Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-202"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.24.2-202"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, today finds us debating a topic that concerns us all, namely negotiations with Turkey and Turkey’s future in relation to the European Union. Turkey is a key partner in a crucial region. It is, now more than ever, evident that we must tie Turkey to the European Union and that we must support the reformers in that country. Turkey has committed itself to an operation by the United Nations Force in Lebanon. In that respect, we must assist Turkey to play a positive and constructive role in that region. We need a partner there as a matter of priority.
The negotiation process is the best way of developing a better and stronger relationship with Turkey, and, while we know that the negotiations will take some time, we remain of the opinion that a critical, yet constructive, dialogue is the best way of bringing that process to a successful conclusion. Consequently, this House’s reports must be balanced and should not lose sight of the end goal, namely membership. We must build on the progress that has been made in recent years, whilst acknowledging that delays have hampered that progress.
Our group has tried, by means of a series of amendments, to make the report more balanced in a number of areas and, in response to what Mr Brok said, our group should not, of course, automatically accept what the Committee on Foreign Affairs produces. The process is not served by speculation about alternative forms of association; that is our permanent objection to Article 71 in the report. We should leave you in no doubt about that.
The negotiations are being held with a view to full membership. That is, fortunately, something that is clearly formulated in the Eurlings report, on which we are agreed, and I am in no doubt as to Mr Eurlings’ intentions in that respect. What is clear, though – and I share Mr Brok's view on this – is that the present institutional frameworks will be unable to cope with the accession of new Member States following the accession of the two we have been discussing today. That too has, fortunately, been clearly spelled out in the Eurlings report: without the necessary reforms in the framework of the institutional process, we will not accept any further decisions about enlargement.
I will now turn to the two key points in the report. First of all, with regard to the Armenian genocide, I share the view which Mr Eurlings has adopted in this respect. After all, the compromise that we had struck in the negotiations is namely exactly what we need. It is an appeal to the Turkish Government to recognise this genocide, and to have a good internal debate in Turkey, but without stipulating this as a condition for EU membership. I hope that tomorrow, we will manage to remove this section from the report. This whole issue does not, strictly speaking, form part of the Copenhagen criteria, and that is how it should stay.
Finally, as for Cyprus, we agree that the Ankara Protocol needs ratifying. At the same time, we also think that we should do something to help the Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus more. This evening, our group will again be discussing the voting list and, on that basis and on the basis of tomorrow’s vote, we will pass our final judgment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples