Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-01-Speech-4-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040401.2.4-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I congratulate Mr Oostlander on the work he has done in this report, in which he raises several politically important questions regarding Turkey’s accession to the European Union.
I shall highlight two: the first concerns the extent to which the European Union itself is prepared for the future integration of this large Euro-Asian country. What impact will its accession have, if it joins? What geopolitical state of affairs will result from the adoption of new external borders for the EU, which will lie not only outside Europe but also on the doorstep of armed conflicts? How should we face the issue of population size that Turkey’s application raises, and the effects that this will have on the existing institutional balances? Will Turkey’s entry strengthen the security of the European Union and make its foreign policy more credible and effective in the region? Will it be possible to maintain the common agricultural policy? If so, in what form? What about the structural funds? These observations do not imply that we have any less regard for the great Turkish nation; far from it. They merely mean that, in our view, there has yet to be a public, open, objective debate across Europe on this question, which we believe is absolutely essential. That is why we support the rapporteur’s proposal to call on the Commission to produce an exhaustive study on the impact of Turkey’s accession to the EU, which will inform Parliament and the Council of the internal changes that will have to be introduced into the EU, and the need to reform current policy in the various key areas I have mentioned.
The second question is, in some respects, the converse of the first, and concerns Turkey’s political will to press forward whole-heartedly with the necessary reforms of its structures and its institutional and legal framework in order to comply with the Copenhagen political criteria, much as has occurred in the other candidate countries. The rapporteur quite rightly considers that it is now up to Turkey to decide for itself if it is willing or able, as a precondition for opening negotiations, to adopt the political principles and values of the EU as being suited to the Turkish state and Turkish society.
In this respect we have to recognise that the current government has shown strong political motivation and will to carry out major reforms, which have proved difficult and which are, in many cases, still unfinished, especially in the field of human rights, since they clash with traditions and practices of civil, judicial and military administration that have been consolidated over decades.
Opting for the so-called ‘legislative harmonisation packages’ has enabled Turkey to bring its legislation into line with EU standards more quickly than would have been the case if it had conducted an across-the-board review of the basic legal codes on which its political, judicial and legislative system is founded. This is a positive step. We are aware of the difficulties and the special conditions involved in this kind of process and can conclude that things are taking their course. Turkey may in future see the start of its negotiation process with the EU, provided that it keeps to the path of choosing the European values that it has been adopting of its own free and sovereign will.
In conclusion, the stage we have now reached should thus be understood as one of mutual preparation for the possible accession of Turkey to the European Union; preparation by the Union, which has to adapt at all levels in order to welcome in the great Turkish nation; and preparation by Turkey, which must continue its efforts to effectively implement the necessary reforms in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria.
Mr President, the outcome of this process must be the natural result of these efforts of mutual preparation and adaptation, and not the result of any subjective desire that does not take account of the realities that we are faced with on both sides."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples