EU Parlaiment News:
press_page/027-670-271-9-39-903-20050921IPR00563-2 8-09-2005-2005–true/default_en.htm
European Parliament postpones vote on protocol to Ankara Agreement
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 noted that accession negotiations with Turkey can start on
3 October as foreseen.
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.
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.