European Parliament
Sept 30 2005
EU: European Parliament postpones vote on protocol to Ankara
Agreement
/noticias.info/ – The Parliament postponed voting on approval of the
protocol extending Turkey’s association agreement with the EU to the
ten new member states. MEPs feared that the Turkish declaration that
the protocol does not mean any form of recognition of Cyprus would
form part of the ratification process in the Turkish parliament and
thus gain legal force.
Nevertheless, in a political resolution voted afterwards, Parliament
notes “the Commission and the Council take the view that Turkey has
formally fulfilled the last conditions for starting the accession
negotiations on 3 October 2005.”
At the request of the EPP-ED group, Parliament voted 311 votes in
favour, 285 against and 63 abstentions to postpone the vote on
Parliament’s approval of the protocol extending Turkey’s customs
union with the EU to all its new members, including Cyprus. The vote
to postpone has no legal consequences in terms of the starting date
for accession negotiations. Stumbling blocks were the Turkish
declaration that the signing of the protocol to the Ankara Agreement
does not mean any form of recognition of Cyprus and the Turkish
refusal to admit vessels and airplanes from Cyprus. A majority of
MEPs first wanted guarantees from the Turkish authorities that the
declaration was not going to be part of the ratification in the
Turkish parliament, fearing that it would then have legal
implications.
Nevertheless, in a political resolution adopted afterwards by 356
votes in favour, 181 against and 125 abstentions, Parliament noted
the Commission’s and Council’s view that access negotiations with
Turkey can start on 3 October. But by the end of 2006, the Commission
must assess if Turkey has fully implemented the protocol. If not,
this could lead to halting the accession negotiations. During the
negotiations, which are open-ended and will not automatically lead to
Turkish EU membership, Turkey should be kept under permanent scrutiny
and pressure to ensure that it maintains “the pace of the necessary
reforms”.
Parliament also said it considered Turkish recognition of “the
Armenian genocide … to be a prerequisite for accession”.
MEPs deplore that the Annan plan for a settlement of the Cyprus
question has been rejected by the Greek Cypriot community and hopes
that Turkey will maintain its constructive attitude in finding an
equitable solution. Meanwhile, the Council should keep its promise
and reach an agreement on the financial aid and trade package for
northern Cyprus.
On other issues, MEPs voiced their concern about the criminal
proceedings against Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, about article 305 of
the penal code which criminalises “acts against the fundamental
national interest”, about the restrictions on foreign funding for
associations, and about the “Law on Foundations” concerning religious
communities.
Parliament wants each negotiation session at ministerial level to be
preceded by an assessment of the fulfilment of the political
criteria, both in theory and in practice, “thus exerting permanent
pressure on the Turkish authorities to maintain the pace of the
necessary reforms”. Also, a full programme of clear targets,
timeframe and deadlines should be fixed for the fulfilment of the
political criteria. The Commission and the Council should report
annually to the European Parliament and the national parliaments on
the progress made by Turkey in this respect. MEPs reiterate that the
accession negotiations are an open-ended process and will not
automatically lead to Turkey joining the EU, even if the objective is
Turkish EU membership. Finally, Parliament underlines that the EU’s
capacity to absorb Turkey is an important consideration as well, and
needs to be monitored by the Commission during the negotiations.
Debate on opening of accession negotiations with Turkey
Speaking on behalf of the Council, Britain’s Minister for Europe,
Douglas ALEXANDER said the strategic case for opening negotiations
with Turkey was convincing, but it was necessary to be scrupulous in
ensuring all the requirements were met before Turkey could join.
Turkey had met the two conditions laid down by the Council in
December, and its declaration stating that it had not recognised the
government of Cyprus had no legal effect. The negotiations would be
the most rigorous yet, and Turkey would not accede imminently. The
Turkey which would join would be a different Turkey, and the EU might
also be different by then too. Progress so far had been encouraging,
and the conditions for opening talks had been met, he said.
Enlargement Commissioner Oli REHN agreed that the formal conditions
set out by the Council for opening negotiations had been met. He also
stressed that the talks would be the most rigorous yet undertaken.
There were good signs – such as the Turkish government’s recognition
that there was a Kurdish issue and that the conference on the
Armenian question would finally go ahead – but also bad signs – such
as the uneven implementation of freedom of expression rights. “Both
Europeans and Turks should work to build a relationship based on
mutual trust, ” he said, pointing out that the common goal would be
accession but that by their very nature the talks were open as to the
result they would achieve.
British speakers during the debate on Turkey
Roger KNAPMAN (IND/DEM,UK) said that he opposed political union with
Turkey as much as he opposed it with France, Germany or Italy. “But
what of the euro-fanatics whose ardour suddenly cools when they reach
the Bosphorus? It is not hypocrisy, but fear, fear that public
support for the whole EU project will collapse if Turkish membership
were seriously pursued.” For this reason, he said, he was happy to
see the EU plough ahead with negotiations, destroying itself in the
process.
Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK) said “It is extraordinary that those who have
profited so much from EU integration in terms of prosperity, security
and liberal democracy should not refuse to extend these prizes to
Turkey.” He said the EU’s absorption capacity was a real issue, with
the need for a settlement of the constitution ahead of Turkish or
Croatian entry. He also argued that the Cyprus issue and instability
in the Balkans could not be resolved if the EU refuses membership to
Turkey, and called for a stepping up of trade relations with northern
Cyprus.
Roger HELMER (NI, UK) said there were powerful reasons in favour and
against Turkey’s accession to the EU. The key condition, he said,
should be “democratic accountability”, Mr Helmer felt that Turkey’s
accession would “dilute the influence” of his constituents in terms
of self-determination and he therefore opposed Turkish membership of
the EU. Mr Helmer welcomed the proposal from Angela Merkel on
privileged partnership for Turkey as it would incur fewer costs for
Turkey. Mr Helmer wished the option of privileged partnership could
also be made available to the United Kingdom.
Geoffrey Van ORDEN (EPP-ED, UK) stated that “last Christmas the
Council voted for Turkey”. The conditions laid out at that time had
been met and Turkey was therefore ready to start negotiations. Mr Van
Orden warned against the separatist dissidents still at large in
Turkey that risked undermining Turkish secularism and unity. He
stated that Turkey should be treated in the same way as all other
candidates for accession. Mr Van Orden stated that the Cyprus
question should be treated separately from the accession
negotiations. However, he recalled that the people of Northern Cyprus
had voted in favour of the Annan plan on reunification and that Greek
Cyprus had rejected. He said the EU had done little to support
Northern Cyprus. Mr Van Orden welcomed the imminent opening of
negotiations and recognised that the talks would last many years.
Datos de Contacto :
Contact: Marjory VAN DEN BROEKE Press Room Unit – Press Officer
E-mail address : [email protected] Telephone number in
Brussels : (32) 2 28 44304 (BXL) Mobile number : (32) 0498 98 3586
Telephone number in Strasbourg : (33) 3