,500,000 British nationals visit Turkey every year don't either.Think that speaks volumes don't you?

Turkey has a problem with terrorism fully agree with that civil unrest again yes. But Turkey civil war absolutely not. I get the point you were making but the civil war no way.

These are the current civil wars.

The following civil wars are ongoing as of 2015. Only ongoing conflicts meeting the definition of a civil war are listed. See list of ongoing military conflicts and lists of active separatist movements for lists with a wider scope.

Israel-Palestinian conflict, since 1948
Korean war 25 June 1950 – 27 July 1953, also see Korean Armistice Agreement
Papua conflict, since 1962
Insurgency in Northeast India, since 1963
Colombian conflict, since 1964
War in Afghanistan, since 1978
Peruvian conflict, since 1978
Somali Civil War, since 1988
War in Darfur, since 26 February 2003
War in North-West Pakistan, since 16 March 2004
Sudanese nomadic conflicts, since 26 May 2009
Islamist insurgency in Nigeria or Boko Haram insurgency, since 26 July 2009
Syrian Civil War, since 15 March 2011, also see List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War
Central African Republic conflict, since 10 December 2012
South Sudanese Civil War, since 15 December 2013
War in Donbass, since 6 April 2014, also see Russian military intervention in Ukraine
Iraqi Civil War, since 2 January 2014
Second Libyan Civil War, since 16 May 2014
Yemeni Civil War, since 19 March 2015.

Now tell me are Is the UK flying millions of British people to the above countries every year on holiday. The reason is Turkey is not having a civil war.

Think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

olivefarmer

Turkey , like a lot of hot countries is desperate for tourist revenues. Just because people are going there doesn't make it a safe place. Certainly the tourist areas will be safer but only to a point. Like Tunisia. I wouldn't take the risk now.

I dare say people would have said that the Northern Ireland troubles weren't a civil war either.. People still got killed.

Fred James

Just what has civil war in Turkey got to do with Brexit and the effect on expats?

Back on topic please.

TextualHealing

Why single out MEPs Neptuno? Our MPs are pretty good at this too!

TextualHealing

I bloody well hope so

rspltd

The most significant word that the 'stay in' camp uses consistently is reformed as in 'Britain will be best in a 'reformed' EU. If this was the case I suspect a lot of people may be in favour of staying. What are the chances of 'reform?' Less than zero I suspect which is why a lot of people want to leave. After all Cameron went around Europe for a number of weeks trying to persuade the others that Britain had the right to spend it's benefits as it liked - did we get reform? As De Gaulle used to say Non! So we will still be sending an estimated £50million (mostly to Poland) to support people's children most of whom don't live in the UK. Reform - fat chance!

iano

Those people (mostly from Poland) contribute 12% more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

See here.

The surplus could well be sent to support British pensioners on the Costa Blanca, most of whom don't live in the UK either.

TextualHealing

What I don't understand is that most of the 'Out' supporters belong to a party that has an absolute mandate to 'govern' the UK from the support of circaa (if not less than) one third of the electorate. And they bang on about Europe's democratic deficit'. If there's one country with one of those its the UK. I've never felt my vote counted except in EP elections.

MikeJ

TextualHealing

Of course the UK is a net contributor to the EU. It's because we're one of the richer MSs. For me the issue isn't so much a reformed EU as a reformed UK. PR, membership of the Euro and Schengen, no time limit on ex pats voting in elections. Bring it on!!

Tarian

"Those people (mostly from Poland) contribute 12% more in taxes than they receive in benefits. "

Oh dear, one of the many unfounded or selective assertions.

Cash benefits for migrants are not huge ( although understandably symbolic as most have not contributed to the UK).

The big omission is non-cash benefits for migrants - and all of the additional capital costs required to enlarge public services.
Specifically:

Education: More teachers - and all the extra classrooms built in the last year or two - plus many more in the years to come

Health: More doctors and nurses - and all the extra surgeries and hospitals that have to be built

Housing: The extra pressure on Council Housing depts - and all the extra, subsidised social housing being built (and to be built)

Transport: Overcrowded buses and trains - needing more buses, trains and staff- and the extra roads and rails needing to be built

Lastly : Quality of Life
How does one value this?
Anyone living in London and the South-East could tell you how Q of L has deteriorated:
- higher-density housing (and "noisy neighbours")
- loss of green fields
- overcrowded buses and trains
- longer journey times
- taxes higher than necessary to deal with the pressure on public services

In summary, the pursuit of economic "growth" is about as virtuous as pursuing obesity !

jonesy7

Spot on

amideislas

I agree. All big cities suck. Ever been to Cairo? Istanbul? Mexico city? They're lucky to have a job, let alone the poshness of "benefits" like "healthcare" or "winter fuel allowance"...

olivefarmer

This is going to sound like a support for stay in.

We have had a lot of experience with UK care for our families in the last few years. Recently the mother in law has been having three self funded visits a day from company A. The care was poor. We had to ask for two of the carers not to be sent ever again. the billing was incorrect 14% in the favour of the company. One disgruntled carer said she knew they overcharged as most are funded by the local authority so it doesn't matter! We dispensed with them and initiated a complaint to the governing body which shockingly is advisory only!!

We found company B. No mean feat as rural'ish addresses are difficult because the carers do not get paid for travelling and the rota schedulers are useless having little or no geographical knowledge.The care standard is excellent with willing workers who go the extra mile. Now the kicker. Company A sent only UK nationals , company B has only sent Romanians.

Will they (be able to) continue after a Brexit?

I keep saying by the way that care in the Uk is a time bomb on a shaort fuse.