Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-01-Speech-4-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040401.2.4-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, firstly, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Oostlander, for a skilfully prepared report with many correct assessments, but also with unrealistic expectations.
The report states that the basic view is that, insofar as it wishes to do so, Turkey is in a position to transform itself into a first-class EU Member State. This seems to me rather like begging the question. If Turkey transforms itself, the country will become other than it is, but the question is of course one of whether such a transformation is at all possible.
If, firstly, we take it for granted that the EU consists of European states, Turkey can never become a member, for the country cannot transform itself into a European state, no matter how much it wishes to do so. The admission of countries outside Europe has never seriously been debated, and it is hardly possible or desirable to create such extensive cooperation within the framework of the treaties that constitute the basis of the EU.
Secondly, there is the whole issue of complying with the Copenhagen criteria or Balladur principles, which are especially relevant here in relation to the occupation of parts of Cyprus. I must say, moreover, that I do not believe in the value of the Annan plan. I think Mr Verheugen is mistaken if he thinks that the Greek Cypriots are adherents of this plan. I do not believe that the Greek Cypriots will be able to accept a plan that gives Turkey a foothold on the island.
Finally, there is the Treaty of Lausanne. This implies a total change to the Turkish constitution, its penal law, its legislation on marriage, its religious legislation, and so forth.
Thirdly, there is a sharp difference between Turkey's economic structure and development and those of the EU. Change cannot be brought about merely through economic aid. It is a matter of creating a completely different society.
Finally, the admission of Turkey would lead to massive immigration of Turks into the EU, and even bigger parallel Islamic societies would take shape. There has recently been a series of very unsettling reports of threatening, anti-Western attitudes in extensive sections of the Islamic societies within the EU, and unfortunately this applies particularly to young, second-generation Turks. Europe simply cannot live with large population groups in the EU rejecting our culture.
What the adherents of Turkish membership are really requesting is for Turkey to jettison its entire Islamic culture, and I do not see this as realistic. It is important not to confuse the attitudes represented by Turkish diplomats and certain intellectuals and politicians with those found in the rest of Turkey’s very class-divided society. Turkey is basically an Islamic society, regardless of the formal separation of church and state imposed from above. If Turkey were thoroughly democratised, as the EU wishes, the people would, unfortunately, without doubt take a democratic decision to introduce an Islamic state without democracy.
There is not an Islamic country in the world that meets the Copenhagen criteria, and Turkey is hardly likely to do so either, even if the EU asks it to. We should honestly say to Turkey that there can be no question of membership of the EU, and we should not hold out empty promises to the country. On that basis, I should like to support the amendments, tabled by Mr Ferber and others, to integrate Turkey into the EU's new neighbour policy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples