Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-13-Speech-1-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041213.10.1-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, it is a great pleasure to be here today for your debate on Turkey as we approach the critical meeting of the European Council which will decide whether to open accession negotiations with Turkey. I have followed Parliament’s work on Turkey very closely and wish to commend Members of this House for their commitment to pursue a rational and analytical debate. In particular I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Eurlings, for the balanced report he has drawn up, as well as the Committee on Foreign Affairs for its valuable work.
Turkey is at present going through a process of radical change, including a rapid evolution of mentalities, as described by Mr Eurlings. The prospect of accession has proved to be a very important catalyst for Turkey to embark upon far-reaching constitutional and legislative reforms.
I am convinced that the negotiation process will help to guide further reforms in Turkey. By its very nature, this is an open-ended process whose outcome cannot be guaranteed beforehand. The ultimate objective of accession negotiations is accession: an alternative to accession is not on our agenda.
To conclude, the necessary preparations for Turkish accession could last well into the next decade. The EU will evolve over this period, and Turkey should change decisively and fundamentally. In any event, these accession negotiations need to be managed carefully and prepared thoroughly in order to facilitate such a process and an outcome that enhances the achievements of fifty years of European integration. This is our shared goal, and I trust that we will all do our best to succeed in this objective.
The revised version of the report, which incorporates several compromise amendments, demonstrates the will of this House to obtain a broad consensus on the important issue we are discussing today. In so doing, the report
follows the line of the Commission’s recommendation, and I very much welcome this support.
Turkey, as Mr Eurlings said, is indeed making progress in bringing into force the outstanding legislation identified by the Commission as needed in order to meet the political criteria. We trust that the European Council will endorse our recommendation and decide to open the accession negotiations with Turkey, as long as this conditionality is met.
The Commission has proposed a negotiation strategy based on three pillars. The first pillar supports the reform process in Turkey. Legal and political reforms must be broadened and their implementation consolidated to make them truly irreversible. Many of the issues mentioned in Mr Eurlings’ report will require further attention. I refer in particular to the further consolidation of cultural rights, improving the situation of religious communities, strengthening the fight against torture and ensuring full civilian control of the military.
Since 6 October, when our recommendation was adopted, there have been further encouraging developments. For instance, the new law on associations and the code of criminal procedure have been adopted. With the appointment of a civilian Secretary-General, the National Security Council is being transformed into an advisory body and its activities are becoming more transparent. I can assure the Members of this House that the Commission remains committed to monitoring Turkey’s compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria. These criteria are not subject to any negotiation.
The second pillar relates to the framework for accession negotiations with Turkey, taking into account the specific characteristics of the country. This does not mean discrimination. Turkey’s accession would be different from previous enlargements because of the combined impact of Turkey’s population, size, geographical location, economic, security and military potential. For example, I would remind you that Turkey’s population is close to that of the ten new Member States which joined the Union this May.
The prospect of Turkish EU accession raises many legitimate questions, concerns and worries. It is our duty as democratic politicians to address these concerns of public opinion. Therefore, the third pillar of our approach to Turkey will be geared towards strengthening the political and cultural dialogue between EU and Turkish citizens. It is clear that the European Parliament can and should play an important role in pursuing this project.
I would like to turn briefly to Cyprus, on which I largely share the language in your report. In June the European Council welcomed the positive contribution of the Turkish Government to the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. Efforts to find a settlement must be renewed. It is clear that accession negotiations would be held in the framework of an intergovernmental conference comprising 25 Member States on the one hand and Turkey on the other. We also expect Turkey to sign a protocol extending the Association Agreement to all 25 Member States.
EU-Turkey relations have a long history. The Turkish membership perspective dates back to the Association Agreement in 1963. In spite of the ups and downs witnessed in the last 40 years, the Turkish vocation to join the European Union has been reaffirmed many times by the European Council, especially since Helsinki in 1999."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples