Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-157"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030604.4.3-157"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the most important work on Mr Oostlander’s report has already been done. It was in fact done in committee. Here what was – I have to say – an unbalanced report, whose tone was not always exactly upbeat, was transformed by radical amendments into one that is critical yet balanced, one in which a clear distinction is made between on the one hand what has been achieved and on the other the undoubtedly long, but concrete list of points that have still to happen.
Just three brief remarks about the text. Mrs Uca, I am afraid that – if you listen – you have still not understood the precise implications of paragraph 3. In it the rapporteur in my view rightly makes a distinction between the Judaeo-Christian and humanist roots on the one hand, the universal values to which they have led on the other hand, and the fact that this is no barrier to the accession of an Islamic majority country – a formulation that I can share with all my heart.
My second remark is directed towards the Members from the GUE/NGL Group, whom I urge to stop doing the dirty work of the Armenia lobby. In my eyes there is a carefully considered compromise on this question in the text and I honestly find the constant attempts to tighten the thumbscrews on this point increasingly irritating.
Finally, a third remark in response to the rapporteur’s proposal. On behalf of my group I can agree to the addition to the text of Amendment No 11 instead of an improvement of the text.
Fellow Members, it is crucial in the debate to keep an eye on the background against which we are doing this now, the background against which this debate about the EU-Turkey relationship is taking place. It is in fact one of a constant struggle between, on the one hand, the reformers – strong in the government and in Parliament – and on the other, the conservatives – strong in the army, the police and the judiciary. In this struggle it is the task of the European Union, but also of the European Parliament, to – naturally – criticise the conservatives. We are very good at this and we must carry on with it above all. For example, if it is a question of banning the HADEP – unacceptable. For example, if it is a question of descending on human rights organisations – indefensible. For example, if it is a question of the refusal to give Layla Zana and her colleagues a really fair new trial.
An inseparable part of this criticism as far as I am concerned however is the support for the reformers and this we are occasionally inclined to forget. For example, if it is a question of the new package of reform proposals that is now before the Turkish Parliament and in which, after long urging by the European Parliament, for example Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act is actually deleted and in which Kurdish private media are actually being given the opportunity to broadcast.
We must take care to retain this balance and what I very much wish to avoid is to create the impression that in Turkey it was nothing, is nothing and never will be anything. I believe that Turkey can implement the reforms, I think that they deserve our support. Finally, Mr President, we will all have to answer the question of whether we want it to be successful. Do we want the reformers to succeed? My answer is a heartfelt ‘yes’, because that is good for Turkey and for Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples