European Union, the sui generis organization, has been integrating deeper and wider throughout the years. Today it consists of 27 States with a variety of diversities while trying to be something more than the mere sum of its members. This paper seeks to examine to what extent decision makers of the EU institutions behave according to their nationality (intergovernmental dimension) or unite in their political affinity regardless of their differences (supranational dimension). In this respect, the paper concentrates on the European Parliament (supposedly most appropriate institution for this analysis since it captures the two aforementioned dimensions) given that it tries to represent all the existing diversities (national and ideological) inside the Union in a democratic ground. Turkey has always been a controversial issue as a candidate country waiting in the doors of the EU for more than half a century. Different scholars have been trying to explain the reasons behind the Turkish deadlock. Being different from all the other Member States in cultural, socio-economical etc. dimensions is mentioned as a reason frequently. In this respect, this paper takes Turkey as a case study and investigates the voting behaviour of the MEPs on the issues related to the accession process of the country. 68505 observations on 92 different vote rolls about Turkey in the area of Foreign and Security Policy (2004-2011) is used for this analysis. The dataset is elaborated from the database of VoteWatch.eu with the purpose of explaining the role nationality and political affinity play in voting. In the light of this analysis, the attitude towards further enlargement can be discussed sincerely, regarding both nationality and political affinity.
