Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-06-Speech-3-014"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:State of relations between Turkey and the EU2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991006.1.3-014"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-06-Speech-3-0152
lpv:speaker	lp:Alexandros Alavanos2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-04-14)3 member; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras kai tis Proodou (1999-07-20--2004-04-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Bulgaria Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, our group is in favour of a European vocation for Turkey and the possibility of its eventual accession. It is also in favour of a more open policy as regards granting financial assistance, provided this aid can benefit in particular the plight of its many earthquake victims. This does not mean, however, that we agree with the delegate of the Finnish Presidency or with Mr Verheugen or with the joint motion for a resolution being tabled in the European Parliament. We believe that we, the European Union, must be a community of principles and not a cynical political entity pursuing geo-strategic policies which, to a large extent, come from Washington. Why did we lay down certain conditions for Slovakia and refuse to grant it applicant status. Was this a bad thing for Slovakia? And why did we do the same for the Baltic States on the grounds of respect for minorities? Was this a bad thing for the Baltic States? Were we not aware that Slovakia and the Baltic States had made specific progress? So why should we change our standpoint as regards Turkey? Mr Verheugen said that it is up to us to provide Turkey with an incentive, a signal or a symbol to help set in motion the democratisation process in Turkey. Have we not already done this? Did we not do this with the Customs Union? Did we not do this with the proposal for the European Conference? Did we not do this with the MEDA programme? We had no response. Therefore, I believe that we must insist on the preconditions and demand that specific progress be made by Turkey. Finally, I would like to mention that I was disappointed to hear the three groups referring to the Greek Foreign Minister’s statements and standpoints to endorse their argument for intensifying relations unconditionally. I myself do not wish to comment on this. It is not an area on which I would like us to comment. However, I would like to say that Mr Swoboda is wrong to say that progress has been made on the Cyprus issue because Mr Papandreou said so. No progress has been made on the Cyprus issue! We also heard Mr Ecevit saying that there will be no intercommunal agreements unless Mr Denktash’ regime receives official recognition. No progress has been made on the Cyprus issue and no progress has been made on the Kurdish issue!"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph