Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-03-28-Speech-3-180-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120328.18.3-180-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Turkish accession process has to move forward. It is urgent now for Turkey to comply with its obligation of full implementation of the additional protocol to the association agreement, and to make progress towards normalisation of bilateral relations with the Republic of Cyprus – the same Cyprus which is soon to become a proud and, I am confident, effective Presidency of the Council to the benefit of the European Union and to the benefit of the interests of the European Union.
The accession process is the only way to make the European Union the benchmark of the reforms in Turkey. The accession process is not there to compromise on our values. The accession process is for Turkey to embrace the values the European Union is so firmly based on. Why should this House be split on this process? Because, interestingly enough in this debate, I have not heard one single idea how to do it better and more efficiently to the benefit of the Turkish people. I have not heard it and I am afraid I will not hear it in the future.
Now coming to particularities, but important ones: as regards a paragraph in the resolution on civil/military relations I would like to agree that the formulation of the sentence on the integrity of the armed forces could be improved in order to clarify more precisely what is meant and take away any ambiguity that might arise.
The next point: at the start of the debate I also expressed my concerns about the respect for freedom of expression in general. It is something I will continue to raise with my counterparts. I will not miss any opportunity. In Turkey we will continue to exchange views on civil society.
Let me stress, in conclusion, something I feel personally very strongly about. The European Union should continue to encourage the reform process in Turkey. Our leverage and influence in Turkey will become all the more credible and stronger if our commitments, as outlined in 2005 when we launched the accession negotiations, remain unambiguous.
It has been a fascinating debate. It is only a pity that not that many people who were so outspoken during the debate have stayed until the end, because I would like to share a couple of thoughts here.
Number one – what really surprised me, though maybe I was occasionally not attentive enough, is that no one has really mentioned the comprehensive talks on Cyprus, and tomorrow’s important meeting, and the road map as put forward by the United Nation’s Secretary-General and implemented by special representative Alexander Downer. Is it a sign of this House being content with the status quo? I hope not. I hope that the energy which I have sensed in your discussion will be turned towards supporting the two leaders who will be meeting tomorrow, addressing the core issues and allowing Downer to recommend to the Secretary-General to go for the finalisation of the process and not to leave it for a plan B – because I have news for you: there is no plan B.
Secondly, as for the reform process, looking at the progress achieved in the past years we can conclude that Turkey is moving forward. Even if progress is sometimes too slow or uneven a lot of taboos have been removed, a lot of questions are now being debated. Who could have imagined Turkey restoring properties to non-Muslim religious communities, the latest example being the title deeds of the Greek primary school of Galata in Istanbul?
My third point concerns the remarks about my predecessor and about double standards. I have only one standard, and it is to be sincere and truthful both in open meetings and in meetings behind closed doors. Despite my age I have enough experience and diplomacy to be aware that the worst enemy of success is to say one thing in an open arena and something different behind closed doors. I will never, ever do it.
What this House should not be split on, I believe personally, is the issue of clear rules of the game at the end of this process. What are these rules of the game?
The first is the accession treaty which clearly reflects Turkey’s position in this case, approximating its legislation fully with the European Union acquis, as stipulated by all negotiating chapters. Number two is the consensus of all Member States, and the procedure to ratify this approval. And the third is an impact study showing clearly the impact of, in this case, Turkish membership and also showing clearly to all Member States and all of us that we are going to talk about how the process is to be managed to the benefit of both the European Union and Turkey.
Those are the rules of the game and I hope the House is not split on this particular issue. I also hope that this House is not going to split on the issue that the best way to achieve this, the best way to help Turkey, to strengthen democracy, is actually the accession process. Does anyone in this House believe that building a big wall between us and Turkey would improve the very fundamental rights so many of you referred to? Because I do not."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples