Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-15-Speech-3-017"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041215.2.3-017"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall use two minutes of Mr Schulz’s speaking time, which means that I have five minutes to speak.
You should give some consideration to what the people of Turkey will think. One can perfectly well be opposed to Turkey’s accession, but what will the men and women of Turkey think if they are told that this is an issue they are not allowed to know anything about? Do Europeans really want us to hold sittings in public and to provide public records of votes, as preached repeatedly and especially in Mr Poettering’s incessant sermons to the Council? This is something we wish to know, and this is something that is enshrined in the Constitution. This Parliament, a moral authority for good behaviour, has suddenly decided on the most incomprehensible and undemocratic course of action possible, and I find this impossible to understand.
I should like to make one more remark on Romania. Cultural differences sometimes also exist between the EU and societies which will shortly be joining it, for example the pervasive corruption in Romania, something which is a simple fact. We therefore call on the Romanian Parliament to take us seriously. Romania should be accepted into the EU, but only after it has met the Copenhagen criteria. At present it does not yet meet them, which is a fact that must be stated, and we should not accept it until it does. Romania will be accepted ...
Our debate today is on culture, and on what is and what is not European culture. It is an issue on which I should like to make a few comments. I am always sceptical when anyone tells me that things are culturally incompatible, and this is perhaps due to family reasons. We are all aware of how often Jews have been persecuted for marrying non-Jews, and how often white people have been persecuted for marrying black people, and such persecution has always been carried out under the pretext of cultural incompatibility.
I am also astonished at the emotional fervour, or in some cases even political blindness, with which debates relating to Turkey are conducted. I am well aware that there are worthy people with worthy arguments who are opposed to Turkey’s accession to the EU. It is entirely normal for worthy arguments to exist both for and against such an accession, and yet I am perplexed by the level of aggressiveness of those who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU. The basis for racism is always irrationality, and I cannot help but think that certain arguments against Turkey’s accession are not political, but purely cultural, or, in other words, racist. We cannot tolerate such a thing.
What kind of an example are we setting to Turkey and to the world? Mr Poettering has told this House that this is the most important decision to be taken by the European Parliament and by Europe in recent years, and that, as it is so important, we should take the decision in utmost secrecy, so that everyone is left in the dark with regard to how we have reached our position on this important issue. This House is to hold a secret ballot.
Can you just be quiet? Afterwards, you may speak for three minutes, like Mr Schulz. I shall say what I wish to say, and you may say what you wish to say. You may speak after I have finished.
If Members of this House demand secrecy, it is because they do not want voters throughout Europe to know where we as individual Members stand on this key issue. It is a disgrace to democracy that the vote should be conducted in this way. It is a scandal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples