President. I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 2 December 2004. With regard to Wednesday’s agenda, in relation to the report by Mr Moscovici on Romania’s progress towards accession (A6-0061/2004), the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has presented a request that we postpone this report until a future sitting. Frassoni (Verts/ALE ), – Mr President, on behalf of my group, I should like to point out that we are strongly in favour of Romania’s accession to the European Union. We are, however, opposed to its accession being rushed through without it fully meeting the set criteria. That would be bad both for the credibility of the European Union – particularly because other enlargements are also being prepared, as we all know – and for all those people in Romania who are fighting for the rule of law and against corruption, and it would work against the resolution of other serious problems, which have also recently been highlighted by the Commission. That, Mr President, is why we have asked for this vote to be postponed and for a dialogue to be set up with the recently elected members of the Romanian Parliament, so that we can give credibility to a process that would have none if it were automatic and thus utterly pointless. Swoboda (PSE ), . If I might put it quite briefly, Mrs Frassoni, we are not, this week, voting on Romania’s accession, but on the report, which has a number of favourable things to say, and a number of negative ones too. We believe that we have to show Romania – right now, at a time when things are at a critical point – the way it has to go in the coming weeks, months, and perhaps years if it is to be able to accede. That is why we are in favour of the debate and, ultimately, the vote on Romania happening this week. So, speaking on behalf of my group, I want to express opposition to this contribution being deferred. Also in relation to the Wednesday sitting, there is a proposed change to the agenda. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have both presented requests that we postpone the report by Mr Coelho on the establishment of uniform models for visas and residents’ permits for third-country nationals (A6-0029/2004) until a future part-session. Swoboda (PSE ), . Mr President, I was actually waiting for Mr Watson, but now I will do it myself. I think a mistake has been made here, as the Coelho report that is on the agenda is not meant to be there yet; what should be there is the report dealing with the combating of cross-border vehicle crime. I therefore ask that the report currently on the agenda be deferred and replaced on the agenda by Mr Coelho’s report on tackling vehicle crime with cross-border implications. Coelho (PPE-DE ), Mr President, I have no objection to moving the Dutch initiative on vehicle theft onto the agenda, as I feel that it would be a nice gesture to the Dutch Presidency for Parliament to state its position on what is, after all, a peaceful initiative, and one that does not cause controversy in this House. What does not strike me as reasonable is that this should be done at the expense of the initiative on registers. This is because the main thrust of the issue of registers is the introduction of biometric data. In the last part-session in Brussels, Parliament stated its position on this issue relating to passports. What we must now do is close the file on visas. This is not a codecision issue. The point is that Parliament gives its opinion to the Council and either Parliament submits this opinion in time to ensure that that opinion can influence the Council’s decision or we lose due to ‘non-appearance’, because the Council goes ahead and makes its decision in the absence of a Parliament position. Our position was well-founded, having enjoyed the consensus of the Socialists in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and I see no reason why we should give up this vote in today’s sitting. I therefore believe, Mr President, that we could integrate the report on the Dutch initiative, which would be a nice gesture to the Presidency-in-Office, but without removing the visas report, which was, indeed, adopted in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs by an overwhelming majority, including the Socialist vote. Also for the Wednesday sitting, there is a proposed change to the agenda. The Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance have both presented requests that we include in the vote at midday the report by Mr Coelho, on the initiative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for adoption of a Council Decision on tackling vehicle crime with cross-border implications, approved in accordance with Rule 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure (A6-0052/2004). Swoboda (PSE ), . Mr President, I did actually think – and framed my request accordingly – that the Coelho report on vehicle crime with cross-border implications was to be dealt with rather than the report listed. That was what I requested, and, as I understand it, Mr Coelho has no objection in principle to this report being discussed. President. According to the Rules of Procedure, in order to replace one report with another, we must first vote to remove the first one and then vote to include the second. Napoletano (PSE ), – Mr President, I am putting this request forward on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and I do not think the other groups will object. My request concerns the extremely serious situation in Cambodia, where a number of children who had been set free and entrusted by the authorities to an NGO have again been kidnapped by prostitution racketeers, while the staff of the NGO in question have received death threats. The situation is truly very serious. We have already dealt with the pressing business and I think all of the groups are in agreement with keeping Zimbabwe, Congo and Bhopal on the agenda. We do not intend to oppose those topics, but we just ask to be able to address the Cambodia issue within the debate on the preparations for the European Council, to be held on Wednesday, so as to increase awareness in the Council and Commission. We think that this would be the right thing to do, partly in view of the seriousness of the facts. Those children have been forced back into the chain of prostitution, which notoriously serves a European clientele. We therefore believe that dealing with this subject during the debate on the European Council would be an act of great sensitivity and I do not think any of the groups will object. President. What you have said does not relate to a change to the agenda. The Presidency will not prevent any issue from being raised in the debate with the Council. Swoboda (PSE ). Mr President, although we can do as you have said, might we ask you, after the debate, to perhaps write to the Cambodian Government in order to express this House’s great concern and disquiet at these events? This would certainly be an appropriate way for us to deal with them. President. I am happy to do so, provided that there is consensus and no opposition. Otherwise, we would have to hold a debate. I shall communicate the European Parliament’s concern, but we are not changing the agenda. Pannella (ALDE ). – Mr President, I too am in full agreement on this point. If you decide to send a letter to the Cambodian authorities, however, I should like to ask you to underline this episode in particular but also to refer to the overall situation. As we all know, the Cambodian monarch has abdicated in protest at the general political situation and members of the Sam Rainsy party and the opposition have been threatened with death and with being expelled from Parliament. I therefore fully agree with your initiative to send a letter, in which I ask you to express our extreme concern not just about this incident but about the overall state of legality and human rights. President. I am very happy to communicate that and other concerns, but I cannot write a letter analysing the specific political situation of a country and go into all the details which would be impossible to analyse without a debate and vote in Parliament. There is a very specific issue which could be included in a letter, expressing an concern about that issue, but I do not believe I should go as far as to analyse the overall political situation in Cambodia without a prior debate and resolution by Parliament. If there are no objections, therefore, my letter will be restricted to expressing concern about the issue raised by Mrs Napoletano, and I would invite you to debate the political situation in Cambodia in accordance with the appropriate parliamentary procedures, if you so wish. I trust that you understand this, Mr Pannella. President. The next item is the one-minute speeches. Podkański (PPE-DE ). Mr President, the difficulties experienced by European producers of soft fruit and those involved in the processing and preservation of such fruit prompted me to put the following question to the European Commission on 28 October 2004: what steps does the Commission propose to take to protect soft fruit growers, particularly in the new Member States, as well as to ensure a profitable market for both producers and processors? The Commission’s answer of 16 November 2004 included statements to the effect that these problems were the result of a bumper harvest, and that Polish producers should be able to place their products on the market under the most favourable conditions by making use of CMO funds. Mr President, I did not ask what Polish producers ought to do, I asked what steps the Commission proposes to take to protect fruit growers and to ensure a profitable market for their fruit. As I have not received an answer, I should like to ask you to take action. López-Istúriz White (PPE-DE ). Mr President, I would like to condemn the abolition in Spain of one of the principles of all democracies: the separation of powers. The Government has just presented a law aimed at subjecting the judiciary to its decisions and, to this end, has had no hesitation in manipulating the law and parliamentary procedures. When this law is implemented, the Spanish legal system will fall victim to great instability, inoperability and manipulation, by creating situations of deadlock in the General Council of the Judiciary which will prevent it from moving forward in its decision-making. And those decisions will be subordinated to the wishes of the government. This abuse will probably be analysed by the Constitutional Court, but the European Union cannot remain silent in relation to these actions, which remove the independence of the judiciary. The Union must ask itself why a Member State is trying to take control of the operation of the government body of the judiciary. If the European Union truly wants to become an area of freedom, security and justice, it must intervene in order to guarantee the independence of the judiciary in Spain. Tabajdi (PSE ). – Mr President, a month has now passed since I drew Parliament’s attention to the fact that on 16 September we adopted a resolution stating that a fact-finding mission would be sent to Vojvodina to report on acts of violence against national minorities. Why does it take four and a half months to send a fact-finding mission? In the meantime the acts of violence continue. It shows incompetence and a lack of credibility on our part to wait four and a half months to investigate acts of violence against national minorities and to let four months go by without implementing the resolution that we adopted. It is the credibility of the European Parliament that is at stake. We need a general re-examination of the procedure by which Parliament monitors violations of human rights. Hegyi (PSE ). Mr President, many of us have protested against the opening of a new gold mine in Rosia Montana, Romania. The mining project would destroy the landscape, polluting the rivers and waters of the whole region with cyanide, from Romania through Hungary to the Black Sea. The Romanian Government has the responsibility of stopping this awful project; however, the Canadian owners of the mining company should be mentioned as well. I cannot believe that a European company would be allowed to demolish a whole city in Canada, with its houses, churches and cemeteries. I ask the Canadian Government and the public to show the same respect to us Europeans. Environmental pollution should not be exported. Sharing the same planet means a common responsibility for us Europeans and for Canadians. Matsakis (ALDE ). Mr President, I would like to bring to Parliament's attention – not for the first time, perhaps – the discrimination against many university students from the 10 new accession states who are studying in the 15 old Member States. An example – and I have received complaints from these students – is that 19 medical students currently studying at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, Ireland, have been asked to continue to pay non-EU resident fees – many thousands of pounds every year – although Cyprus became a Member State of the European Union on 1 May. This is very unfair, Mr President, and I ask you to intervene so that there is no unfair discrimination between university students from the 25 current Member States of the European Union. Beglitis (PSE ). – Mr President, a few days ago, the chairman of our PASOK party, Mr George Papandreou, met Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul and had the opportunity to reconfirm our support for the ecumenical character of the Orthodox Patriarchate, for the important spiritual and cultural work which it performs and for the international initiatives by the Patriarch for dialogue with religions and cultures and for environmental protection. You too had a similar meeting very recently, Mr President, and I would like to welcome the acute humanitarian awareness which distinguished your statements. As everyone knows, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has, for many centuries, been highly active in fostering the cultural and spiritual progress of orthodox nations. It is the orthodox pole of Christianity in the world. That is why I had to propose, given the special political and institutional influence which you wield, that you take an initiative with all the political groups to adopt a joint statement, both confirming the ecumenical character of the Patriarchate in Istanbul and the need for the Halki seminary to re-open immediately, and noting that defending and promoting the work of the Patriarchate does not jeopardise Turkey's national security. Alvaro (ALDE ). Mr President, while working in my electoral district at the weekend, I was told that, following a court ruling in Iran, another woman is expected to be stoned to death in three weeks’ time. As this information came too late for a motion for urgent procedure, I would now ask the House to examine this case and, if need be, to take action against Iran. I do not believe that this House, let alone the European Union, can tolerate actions of this kind on the part of states. I therefore ask you, as a matter of urgency, to determine whether a young woman is indeed expecting to be stoned to death in Iran in three weeks’ time, and to intervene in so far as you are able should this prove to be the case. President. If you communicate very specific information to us, the Presidency will be very happy to set in motion the relevant mechanisms provided for in our Rules of Procedure. Nicholson (PPE-DE ). Mr President, you will recall that during our last part-session in Strasbourg I raised the plight of the three hostages who were being held in Afghanistan. I am sure that everyone is as relieved as I am that they were released and have now left Afghanistan and returned to their homes. I thank you and your staff for your help and consideration and for the speedy representation you made to both the Council and the Commission. It was good to have taken part, if only in a small way, in the release of the three hostages. I believe it proves the necessity of applying maximum pressure at such times. In a world of such bad news, it is good to hear such good news from time to time. Howitt (PSE ). Mr President, this Parliament has often discussed the issue of trade union rights in Colombia, but on behalf of myself and my colleague, Mr De Rossa, I ask you to intervene urgently in the defence of workers from the trade union Sintracarbon. They have received death threats and extortion demands from illegal paramilitary forces engaged in negotiations with their employers, . Mr President, on behalf of the European Parliament could you please send a letter calling for the protection of these workers to the company, to its European owners Anglo American, BHP Billiton and Glencore International, as well as to the Colombian authorities. This Parliament must register its condemnation of the violent intimidation in Colombia or anywhere in the world against trade unionists simply trying to represent their members according to their rights under international law. Mote (NI ). Mr President, at our last part-session in Strasbourg, Mr Farage was warned of the legal consequences when he spoke about Mr Barrot. The clear implication was that he could not speak his mind without fear of arrest or prosecution. Amongst others, Mr Watson said so, although he himself had previously been rude about Marta Andreasen. Many of us objected to this, but we did not object to Mr Watson's right to speak his mind. I understood this House to provide immunity from prosecution or from reprisals for words uttered in this Chamber during a plenary session. How else can a genuine parliament function, or is this not a genuine parliament? After Mr Farage spoke, the question of French law was invoked. We are on French soil but the relevance of French law is questionable, as we are endlessly reminded that EU law takes precedence over national law. So my question is this: had Mr Farage the right to speak his mind as he did and, if not, how and on what authority is Members' freedom of speech in this House curtailed? President. What you have said offers me the opportunity to make a few comments in this regard. In fact, at that moment, different views were expressed. I would like to make it clear that Parliament is an extra-territorial body. When it meets in Strasbourg, therefore, French legislation does not apply if it may affect the freedom of expression of any Member. That must be made clear and I believe that we should all accept that a reasonable limit would be to ensure that our words do not question the honour of a fellow Member. Under no circumstances can it be said that French legislation is applied in Strasbourg in order to restrict the freedom of expression of any Member. I want to make that very clear. Yañez-Barnuevo García (PSE ). Mr President, I would like to remind you and the whole of Parliament that in just three months’ time it will have been one year since the worst terrorist attack in Europe of recent decades. I am referring to the attack in Madrid on 11 March 2004. The work of the Committee of Enquiry on 11-M is coming to an end. It has done a fantastic job and some of its conclusions are clear: it reliably and unequivocally confirms that Islamic radicalism was solely and exclusively responsible for that attack; the President, Mr Rodríguez Zapatero, has today proposed an international pact against radical Islamic terrorism, and to this end it is essential that there be a dialogue between Europe and the moderate Islamic world; it also indicates the importance of preventing international terrorism, and that the Government of Mr Aznar was seriously at fault, both in terms of lack of preparedness and by manipulating public opinion between 11 and 14 March 2004, for purely party-political reasons. Villiers (PPE-DE ). Mr President, between 25 September and 19 October 1915, 61 000 British troops were killed, captured or wounded at the Battle of Loos. At least 8 000 died, their bodies lost in the blood-soaked quagmire of the battlefield, a field which became a mass grave. That field is in Auchy-les-Mines in northern France. A few weeks ago that field was dug up by bulldozers to create a municipal rubbish dump. Since the bulldozers moved in it has become impossible to move around the field without treading on fragments of human bones and remains, shreds of military uniform and military equipment. The bodies of these thousands of brave men are being reburied underneath household and building waste. I call on you, Mr President, to write to the authorities in Auchy-les-Mines to express our strongest condemnation of the desecration of the graves of these soldiers – men who gave their lives selflessly to preserve our freedom and democracy in this continent. It is disgraceful that their resting place has been treated in this way. President. I take note of what you say. We will consider what action we can take in that regard. Martin, David (PSE ). Mr President, the economic and social life of the island communities of Scotland is very heavily dependent on the west-coast ferry routes. The Scottish Executive, on legal advice and after consulting the previous European Commission, decided that under EU competition law these routes would have to be put out to private tender and private operators should be given the opportunity to take the contracts away from the state-owned Caledonian MacBrayne company. Last week, in a highly unusual move – in fact it is only the second time since the Scottish Parliament was created that this has happened – the Scottish Parliament defeated the executive on this very issue and said that the Executive and the Commission should rethink their position on these lifeline services. Mr President, given that the islands are now in a state of limbo – the parliament has stopped the executive from acting and the executive believes it has a duty to act under EU law – I would ask that you request the transport and competition Commissioners to examine this matter urgently and determine whether these island routes really have to be put out to tender under EU competition law. Krupa (IND/DEM ). Mr President, I should like to protest at the way in which Members of the European Parliament are treated like mechanical voting robots. The speed at which some votes are conducted is an insult to human dignity and a denial of human nature, given that the latter imposes tight restrictions on the reaction times of the nervous and sensory systems. Similarly, programmes of work for the individual committees are made available with so little time to spare before meetings that it is physically impossible to study them or even to familiarise oneself with individual items, particularly because translations appear quite literally at the last minute, especially those from Polish. The Polish people experienced at first hand the disastrous attempts to create a Soviet being, and changes to human nature undertaken as part of the creation of a European economic being are also nothing but pathological discrimination. This discrimination denies human dignity, rational expediency and common sense, and it results in disrespect for human beings. We are therefore opposed to efforts to turn this Parliament into a mere sham, where democracy is only nominally present. Allister (NI ). Mr President, I had hoped in this speech to welcome a political breakthrough in Northern Ireland and to hail an irreversible abandonment by the IRA of its dirty war and its means of war. Sadly, however, as so often in the past, while Sinn Fein IRA has talked the talk, it has failed to walk the walk. Today, although mouthing commitment to democracy, it clings to the weapons of terror. Thus it continues to exclude itself from democratic government in Northern Ireland. It prefers the click of the rifle to the click of the camera. Camera shy, but terror proud. Make no mistake, it is Sinn Fein IRA alone that has once again let the people of Northern Ireland down. Democrats choose the camera shot, Sinn Fein chooses the rifle shot. The challenge now is to let democrats move on without them. Rouček (PSE ). Mr President, during our last plenary sitting in Strasbourg we approved a new European Commission. Like other major European institutions, it ought to be based on certain values and basic principles, such as equality between and amongst its Member States. But if we look, for instance, at the distribution of civil servants' posts between the old and new Member States in the Commission, this is unfortunately not the case. So far, less than a handful of the Commission's 265 most senior jobs are occupied by officials from the new Member States. The Commission has reserved eight posts at A1 level and 29 posts at A2 level. So far, however, only three of the Commission's 34 deputy directors-general and none of its 32 directors-general are from the new Member States. This situation cannot continue. The European Union is not George Orwell's , where all members are equal but some are more equal. Rather, I would say that it should be a Community based on principles of equality and justice. Therefore, I ask the Commission to come to Parliament with a regular progress report on this issue and I also urge the President of our Parliament to monitor the situation closely. Zaleski (PPE-DE ). Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 13 December is a sad day, as it is the anniversary of the imposition of martial law in Poland, a measure that was intended to halt the widespread move towards democracy. I wanted to take this opportunity to say that this House has already heard on several occasions that Mr Kovács is becoming the hero of Europe’s transformation. Such statements have been made in particular by Mr Schulz. I enjoy listening to Mr Schulz’s speeches, but only for his use of German, not for their actual content. I should therefore like to repeat that it was not Mr Kovács who was the hero, but the Polish workers in Lublin, in Świdnik, and then in Gdansk in 1981. I would be extremely grateful if the authentic historical facts were respected. Karas (PPE-DE ). Mr President, the presidential election in Ukraine has been, as regards democratic politics, rich in scandals, and now another one has come to light. It became a matter of certainty on Saturday that Mr Yushchenko, a candidate for the presidency, had been poisoned. After examining him many times over, doctors established beyond doubt that he had been poisoned with dioxin, and the rumour persists that the dioxin with which he was poisoned was administered orally, quite possibly during a meal with the secret services. I therefore call on all European institutions and delegations to make an issue of this use of dioxin as a weapon, to take consequent action in Ukraine, and to press for the matter to be investigated without delay, without regard to the possible high rank of the persons involved. Flautre (Verts/ALE ). – Mr President, I visited Tunisia on 10 December on the invitation of two associations, the Tunisian Human Rights League and the National Council for Liberties in Tunisia, to join in their celebrations of the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I regret to inform you that Mr Ben Ali’s security staff prevented the National Council for Liberties in Tunisia from holding its annual general meeting, in the process not hesitating to hit, beat up, and throw to the ground several militants from this association. In the light of this, I believe that it is important to convey to the Council and the Commission that it is absolutely essential to implement the guidelines for the protection of defenders of human rights, because quite obviously Mr Ben Ali continues to hold all of those who represent civil society in Tunisia in total contempt. Borghezio (IND/DEM ). – Mr President, an important hearing was to be held around this time in a case that relates to events dating back to 1944, concerning the situation of Italian military and also civilian detainees. The Federal Republic of Germany, instead of at last taking a positive approach to this legitimate request for moral rather than material reparation, is adopting legal delaying tactics and even taking the Italian Republic to court. I am asking for intervention in this situation to bring this page in history to a close, as it is still an open wound left over from the Second World War. President. That concludes the speeches. I am sorry I cannot allow any more speakers to take the floor. Mr Posselt, do you wish to speak on a point of order? Posselt (PPE-DE ). Mr President, I am one of those who worked for decades to make it possible for the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to be here in the European Parliament. I rejoice that they are. I would really like to say, though, that I would also be glad if you ... President. That is not a point of order. President. The next item is the debate on the report by Mr Eurlings on Turkey’s progress towards accession (A6-0063/2004). Mr Eurlings has the floor. Eurlings (PPE-DE ), . Mr President, when I was given the responsibility of acting as rapporteur on EU-Turkey relations, I decided, while focusing on content, to write a fact-based report that would be fair and balanced. Apart from the Commission’s study and other reports, I have also based my findings on my frequent visits to Turkey. Over the past few months, since the beginning of October in fact, I have spent more than two weeks in that country. Let me tell you that I am impressed with the reforms that Turkey has carried out. More has happened over the past few years than in the four decades previous to those. In my report, I refer to Parliament’s support in this, but the public’s continued support for those changes are also decidedly impressive and worthy of congratulation. At the same time, I have also become convinced – and have said so in my report – that more reforms are yet to follow and to be implemented. Moreover, the present reforms must be implemented more effectively in order for Turkey to fully meet the political criteria. Allow me, based on the positive remarks, to mention a number of areas in which a great deal is yet to be done. First of all, human rights. In legislation, the government has made much progress in this field. Along with the Commission, the Council of Europe and all human rights organisations barring one, I too am of the opinion that there is no systematic torture in Turkey, but discussion as to whether it is systematic or not misses the real issue that is before us, which is that approximately one hundred cases of torture, reported by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other organisations, committed in police cells are far too many – one hundred too many for a country that really wants to grow towards Europe. That is why this report devotes much attention to this issue. An independent inspectorate, working together with NGOs and able to make random visits to police stations, must be set up . In addition, it must be emphasised that it should become the practice for each reported case of human rights violation in police cells to be brought before the courts immediately. Then there is religious freedom, an area in which there are still many problems, and in which not a great deal of progress has been made. The Alevites, accounting for more than 30% of the population, are not fully recognised. Religious minorities have problems related to property rights, to training for their priests, monks and clergy, but also, quite simply, to do with the recognition that they share in this Turkish identity. I think there is a real need here for change, or as Mr Ali Birand, a well-known journalist of CNN Turk, put it last week: ‘Let Turkey become proud, also about those religious minorities, instead of holding them back’. The report makes clear statements about the necessary progress in religious freedom. A third point concerns women’s rights. As with human rights, a great deal has improved in the area of women’s rights, except that practice is in some ways far less promising, with forced marriages and crimes carried out to avenge honour, even including honour killings. Turkey must, as a matter of urgency, invest in combating illiteracy among women and educating them more effectively, and NGOs offering those female victims shelter must be given strong back-up. The report is quite clear about that too. I have another three points to make. Turkey has made many constitutional adjustments, but the Constitution itself dates back to a military era. That is why, I think, it is important to state in this report that if Turkey really wishes to grow much further, we would advise it to draft a new Constitution. I would now like to turn to the sensitive issue of Armenia. In this respect, the report proposes setting up a bilateral committee of Armenian and Turkish experts to catalogue all the historical facts. Furthermore, the borders with Armenia should be re-opened in order to bring about new relations in an atmosphere in which the wounds of the past can truly heal. Last but not least, Cyprus. I think that the report is abundantly clear about the recognition of Cyprus, about withdrawal of troops and about a push for fresh negotiations in a bid to achieve lasting peace and the island’s reunification. The report that is before you is constructive, but not naive, in my view. Although it is realistic, it is also critical where necessary. According to the report, the negotiations can be opened without any unnecessary delays subject to three conditions. First of all, as the Commission has also mentioned, there is a real need for amendment of a number of laws and the adoption of some new ones. I know that Turkey is in the process of doing just that. Secondly, monitoring by the Commission must be fully underway. Thirdly – and this is crucial to us and also to me as rapporteur – it must be made clear beyond any doubt that when negotiations are opened, the emphasis in the first stage of those negotiations will be on further fulfilling the political criteria in law, but also in practice. I have made every effort to arrive at a level of cooperation in Parliament in which this balance is struck in a constructive, yet critical, manner. I would ask all groups who have taken part in this to remain faithful to those compromises, even in this last, plenary, discussion. Let me say as rapporteur, as I have also done in the report, that it is now up to Turkey to prove whether it can come up with the goods and whether, with further changes in the areas of human rights, religious freedom, women’s rights, it can really achieve the standard that is necessary for EU membership. It is now up to Turkey; the ball is in their court. Whatever happens, we must anchor down the fact that cooperation between Turkey and the European Union will be very solid in future. The report leaves no doubt in that respect. In my view, what we should do now is to give a strong message to Turkey to seize that opportunity. Turkey is being given this real opportunity, but we in this House must also send a clear message about our own relevance as Parliament, by checking in the years that lie ahead whether Turkey makes real progress and whether it does so to a sufficient extent. The European Parliament must encourage Turkey in this. I think that that is very important and that is why I hope that this report will, by the end of this week, turn out not only to receive the broad support of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, but also of this plenary of the European Parliament. Rehn, . Mr President, it is a great pleasure to be here today for your debate on Turkey as we approach the critical meeting of the European Council which will decide whether to open accession negotiations with Turkey. I have followed Parliament’s work on Turkey very closely and wish to commend Members of this House for their commitment to pursue a rational and analytical debate. In particular I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Eurlings, for the balanced report he has drawn up, as well as the Committee on Foreign Affairs for its valuable work. The revised version of the report, which incorporates several compromise amendments, demonstrates the will of this House to obtain a broad consensus on the important issue we are discussing today. In so doing, the report, , follows the line of the Commission’s recommendation, and I very much welcome this support. Turkey, as Mr Eurlings said, is indeed making progress in bringing into force the outstanding legislation identified by the Commission as needed in order to meet the political criteria. We trust that the European Council will endorse our recommendation and decide to open the accession negotiations with Turkey, as long as this conditionality is met. The Commission has proposed a negotiation strategy based on three pillars. The first pillar supports the reform process in Turkey. Legal and political reforms must be broadened and their implementation consolidated to make them truly irreversible. Many of the issues mentioned in Mr Eurlings’ report will require further attention. I refer in particular to the further consolidation of cultural rights, improving the situation of religious communities, strengthening the fight against torture and ensuring full civilian control of the military. Since 6 October, when our recommendation was adopted, there have been further encouraging developments. For instance, the new law on associations and the code of criminal procedure have been adopted. With the appointment of a civilian Secretary-General, the National Security Council is being transformed into an advisory body and its activities are becoming more transparent. I can assure the Members of this House that the Commission remains committed to monitoring Turkey’s compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria. These criteria are not subject to any negotiation. The second pillar relates to the framework for accession negotiations with Turkey, taking into account the specific characteristics of the country. This does not mean discrimination. Turkey’s accession would be different from previous enlargements because of the combined impact of Turkey’s population, size, geographical location, economic, security and military potential. For example, I would remind you that Turkey’s population is close to that of the ten new Member States which joined the Union this May. The prospect of Turkish EU accession raises many legitimate questions, concerns and worries. It is our duty as democratic politicians to address these concerns of public opinion. Therefore, the third pillar of our approach to Turkey will be geared towards strengthening the political and cultural dialogue between EU and Turkish citizens. It is clear that the European Parliament can and should play an important role in pursuing this project. I would like to turn briefly to Cyprus, on which I largely share the language in your report. In June the European Council welcomed the positive contribution of the Turkish Government to the efforts of the UN Secretary-General to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem. Efforts to find a settlement must be renewed. It is clear that accession negotiations would be held in the framework of an intergovernmental conference comprising 25 Member States on the one hand and Turkey on the other. We also expect Turkey to sign a protocol extending the Association Agreement to all 25 Member States. EU-Turkey relations have a long history. The Turkish membership perspective dates back to the Association Agreement in 1963. In spite of the ups and downs witnessed in the last 40 years, the Turkish vocation to join the European Union has been reaffirmed many times by the European Council, especially since Helsinki in 1999. Turkey is at present going through a process of radical change, including a rapid evolution of mentalities, as described by Mr Eurlings. The prospect of accession has proved to be a very important catalyst for Turkey to embark upon far-reaching constitutional and legislative reforms. I am convinced that the negotiation process will help to guide further reforms in Turkey. By its very nature, this is an open-ended process whose outcome cannot be guaranteed beforehand. The ultimate objective of accession negotiations is accession: an alternative to accession is not on our agenda. To conclude, the necessary preparations for Turkish accession could last well into the next decade. The EU will evolve over this period, and Turkey should change decisively and fundamentally. In any event, these accession negotiations need to be managed carefully and prepared thoroughly in order to facilitate such a process and an outcome that enhances the achievements of fifty years of European integration. This is our shared goal, and I trust that we will all do our best to succeed in this objective. Nicolaï, . Mr President, today you will debate an important report by Mr Eurlings on the 2004 regular report and the recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession. This debate is timely in view of the decision the European Council will take on Friday with regard to the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey. When we look back to the European Council in Helsinki in December 1999 and try to visualise where Turkey was at that moment in terms of its preparation for the EU, we can conclude that Turkey has made impressive progress. It is no exaggeration to state that Turkey is changing with almost revolutionary speed. The fall of the Berlin Wall created the conditions for rapid change in the central and eastern European countries that have become new EU Member States since May this year. For Turkey there was no such catalyst for change except the long-standing aspiration to join Europe and probably the desire for drastic economic change after the devastating economic crises in 2000 and 2001. It is interesting to note in the Commission report of October the increasing interaction between the drive for accession and the tremendous modernisation that the Copenhagen criteria have stimulated in Turkey. The Commission quite rightly concludes that this modernisation is in the interests of both Turkey and the European Union and concludes that accession, if well-managed, would offer important opportunities for both. At the same time, it is true that the challenges on Turkey's road to Europe are still considerable. This has also been recognised in the report by your rapporteur. The report notes the earlier commitments vis-à-vis Turkey and welcomes the substantial reforms Turkey has achieved in order to comply with the Copenhagen criteria. The report also mentions a number of concerns that still exist with regard to the implementation of the reforms. The report considers that accession negotiations should be opened without undue delay and underlines three important provisions. Firstly, in the first phase of the negotiations priority should be given to the full implementation of the political criteria. Secondly, the six important remaining pieces of legislation should be adopted and brought into force prior to the beginning of the negotiations. Thirdly, all mechanisms envisaged by the Commission to ensure close monitoring and intensive political dialogue and the possible suspension of negotiations should be fully effective. I also want to mention another important element that has been raised in the report by your rapporteur, as well as by the Commission. In the report the need is underlined to inform citizens of both the EU and Turkey, through an intensive political and cultural dialogue, in order to increase awareness of the integration process and foster mutual understanding. I fully agree with this. Like the Eurlings report, the Council has in its preparation for Friday's decision taken the Commission's report and recommendations as its point of departure. They provide a thorough, comprehensive and good basis for the decision on the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey. Today the Council discussed the draft conclusions in preparation for the decision that the European Council will have to take on Friday. This decision entails more than a simple 'yes' or 'no' to the question of whether or not to open accession negotiations with Turkey. As the Commission has already stated in its recommendations and as I can see in the Eurlings report, the clear advice is that the decision will need to be inextricably bound up with, for example, close monitoring of the reform process to ensure the irreversibility of that process and its full, effective and comprehensive implementation. In addition the Commission has, in its recommendations, addressed concerns in Europe relating to Turkey's accession – for example concerns about the budgetary impact, or about the free movement of workers. In other words, this decision on Turkey will also have to be sufficiently forward-looking. The Netherlands presidency has extensively consulted Member States in order to prepare for a sustainable decision on Friday that does justice to the interests of the European Union and of Turkey. Last Tuesday the Prime Minister of the Netherlands visited Greece and Cyprus: two countries that, as close neighbours, have specific interests in this decision. Today the Prime Minister went to Berlin and Paris; tomorrow he will be in Austria. I was in Turkey last week, where I had the chance to meet Prime Minister Erdogan and the Foreign Minister, Mr Gul. As you know, Turkey also has a number of concerns, such as the suggested permanent safeguard clauses and the Commission's paragraph saying that by their very nature negotiations are an open-ended process, the outcome of which cannot be guaranteed beforehand. Lastly, Turkey is afraid that new criteria other than the political Copenhagen criteria will be imposed. I know that you have already had and today will again have an intense debate on Turkey, including on the elements of the decision that I have mentioned. I welcome this. I am convinced that a comprehensive debate on Turkey's accession to the EU is a prerequisite for a good outcome. For the decision to be sustainable we need political and public support. The Netherlands presidency is working towards a fair and balanced decision that will be based on the fulfilment of the Copenhagen political criteria. In this context we welcome the thorough and constructive work undertaken by your rapporteur and the Committee on Foreign Affairs in this regard. We look forward to a resolution being adopted by Parliament on 15 December. Poettering (PPE-DE ), . Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this Friday, the seventeenth day of December, the Heads of State or Government have a decision to take, and it is one of far-reaching significance. Never before in the history of the European Economic Community, of the European Community and of the European Union has there been a decision with such potential for far-reaching consequences as that on Turkey’s membership of the European Union. Everyone must be aware that, should Turkey become a Member State of the European Union, that Union will undergo a change in character. In our group, as is inevitable, different people take different positions on this. Let me point out that other parties, too, include former Heads of Government who speak up in favour of Turkish membership or against it. In our group, that of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, we affirm that we cannot accept any binding obligations, that nothing is automatic, that nothing can be laid down on the basis of things said to one effect or another by former Heads of Government. We affirm that the Turkey issue is a matter of conscience or something very close to one, and so we do of course accept that each and every Member will vote according to his or her conscience. I would like to thank our colleague Mr Eurlings most warmly for his report and for giving human rights such a high priority in it. What the Commission is recommending is open-ended negotiations, albeit with membership as an end in view, and tomorrow evening will see our group deciding what position to take on this. There are those in our group who would rather not have any negotiations and who are saying from the outset that they would prefer another form of partnership, to which we have given the
{'language': 'en'}