Turkey also confronts difficulties in meeting the EU’s economic criteria. Generally described as a fully operational market and a capability to contend with the EU, the economic qualification is basically analysed as the least problematic aspect of Turkey’s membership. However, the economic calamities in the country in the twenty-first century and the ensuing economic recession accompanied with predicaments experienced in the Customs Union ever more indicate that satisfying the economic conditions will be thornier than anticipated (Altunisik 2004). The reality that majority of the economic reform and technical assistance subsidies, which are chiefly obtainable for the potential and bargaining new member states, will not be accessible for Turkey, worsens the economic potentials of the country.In 1987, Turkey applied for EU membership which is three years ahead of Cyprus and Malta. However, when all of the post-Turkey applicants were approved of membership in the EU in 2004, membership arbitrations did not merely have to discuss the implications of Turkey’s full membership but to guarantee the country of full accession. For several reasons, the application of Turkey has not been regarded equally by the EU compared to the consideration it gave to other applications. To a certain extent, it has been viewed as being particularly and uniquely problematical, both politically and economically, although the latter takes less precedence over the other in terms of difficulties. This also has been partly due to the belief that Turkish membership will generate several problems for the EU and partly due to the perception of Turkey as a country extremely different from the other EU aspirant countries (Carkoglu amp. Rubin 2004).The European Council implemented the following standards for the assessment of aspirant states for membership in the EU: (1) political conditions, i.e. the state of democracy and respect for human rights. (2) economic conditions i.e. macroeconomic stability, ability to deal with competitive pressure. and (3) the ability to adapt the body of Community Law (Carkoglu amp. Rubin 2003: 44).