Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.1.4-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The issue of Turkey brings us back with a jolt to the question of what kind of Europe we want. If the question is framed in terms of membership of a monolithic bloc, the Turkish question will be extremely difficult to resolve. It will suffice to consider the example of our shared external frontier.
On the hypothesis that Europe will develop steadily towards variable geometry, nothing, then, prevents the involvement of Turkey in certain European policies in fields where there is a real commonality of interests. If, on the contrary, we hold fast to a rigid conception of the European Union, the only outcome, in the long term, will be the reversal of the decision made at Helsinki and the resumption of an association process with Turkey of the same kind as those we are developing with the other Mediterranean States which geography and history have placed outside Europe.
I am, by the way, astonished to learn, from the Turkish Ambassador, that the rapporteur, Mr Lamassoure, was opposed to the amendments referring to the Armenian genocide, whilst the political group to which he belongs played an active part in having this crime recognised as such by the French National Assembly. Could this be a case of ‘doublespeak’?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples