Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.2.3-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, first of all, I have a great deal of respect for Mr Swoboda’s report, which, in particular, deals expertly with a number of technical points relating to Turkey, but, of course, this goes beyond the technical.
We all know that there is a difference between Turkey, a candidate country which is not in a position to engage in accession negotiations yet because the political Copenhagen criteria have not been fulfilled yet, and other candidate countries that
involved in the negotiation process leading to EU membership. This distinction has been drawn on sensible political grounds. It will also be reflected in our financial dealings with Turkey, as compared with our dealings with other candidate countries.
I would therefore like to make the point that whilst in general, the positive attitude towards Turkey expressed in the report certainly appeals to our group, we have the feeling it goes a little too far on one particular point, and I would specifically like to hear the Commission’s opinion on this. I am referring to Amendment No 1, which states that Turkey should be included in the ISPA and SAPARD financial instruments in order to ensure that all candidate countries are treated equally. I do not think that such a step constitutes equal treatment in the real sense.
In the past, if the political situation was not to our liking, or if we felt it left something to be desired in certain countries, then we have said that we would take this into account on all kinds of different points. We would then draw a distinction on the point in question, irrespective as to whether it was a large country or a small one that we had certain political objections to. Only yesterday, I had a detailed discussion with the excellent Turkish Ambassador about these matters. It comes down to the question of what has to change in a country for it to become a fully-fledged candidate country involved in accession negotiations.
If ISPA and SAPARD are already being discussed – and these instruments were not intended for Turkey hitherto – then Amendment No 1 would mean money being taken out of the budgets intended for the candidate countries currently engaged in accession negotiations. In other words, we are talking about those countries that have fulfilled the Copenhagen criteria, for example. I have a feeling this would have a demoralising effect. I would specifically like to know from the Commission to what extent this would actually have financial implications. How would Amendment No 1 actually affect the other candidate countries? Would it mean a cut in the budget for the other candidate countries we are negotiating with, for Turkey’s benefit? What exactly is the situation? If that were so, I would find it most strange. Or is it perhaps the case that the Financial Perspective could be extended, allowing Amendment No 1 to be implemented without adversely affecting the other candidate countries? I think that technically speaking, it would be extremely difficult to effect this budgetary change. So on this one point, I would very much like a clear answer from the Commission as to the impact that Amendment No 1 will have. Because the fact is that our group has some major doubts about accepting something that will have such a negative impact, particularly on the other candidate countries, with whom negotiations are proceeding well. That does not seem to us to be fair, and so we should rethink the situation. If we want to do something for Turkey then there is always the Customs Union. We are neglecting this at the moment. I fully understand people’s irritation over this, also in the financial sense. We must bring these matters to a sound conclusion. I could not agree more. If we can do all these things better, technically speaking, by amalgamating instruments for example, then this is what we must do. But taking budgets away from candidate countries that we are negotiating with over accession, for the benefit of a candidate country that has not yet reached this stage, seems to me to be a very sore point. On behalf of my group, I would be grateful if the Commission could tell us just exactly what the score is."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples