Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-13-Speech-1-113"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041213.10.1-113"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the debate about Turkey has always been awash with duplicity. That duplicity was already being practised in Helsinki back in 1999, when Turkey was given applicant status, and so many had no wish whatsoever to see it in the Union; the same situation has obtained ever since. The present progress report from the Commission bears detailed testimony to the fact that Turkey is not fulfilling a single one of the Copenhagen pre-accession criteria. So what conclusion does the Commission draw? It recommends the start of accession talks. That is absolutely schizophrenic and irresponsible.
Now this European Parliament is poised to do precisely the same thing, to make exactly the same mistake. Why? Is it driven by national interest or party-political considerations – in other words, by self-interest – or is one of its motives quite simply fear? Do we really want to negotiate with a country in which fundamental human rights are not respected, in which women are second-class citizens, in which virginity tests, forced marriages and honour killings are normal occurrences and bigamy is tolerated? These things expose women to lifelong torture, and it is irresponsible to negotiate with such a country.
In that country, in that Turkey, the prevailing mentality surely has to change first; something has to happen in people’s minds. This cannot be done by compulsion. People have to be persuaded; they have to be won over by a convincing political case. This is the way to achieve a permanent change of mentality. It cannot be quickly engineered within ten years. It takes at least two to three generations, so why can we not give this country the time it needs? Besides, we all know that we simply cannot afford Turkish membership with its impact on the integration, the finances and the security of the Union.
The political European Union would not be able to digest the addition of that country, and therein lies the duplicity of the whole discussion to date, and particularly of the Commission’s proposal to make Turkey a second-class Member State. With a second-class Member State, with different grades of membership, our political union would eventually cease to function. We would be digging our own grave. The only honest offer we can make to Turkey is a privileged partnership, a special neighbourly relationship, and I urge the House to support that approach."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples