Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-204"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.24.2-204"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I have a big problem with the Eurlings report as it stands. I am not talking about the many critical paragraphs in which the Turkish Government is urged to do more and to implement reforms more quickly. An appeal has been made, with good reason, to the Turkish Government to remove the infamous Article 301, which has led to dozens of trials involving writers and journalists, from the criminal law as quickly as possible.
The problem I have with the report is the few paragraphs where the report is losing total control, particularly the paragraph in which the recognition of the Armenian genocide is considered as some sort of condition for accession, and the Cyprus paragraphs, in which Turkey appears to be the only guilty party. The original report, as submitted by the rapporteur, was critical, yet fair, and we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs have managed to reach sound agreements during our discussions, which means that the report can be improved with many amendments.
Where we went wrong is that in the closing stages of those discussions, clauses were added to the report by means of all kinds of oral amendments, which brought imbalance to a previously balanced report. Whilst this may have been a huge success for a number of lobby groups, this has considerably changed the report for the worse. What we want, what my group wants by tabling a number of amendments, is actually to return to the original Eurlings report, which was, in our view, both critical and fair.
I am therefore pleased to hear and also read in the interviews with the rapporteur in the Turkish press that he, on the basis that ‘a fault confessed is half redressed’, is prepared to support the attempts to restore the report to its original form. I will therefore be counting on his support during tomorrow’s votes.
Why is it so important that the report should be critical and, at the same time, fair? I very much want the European Parliament to continue to play a role in the reform debate in Turkey by supporting those groups and those people who, day in and day out, are fighting for the same things that we are. It is those very people who in the last few weeks have come up to us and told us that this report, in its current form, is of no use to them. It is only benefiting those in Turkey who are opposed to reforms, and I do not want to see Parliament helping those people who do not want Turkey to move forward.
If that report does not change, if that report stays in it current form, then that means that we are taking ourselves out of the equation, because then all the valid points made in the report will no longer be taken seriously, and that is not how I see Parliament’s role. That is why the changes are necessary, and I am counting on your support and on that of the rapporteur. I really hope that the majority of this House is prepared to choose this path: constructive, critical, yet fair, rather than the
of the report as it currently stands."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"cul-de-sac"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples