Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-19-Speech-2-104"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021119.2.2-104"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Turkey enjoys special status as a candidate country. We have very long-standing relations with Turkey, not only in the EU as a candidate or imminent candidate, but also mainly as a NATO member. This was an excellent position and one that we have always valued with regard to Turkey, and still do. The EU, however, is different; this is far more involved. EU membership is about sharing the character traits of the participating states, for we as members of the European Union decide on each others' future. This is why political criteria are accorded such high importance. In former times when we were still an economic community, we never really thought about it in this way. It was actually quite normal for us to be constitutional states with functioning parliamentary democracies; this was a given that was not even mentioned. Things are different now.
During the enlargement process, we have discovered the importance of the EU’s character as a union of democratic constitutional states. I also believe it to be of crucial importance for us to keep saying to Turkey that our opinion, as adopted in Helsinki, is as follows: we cannot start membership negotiations until you have met the political criteria of Copenhagen. This is, in my view, a clear and transparent stance, which we must sustain at all costs. Based on this principled opinion, setting a date prior to the start of the negotiations is very inconsistent. Should the Council decide on this anyway, either directly or indirectly, it would be sending the message that the political criteria are not that important to it. I have even heard speculations to the effect that the Council will set a date on which it has determined that the negotiations will start. Surely Mr Haarder, very honourable President-in-Office of the Council, you will not put us through something as radical as that. I assume that you will be protecting Europe from such an indirect speculation and that the political criteria will simply continue to occupy prime position. If the EU’s character were irrelevant, the Council could wonder why we should continue to hold talks of this nature. However, I am counting on the fact that the forthcoming Council will not be faced with something of this nature. I reject a line of reasoning of this kind. It damages the interests of the European Union and those of the Turkish citizen, and – very importantly – it also undermines the current support base for Turkey’s accession among the European people. It was our recent experience in the Netherlands that, even with regard to an excellent country such as Poland, with which we had maintained good relations for a long time and which broadly shares our political culture, it was threatened that there would have to be a referendum on its accession. If the accession of a candidate country has no support base among its population, God only knows what could happen, and this is why the process should be very carefully monitored in the case of Turkey too.
The issue of the rule of law and democracy has not appeared to be so difficult in any of the candidate countries. In comparison to this, the adoption of the rest of the acquis communautaire does not seem such a big deal at all, at least as far as Turkey is concerned. Commissioner Verheugen stated a moment ago that Helsinki in particular, with the statement that Turkey is now truly a candidate country, has done so much to get Turkey to take the necessary steps. We naturally witnessed all of this, and we appreciate that those steps were important for relations in Turkey, but they did not go far enough for us. My most burning question is, however, why is Turkey doing this; surely there must be some underlying belief? Was this European pledge necessary to let Turkey move in the direction of a constitutional state? This would be a mistake. We must be able to rely on the fact that the Turkish Government, even the new Turkish Government, will opt for the path towards a constitutional state and democracy out of conviction. This should not be the subject of bartering on the part of the European Union; this should be spontaneous.
I remember talks with the Romanian ministers who stated that they themselves had solved the problem they had experienced with the Ukraine about this small island in the Black Sea. I said that we had naturally pushed for this solution, but they claimed that they had solved the problem of their own accord, for the Ukraine sets great store by the fact that the fulfilment of these criteria is a spontaneous activity. I think what the Romanians did is great, and I hope that Turkey too, in this respect, will opt for this solution out of conviction. If this is not the case, trust will never be established.
I am open to the wish that Turkey should be given a positive sign, and that is why I warmly support the paragraph tabled by the Socialists on enlargement and cooperation in various sectors. This serves a practical purpose. However, it could be some time before the next stage, namely that of negotiations and membership, is reached. This is why I also endorse the text of the Ferber amendment, which states that some arrangement should be in place and that we will need to agree with each other on whether we need to look for an interim solution in this respect. I am not happy about the deletions proposed in that amendment, for these remove the framework from the entire accession process. It is important for us to hold on to this framework consistently and as a matter of principle at all times. This is also for Turkey’s sake."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples