Byzantium was Rome; Turkey is not. Your "historical parallel" makes absolutely no fucking sense.
No, I don't have particularly much against Turkey, as such -- they're perfectly nice neighbours of Europe, nowadays. *Neighbours*, because Turkey isn't situated *in* Europe; it's the very fucking original definition of Asia. And that's why it doesn't belong in the European Union, which is a union of *European* countries. (If you ponder the name of the union real hard, maybe that'll become a bit more obvious: It's a *European* union, you see?)
And WHAT, exactly was "okay" in that time "when the austrians ran europe"?!? Large parts of Europe were under occupation by a foreign (non-European) power, the Osman Empire. Who the heck was "okay" with that??? The Osmans? Yeah, perhaps they were -- but as you'll notice, all the peoples in the occupied territories got rid of the Osmans as soon as they could. Seems no *Europeans* thought it was all that "okay".
My parallells -- DC Senators for Britain; Italy to run the Middle East -- are the exact continuation of your thesis that just becaused a nation centuries ago occupied what was before, and is now, someone else's territory, that long-ago ocuupier now belongs in that territory.
To most normal people that is *not* right. Can you explain why you think it is?