Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.2.3-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, our position on Turkey’s accession to the European Union is well known. We clearly expressed this position in Parliament’s part-session last November during the debate on the report on the progress of Turkey’s preparations for accession. We have nothing against the great Turkish nation or against its close relationship with the European Union. In fact, the opposite is true. We simply feel that the traditional cautiousness that has characterised our attitude to Turkey’s candidature has been changed without any coherent political debate on the matter. Can the reasons for our cautiousness have disappeared or become less pressing? First of all, there is the geographical problem: do we no longer think that just a small portion of Turkey’s territory is actually part of the European continent? What new doctrine on the shape of Europe allows us to frame this new concept of external borders that would result from Turkey’s inclusion in the Union? Must Europe gain a new border, one that is not only outside Europe but which is riven with war and conflict? We only have to think of the possibility of being surrounded by countries such as Iran, Iraq or Syria.
What can we say about the contrast with the democratic model shared by all Europeans, brought about by the countless restrictions that are, unfortunately, still being imposed in Turkey on the exercise of fundamental rights? How can we reconcile Turkey’s accession to the Union with its ongoing military conflict with Greece over Cyprus? What about the Kurdish question, which is making no progress? And what of the military’s influence over the regime which is still powerful? Lastly, does no one question the impact that the size of Turkey’s population will have on the social and economic cohesion of an enlarged Europe? Have all these issues changed or become significantly less serious? We do not think so. We even think that we are not alone in holding this opinion.
The more optimistic among you will say that we are the ones who are failing to see the good progress that has been made to date. Is this the case? Let us see what the Commission’s latest report on the Turkish situation has to say. It does indeed acknowledge considerable progress in the field of macro-economic stability and in improving the most striking imbalances in Turkey’s economy. We are not naïve and realise that this is probably what counts. Turkey’s economic importance for the European Union today is considerable. In 2000, for example, the European Union was responsible for 52.9% of Turkey’s imports and 53.1% of its exports. Obviously, we cannot ignore this fact. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend reading this report in the light of respect for freedom of expression and of association, which the Commission has stated are being limited. The report should be read in the light of the situation in the field of economic, social and cultural rights, which the document says have not changed since 1999, in the light of the judicial system, whose functioning has still not been improved, and of corruption, which is still taking place at worrying levels. The report deals with the military dimension of the regime, torture and abuse, which are far from being totally eradicated and which lead the Commission to conclude that, and I quote, ‘with regard to the previous year’ – 1999 – ‘the situation on the ground has not improved and Turkey is not systematically fulfilling the Copenhagen political criteria’.
Mr President, the proposal for a Council regulation that we are going to vote on tomorrow creates a legal framework which will enable Turkey to benefit from a pre-accession strategy, just like the other candidate countries. This strategy provides for a kind of suspensive clause, which will be triggered specifically if there is insufficient progress towards fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria. Parliament wants to be involved in this evaluation process, which is all well and good. In the meantime, however, given the real framework drawn up by the Commission itself, we need to ask whether this suspensive clause will be anything more than an example of political hypocrisy. Otherwise, we will only be able to conclude that what the Commission is proposing for Turkey gives partnership for accession with one hand and, with the other, suspends it indefinitely."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples