Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-035"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Accession partnership with Turkey2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010214.2.3-035"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-14-Speech-3-0362
lpv:speaker	lp:Konstantinos Hatzidakis2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 member; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (2000-08-30--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Nea Dimokratia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I am sure that everyone here in this Chamber wants a modern, progressive Turkey. However, to be perfectly honest, I am beginning to wonder if Turkey wants the same thing. That notwithstanding, the message which we must send out is that, if Turkey joins the European Union, it must adjust to European standards and not the other way round, with the European Union adjusting to Turkish standards. To be honest, I am not sure if this message has got across – I am referring, Mr President, to the period following the approval of the partnership – and I should simply like to draw the House's attention to two facts. First, to what happened in the Turkish jails which was condemned by the European Parliament. And, secondly, to the hard line stance taken by the Turkish-Cypriot leader Denktash, who is refusing to sit down to inter-community talks and who is being encouraged in this stance by Turkey. Turkey has obligations on both these issues under the partnership agreement and is choosing to ignore them. In all events, even if you overlook Turkey's disdain, so far at least, for its obligations under the partnership agreement, you will be brought up short by Amendment No 1 proposing that Turkey participate in the ISPA and SAPARD programmes. This amendment is totally unacceptable and I will tell you just two reasons why. The first reason is that the budget for these programmes has already been decided. It was decided and agreed in Berlin – Mr Verheugen was personally involved in this agreement as Germany's Minister of European Affairs and knows all about it – and cannot be increased. Consequently, the only solution would be to cut the share of the other Central and Eastern European candidate countries, such as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, etc., which would then receive less money. The second reason, and this is very important, is that, when it adopted the ISPA and SAPARD programmes, the European Parliament voted against amendments seeking to fund pre-accession tools, Cyprus and Malta from these programmes, on the grounds that Cyprus and Malta were being funded under the ΜΕDA programme. May I remind the House that Turkey also benefits from the MEDA programme. What I am wondering, therefore, is why we said no to Cyprus and Malta and are now preparing to say yes to Turkey. And I say this notwithstanding my immense appreciation for the report by Mr Swoboda, who has done sterling work here in the European Parliament. But that does not prevent me from disagreeing with this specific amendment for the reasons stated, reasons which are of a technical and a political nature."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph