Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-25-Speech-4-075"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011025.1.4-075"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We voted against the Lamassoure Report "on Turkey's progress towards accession" as we cannot see how the rapporteur manages to reconcile Turkey's inclusion and his conception of a federal Europe with strong supranational powers. The rule of law must in fact relate to the identity of a people, and the practice of democracy falls under this heading. To date we have still not found a European people. What chance then of a Turco-European people?
In fact, the Lamassoure report's sole merit is that it brings into the cold light of day the contradictions of present-day Europe. If it proves necessary to establish firm cooperative links with Turkey, this cannot under any circumstances come about through a supranational power enacting regulations uniformly applicable to all, but must result from dialogue between one nation and another, within the European variable-geometry structure.
Moreover, the Lamassoure Report finesses with the recognition of the Armenian genocide of 1917, doubtless aiming to appease Turkey. We believe there is a need to be more frank and to ask Turkey to acknowledge that the genocide took place. Obviously it is difficult, but it would not be the first country to regret a dark episode in its history. Turkey would then have to act consistently with the objective of true peace-making by re-establishing diplomatic relations with Armenia."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples