Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-14-Speech-3-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071114.33.3-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, recital C of the report says that the European Neighbourhood Policy 'should remain distinct from the process of enlargement, whereas participation in the ENP does not preclude, for the eastern neighbours which are clearly identifiable as European countries, any perspective of EU membership in the long term'. For some reason that rule seems not to apply to Turkey. Here we have precisely the opposite situation. Turkey is clearly identifiable as a non-European country, is not part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, but it does aspire to membership of the EU.
It has never really been clear why Turkey was not included in the ENP. The Commission said at the outset that as an applicant country Turkey's inclusion was not appropriate. That is odd, because in other cases the point is specifically made that the Neighbourhood Policy and the enlargement process must remain distinct from one another. For Turkey clearly a
rule applies.
All this, I fear, has to do with ideological obfuscation. Even assuming total commitment to negotiations on Turkish accession, we ought to have included Turkey in the European Neighbourhood Policy, if only for reasons of prudence. If the negotiations had to be suspended, as they should have been long ago, Turkey could then have been absorbed directly into an existing structure. It did not happen, and things will only be more difficult as a result in future."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Philip Claeys (NI ). –"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples