Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-13-Speech-1-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041213.10.1-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, thank you for the many remarks I have heard. The Members of this House have expressed a huge range of opinions. What virtually everyone in this House believes, if I have listened carefully, is that the decision to be taken by the Council on Friday is a very important one and a very important resolution. The decision to open negotiations with Turkey is, naturally, important for the European Union, but is just as important for Turkey.
I should like to conclude with a general observation. I am positive about the possibility of taking this decision, as it is now taking shape, on Friday, and I think that it will be a positive decision. It will be a positive one because we will then agree to open negotiations with Turkey. That is positive for the European Union, but also – and I should like to add this – positive for Turkey. The decision, however, will need to contain sufficient guarantees to accommodate the concerns that have been brought here.
Finally, it is also positive because if we as European Council can take Friday’s decision in this way, we do justice to public involvement. Mr Poettering, Mrs De Sarnez and many others have underlined the importance of involving the citizen in this far-reaching decision. I think that by taking the decision in this manner, we can explain to the citizen that an open and extensive debate has taken place in this Parliament and on many other platforms. We will be able to demonstrate to the public that the step we are now taking is very important for their economic position and their security, but at the same time, that we have taken their many concerns very much seriously.
A number of you, including Mr Rocard and Mrs Seeberg, have emphasised that throughout this discussion, we should also sufficiently highlight the benefits that will eventually accrue if Turkey joins us. These are benefits for the public both economically and in terms of security. Many have expressed their concerns as well. I can say that some of the concerns I have heard here are also concerns that are important in the European Council and are discussed there at great length, as the General Affairs Council, in fact, did this morning . A much-heard concern, and one that is also discussed in the Council, is the situation relating to human rights, torture, religious freedom and the position of minorities. Those are concerns that have been expressed from many quarters, including Mr Poettering and Mr Brok, and – if I can put it that way – also from the other side, by Mr Schulz and Mr Lagendijk. It is those concerns, among others, that form the underlying consideration for our hope to be able to reach an agreement on Friday about a new negotiating framework on the basis of the proposals tabled by the Commission for a new way of negotiating which will offer better guarantees for the negotiating process running smoothly.
One of the important new elements in this is the option of suspension, which has also been suggested by some of you, and which can be very relevant precisely in the case of violations of human rights and the other aspects I mentioned. Mr Duff specifically asked for the procedure to be explained. He asked whether a single Member State might request suspension or whether this has to be done by one-third of the Member States. I can inform Mr Duff that the presidency suggests – again based on the Commission proposals – that one-third of the Member States be required to submit the request for suspension, that is to say to request the Commission to submit a proposal to that effect. The Commission should therefore table a proposal which will be decided upon by qualified majority. I therefore share some of your concerns and would emphasise that the majority of the Commission’s sound proposals will for that reason be adopted in the proposals which we will now be submitting to the Council and on which decisions will be taken on Friday.
Finally, I would like to repeat what Mr Lagendijk and Mr Jałowiecki said in this connection. Many human rights organisations and other civil society organisations in Turkey emphasise that there are indeed many other areas of concern and that a great deal is yet to be done, but that, at the same time, it is of the utmost importance for the positive step to be made now and for negotiations to be opened.
I should also like to mention a concern which I do not share and which, fortunately, has been mentioned by few, namely religion. I am in total agreement with some of you, including Mr Schulz and Mrs Bonino, who emphasised that the European Union is about values and not about religion. A European integration project is not a religious, but a political project.
Another concern that I
share has to do with the discussion about Cyprus and its recognition by Turkey. A number of you have mentioned this aspect, including Mr Beglitis, who explicitly asked what the presidency’s thoughts were on this. On Friday, the presidency would like to achieve formal recognition by Turkey of the fact that Cyprus is a Member State of the European Union and that it is one of the Twenty-Five countries forming part of the EU. That can be done by signing the protocol to the association agreement.
Yet another concern that was raised by various Members, including Mr Hänsch and Mr Pahor, relates to the EU’s absorption capacity. Not only Turkey must be ready, also the European Union must be capable of receiving an acceding country well. Since I share this view, the presidency will try to include the EU’s absorption capacity in the conclusions.
A sensitive, yet important, point that was mentioned by many is the open-ended nature of the negotiations. That is an important point, and precisely because of its sensitive nature, it will also be discussed at great length in the European Council, where the final decision will be taken. Needless to say, I cannot make any predictions, but I can say two things about it
On the one hand, it must be absolutely clear, as the presidency has constantly emphasised, that we are discussing accession negotiations. The negotiations have no objective other than discussing accession negotiations. That is an essential element, and should also be reflected in the Council’s words and conclusions on Friday. On the other hand, it is, indeed, an open-ended process. Nobody can guarantee what will be the outcome after all that time, and we must realise that we could be faced with a situation where it transpires that no result has been achieved. In this respect too, we are mainly guided by the suggestions already made by the Commission."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"do"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples