What's Turkish for deadlock?

I always worry when I find myself agreeing with Vincent Browne, who wrote in yesterday's Business Post (not going to bother with a link because it'll be dead in a week when it goes archive - must update next Monday), but he wrote persuasively on some points regarding the importance of Turkish membership.

But his reasoning - that Turkey should be admitted because if we don't we'll have the long-promised Clash of Civilisations with Turkey, the Greater Middle East and ultimately an Islamic insurrection in Europe itself with our Muslim population - is shared by many in Europe's political class and is what puts a lot of people off.

Fear of Muslims, and what "they" might do if we displease "them", is not a good reason to admit Turkey to the EU. This smacks of appeasement, and only serves to reinforce the fears that drive the vast majority of Europeans to oppose Turkish entry - and why I suspect that there are many diplomats who are secretly pleased the Austrians are doing the dirty work.

If "they" are to be feared, surely the solution is not to admit "them" into our midst? - would be the thinking of your average 'No' voter in France or the Netherlands, surely.

There are plenty of good reasons to admit Turkey. But if voters are going to have to be convinced of the benefits - and they increasingly seem determined to be heard on this, across Europe - the grandees are going to have to start making the case, in terms of benefits to Europe.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Tense EU drive for Turkish deal

Paul Reynolds' Analysis: probable entry, with difficulty