Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-14-Speech-2-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001114.5.2-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to close the debate by pointing out that there is, of course, a link between the Commission report on the progress that has been made, or not made, in Turkey and the accession partnership.
Several speakers have criticised the fact that the Commission failed to address certain problems. I can only assume that these speakers have not read the report, because all the problems referred to here, which the Commission allegedly failed to address, are dealt with in the report. Nor is it correct to say that the Kurdish problem was not called by its name. Where the report talks about the Kurdish language, Kurdish culture, Kurdish settlements, Kurdish parties, it calls them Kurdish. Anyone who says that the concept or the word "Kurdish" does not occur has obviously not read the report. I must defend myself against the impression created here that the terminology of the 2000 report differs from that of the 1999 report. It does not.
What is new is the accession partnership, and the accession partnership contains a very important stipulation: that the candidate country must deal with all the issues addressed in the progress report. In other words there is an internal link here. The accession partnership per se is a very balanced document, based largely on the Helsinki conclusions. Allow me to correct the erroneous impression, which one or two speakers are clearly under, that it is already a fact of life. We are at the proposal stage and I am not in a position this afternoon to tell you if this project will get beyond the proposal stage, especially if Parliament endorses proposals made here this morning and this afternoon. It is not my place to give Parliament advice or to criticise – nor shall I do so. My place is simply to point out any consequences which the decision may have. If you deal with the Armenian question in connection with the EU report – please read my lips: the Armenian question in connection with accession to the EU, then the project which we have discussed today will simply never get off the ground.
If the Helsinki conclusions on resolving the Cyprus question are changed along the lines called for by some speakers in the House, i.e. that accession should depend upon resolving the Cyprus question, the project will again founder. We changed precisely this last year with the backing of a large majority in the European Parliament. We have said in the past that it is not a condition and all we can demand of Turkey is for it to do its best, in all earnestness, to find a solution. However, we must never forget that it will take two sides to resolve this issue, not just one. That is why you cannot demand more of Turkey than serious, constructive, credible effort and you can only demand that a solution be found by those who have made resolving the problem their overall objective.
Finally, I feel that I should again point out that we made Turkey an offer with the Helsinki strategy. What we now need is to take the first step of the Helsinki strategy and I think it is unfair to evaluate this strategy as if it had already failed, even though the first step has yet to be taken. What we need now is to take the first step and it is your responsibility, as members of the European Parliament, to decide whether or not we can do so."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples