Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-06-Speech-3-143"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.19991006.3.3-143"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"I shall not be voting in favour of the joint resolution on EU-Turkish relations as it contains contradictory policies and arguments as well as a dose of hypocrisy which does not become such a serious political body as our Parliament. Even in its first article, the resolution calls for Turkey to be considered eligible for candidate status with a view to eventual Union membership. Yet, immediately on from that, there is a series of articles which explain why Turkey does not fulfil the Copenhagen criteria for recognition as a candidate country! If that is not a contradiction, then the draftsmen of this resolution obviously mean that recognising Turkey unconditionally as a candidate country will help it to make better headway towards the political reform necessary to satisfy the Copenhagen criteria. In which case, why can we not say this in our resolution? Why can we not make it clear to Turkey that its recognition as a candidate country is an exception to what we demanded from other countries (such as Slovakia), and that this exception is being made for special reasons (which must be clearly stipulated) so as to facilitate its progression towards the necessary reforms? It should stipulate that Turkey’s progress will be monitored by the EC and only then will it consider its actual application for accession into the EU. The fact that we did not do this in this resolution can only mean that either we do not take the Copenhagen decisions seriously, or that we cannot explain publicly, i.e. politically, why we are making an exception for Turkey. Alternatively, it may mean that we do not take Turkey seriously in the sense that we recognise it as a candidate country for reasons we cannot make public, but in any case, we have absolutely no serious intention of even helping it to ever become a Member! From what I have heard of other speakers who pointed to certain differences which generally rule out rapprochement with Turkey, this last interpretation seems the most likely. I am also totally against such standpoints, which even border on being racist in some cases. Europe has everything to play for with Turkey’s accession, and should not mock or underestimate it but should set clear preconditions for a stable and long-term relationship with it with a view to eventual accession into the Union. But this will not happen with micropolitical and opportunist sophistry or with endless pirouetting, which favour neither the Union nor Turkey."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph