Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-06-Speech-3-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991006.1.3-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the European Union is a Union of democratic constitutional States that contribute to the strengthening of the international rule of law both amongst themselves and in their relations with non-EU countries. That is why the European Parliament wanted Article 6, which contains such wording, to be included in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Article 7 even provides for the suspension of those Member States that do not abide by Article 6. It therefore follows that negotiations on accession to the European Union cannot be undertaken with countries that are not full constitutional States. We have had prior experience of this with Slovakia. We adopted a very clear position at that time. Slovakia did not satisfy the political criteria established in Copenhagen.
Commissioner Verheugen is also absolutely right in saying that Turkey does not satisfy the political criteria, and certain consequences flow from that statement. Of course, we cannot compromise the character of the European Union on geopolitical grounds and for reasons of
We cannot allow a State that is not a constitutional State to determine our common future; there cannot even be negotiations on that point. We must give the character of the Union due consideration.
The Council has politely said that Turkey is doing its best to become more of a constitutional state. The Right Honourable Member, Mr Swoboda has scratched around for some ideas, with a view to showing that there really is some truth in this. He himself will not be too happy with the list he has submitted. What actual evidence is there that Turkey is doing its best? Could we cite its dealings in relation to Cyprus or the Kurdish question, or the treatment meted out to Christian minority groups in Turkey? Could we cite the fact that command is being taken of the police, who have become a law unto themselves at local level, or the fact that the role of the army is under review? Could we cite the changes that are afoot as regards religious freedoms? I would like to see either the Council or the Commission produce a documented report on the positive steps that Turkey has taken, together with an overview of the points which still need to be worked on.
There is one point on which we, as the European Union, fall short and that is the completion of the Customs Union in financial terms. Immediately after the earthquake, the Greek Government made very friendly noises about Turkey’s becoming a member but I do not think we can take them at their word. The litmus test for the Greek Government consists in their willingness to lift the blockade on the financial aspects of the Customs Union. That is the only real contribution the Greek Government can make and any friendly noises it might otherwise make are completely empty gestures. We want them to put their money where their mouth is. Nor must the European Union disappoint Turkey in this respect. Fond words about the earthquake do not help either, for it did not alter the constitutional state in any way.
Mr President, we are going to have to leave Turkey in no doubt about all this. There must be no doublespeak!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Realpolitik."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples