Camiel EURLINGS (PPE, NL), Parliament's rapporteur on Turkey, opened the debate by stating that his draft report was based on facts and was "fair and balanced." Mr Eurlings stated that recently he had been in Turkey on several occasions and was "very impressed with the reforms undertaken". However, there was a clear need for further reforms as well as better implementation of existing legislation.

The priority, he said, was for Turkey to fulfil the political criteria necessary for eventual accession. Turkey had made considerable progress in the area of human rights. There was "no systematic torture", however, all forms of torture had to be stopped. Freedom of religion was still an issue. 30 per cent of the population could not fully enjoy this right. As to women's rights, Mr Eurlings stated that a lot more had to be done including outlawing the practice of "forced marriages and so-called honour killingsas well as working to improve literacy levels among women." Regarding the Turkish constitution, Mr Eurlings stressed the need to clarify the role of the military. He also called for a new committee to be set up on the "Armenian genocide question". The recognition of Cyprus and the withdrawal of troops were also issues of paramount importance.

Olli REHN, the European Commissioner responsible for enlargement, welcomed Mr Eurlings draft report, since it followed, on the whole, the Commission's recommendation. He stressed that Turkey had introduced several new bills improving the human rights situation in the country. The reform of the legal system and the political process were key to Turkey making further steps towards the formal opening of negotiations. The Commission would be closely monitoring the situation with regard to freedom of religion under the framework of the Copenhagen criteria. Commissioner Rehn stressed the particularities of enlargement to Turkey as compared to previous enlargements; pointing out that Turkey's population was approximately equal to the population of the ten new Member States. As to Cyprus, Commissioner Rehn agreed with the comments made by Mr Eurlings and stressed that more would have to be done in this area.

The Commissioner pointed out that EU-Turkey relations had a long history dating back to the 1963 Association Agreement. The prospect of membership had been "a catalyst for reform." Commissioner Rehn stated that "the negotiations, by definition, would bean open-ended process and there was no alternative to full membership on the table."

Atzo NICOLAÏ, for the Dutch Presidency of the Council, recalled that Turkey had made considerable progress since the December 1999 Helsinki Council when it was decided to formally recognise Turkey's candidacy for accession. Turkey had made "impressive progress", however several challenges remained including the full respect of the political criteria for accession and the adoption of the six outstanding bills before the Turkish Parliament. The Commission, he said, would closely monitor progress made and, if necessary, would suspend negotiations. The Commission opinion was a good basis for the decision of the Heads of State and government. Mr Nicolaï recognised that this was "an open-ended process" and that Turkey "feared new criteria, further to the Copenhagen criteria being introduced". He welcomed Mr Eurling's draft report.

Political group speakers

Hans-Gert POETTERING (DE), leader of the EPP-ED group, said the Council's decision would have greater consequences than any decision made in EU history. Admitting Turkey would completely change the nature of the EU, he said, this could not be a reflex decision - rather, it should be a decision of conscience.

Within the EPP-ED group, some did not want to open negotiations, some were in favour and others wanted instead to negotiate a privileged partnership with Turkey. Turkey was a large and important country and the EU should seek friendship and partnership, he said. Mr Poettering said that he was one of those who wanted to aim for a privileged partnership: Turkish accession, he said, would be enlarging the EU to death, losing the common European identity and the basis for European solidarity. Despite the progress, there were still major human rights abuses, including torture, which "we are told is not systematic, but it is certainly comprehensive," he said. This was not a matter of internal politics, he said, but a question of taking decisions which could carry the support of Europe's citizens.

Martin SCHULZ (DE), leader of the Socialist group, praised the efforts of the rapporteur to reach a broad consensus. He argued that Turkish membership would not alter the nature of the EU - rather Turkey would have to accept the whole range of EU values, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and implement them in its internal laws if it were to join. The prize was to show that Islam and democracy were not incompatible. The reforms carried out under the Erdogan government were the most significant in decades, he said. Many Turkish people were saying that it was the prospect of EU membership which was changing their country into a normal parliamentary democracy. The journey was not complete, but that was the peace dividend available. Closing the door to Turkey might halt the reforms, he said. Opening the door could help the EU realise its potential as an exporter of peace and democracy to a growing region.

Emma BONINO (IT) spoke for the ALDE group, the majority of which, she said, supported Mr Eurling's report, with its call for negotiations to be opened. Some of them, herself included, would have preferred a more direct message, making clear that Turkish membership ought to be welcomed. This was a question of whether the EU was a reliable partner in international negotiations and whether its word stood for anything. She said Europe's identity was political, looking at the present and future, not founded looking back at what some called Europe's Christian or Catholic roots. Europe could negotiate with profound commitment, or it could close itself off. She said she wanted a Europe worth belonging to and fighting for, which was worthy of its citizens.
For the Greens/EFA group, Joost LAGENDIJK (NL) said the Greens in general supported the report as it had emerged from the committee. He warned MEPs who were against Turkish membership not to try to amend the report in this way, as this would lead to a failure. "We are not here to reward Christian Democrat symbol based politics, " he said. He had visited Turkey the previous week, and all the people with whom he discussed the matter had told him that while a lot was wrong, but to go ahead with negotiations was the best guarantee of continuing reform. His group believed there were sufficient safeguards to stop negotiations in the event of major human rights problems, but the chance to prove that Islam and democracy could go together should not be passed up.

André BRIE (DE) for the GUE/NGL group stated that a large majority of his group was in favour of eventual Turkish accession. However, his group was particularly concerned about the fact that amendments proposing measurable criteria to monitor Turkey's progress had been defeated in the Foreign Affairs Committee. The question of possible Turkish accession "was more than a question of philosophy and should be based on tangible concrete steps made by Turkey to modernise its constitution." His group, he said, opposed the idea of a privileged partnership.

Bastiaan BELDER (NL), for the IND/DEM group, stated that MEPs had been "too generous towards Turkey". He questioned whether Turkey had made sufficient progress in the area of freedom of religion and stated that the Commission and Parliament should be more critical of Turkey on the question of human rights. He questioned whether Turkey could truly be defined as a secular state.

Konrad SZYMAŃSKI (PL), for the UEN group, stated that were possible advantages of Turkish membership of the EU, but he preferred to see a different kind of partnership based on the European Economic Agreement model. Turkish accession would only serve to hinder the immigration issue in several Member States pointing out that Turkey would have the largest population of any Member State by 2020. He questioned the priority given to Turkey given Ukraine's vocation to become a member of the EU.

Alessandro BATTILOCCHIO (IT), speaking as non-aligned MEP and on behalf of the New Italian Socialist Party, stated that his party was in favour of eventual accession of Turkey into the EU. Turkey's accession would assist in strengthening peace in the Caucuses and bordering countries. There would also be, he said, economic benefits for the EU.

British and Irish MEPs

Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK) stated that it is essential for the sake of stability as well as morality that we keep faith with Turkey. If we agree to start accession negotiations we should see them through. He believed that the so-called privileged partnership is a false prospectus designed to drive Turkey away from integration with Europe. Turkey, he said, has enjoyed a privileged partnership through the Customs Union and also NATO for several years. Whatever the outcome of the accession negotiations, it is only through the process of the accession negotiations that the European-Turkey relationship will develop, he stated.

Mr Duff stated that Jacques TOUBON (EPP-ED, FR) and his friends propose that Turkey be brought into a privileged partnership enjoying some aspects of membership, but without political representation and without the duty to respect European law and the principle of loyal cooperation. This is madness: it is bad for Turkey, subversive of the European Union and it displays a vast and astonishing absence of self-confidence inside this Parliament for European projects.

Finally, Mr Duff asked the Commission and the presidency to flesh out the proposal for a mechanism to suspend the negotiations should there be a crisis. He trusted that the European Council will follow the spirit of the Constitution, which requires a third of Member States to trigger such a mechanism and not simply a single truculent member.

Eoin RYAN (UEN, IE) stated that this week is undoubtedly an historically important one for the broader development of the European Union. The European Parliament will vote on whether it supports the opening of accession talks between Turkey and the EU. Leaders of the 25 governments of the European Union meeting in Brussels later this week will formally give the go-ahead – or not – to accession negotiations between the European Union and the Turkish Government.

Let us, he said, not underestimate the magnitude of this decision. There is no acceptable middle ground when it comes to the issue of membership of the European Union. A country is either a member of the European Union or it is not and he believed that a country seeking to join the European Union must clearly comply with all aspects of the Copenhagen criteria.

One must recall that the European Commission carried out an evaluation report on the progress that Turkey has made in its efforts to join the European Union. In this report last October the Commission stated that the Turkish Government had brought forward a significant package of proposals this year which included the following: the abolition of State Security Courts, which would ensure that civil-military relations are brought into line with EU standards, the strengthening of the freedom of the press, the introduction of a constitutional clause on gender equality, and removal of all references to the death penalty. In the last election my own party had a slogan which stated: 'A lot done, more to do'. I believe that this is the case here. More needs to be done, but a lot has been done and we must recognise that.

Mr Ryan supports the terms of the report which states that the European Council should vote for accession negotiations with Turkey to begin without delay and the objective of these negotiations is Turkey's EU membership. But there is also a realisation that further substantial political reforms are going to have to take place in Turkey before final accession negotiations can conclude.

It was intimated earlier in this debate that one of the reasons why Turkey should be kept out of the European Union is because Turkish people are not Christian. Surely that flies in the face of the very thing that Christianity stands for. Christianity is about being open and welcoming to people. Concluding Mr Ryan stated that we should be open and welcoming and let these negotiations begin.

Jim ALLISTER (NA, UK) questioned as to whether this is the European Union or do some have expansionist ambitions beyond the boundaries of Europe? That is a key and defining question which arises from Turkey's application for EU membership.

Turkey, he stated, is not part of Europe, it is part of Asia: only a finger of land flanking Istanbul lies in Europe. That does not make it a European nation. You might as well say that Spain is African because it has some outposts on the North African coast. It is a shameless agenda of expansionism which drives the EU in wanting to encompass Turkey.

Turkey itself has a shameful history of expansionism. Witness its brutal invasion and occupation of Northern Cyprus. Witness its genocide of the Armenian people. Witness also, despite the massive inducements of pre-accession aid from Brussels, its intolerant suppression of religious freedom, in particular with regard to Christians.

Mr Allister concluded "No – Turkey is one country and culture that we can well do without."

Geoffrey VAN ORDEN (EPP-ED, UK) stated that many on this side of the House are very supportive of Turkey's EU membership. Over the past 80 years enormous changes have taken place in Turkey; the process of reform has accelerated dramatically since the formal recognition in 1999 of Turkey as a candidate for the European Union. He recalled that Turkey has been a staunch ally in NATO for some 50 years and that during much of that time the country was subject to terrorist attacks by organisations sponsored by the Soviet Union. Those of us, he stated, who are supportive of Turkey are under no illusions about the challenges ahead and the work still to be done. That is why negotiations are likely to take 10 or 15 years. The alarmists talk as if Turkey is going to join in a month's time. Turkey has many very successful industrial sectors and a vibrant economy in many respects, but it is still a poor country. The economic challenges are formidable but the potential rewards are great.

Much still needs to be done to improve human rights, but let us not forget that some extremist groups misuse the label of human rights in order to promote sympathy for their own cause. It would be naive of those of us on the centre right in European politics to give any comfort to political groups that are closely linked to terrorists.

We could talk at length about Cyprus. It is not Turkey that should be in the dock. Turkish Cypriots, fully backed by Ankara, supported the United Nations plan which, among other features, would have phased out the non-Cypriot forces from the island, both Turkish and Greek. Many say that Turkish accession would fundamentally change the nature of the EU. If this means an end to the inexorable drive towards political integration and the end of the idea of some European state, then I welcome this.

Mr van Orden shared his concerns about free movement of people, but this is a problem wider than Turkish accession. At this time, four days before the European Council meets, Parliament needs to send a strong positive signal to Turkey that it is welcome as a member of the European Union. This signal will have wider positive reverberations. Let us, he said, give the green light now to the opening of negotiations with Turkey, not grudgingly, but with enthusiasm.

Richard HOWITT (PES, UK) stated that the prospect of EU accession has been the motive for democratic reform in Eastern Europe, and this week the EU will decide if it will be so for Turkey too. As Commissioner VERHEUGEN said, there is no more that the Turkish Government could have done. It is time, 41 years after the promise was first made, for the EU to honour its side of the promise and for the talks to start.

It is agreed that Turkey should be treated the same as every other applicant country, yet some in this debate seek to suggest that referenda be held in existing Member States, that a new type of status be invented, that permanent 'safeguards' be introduced against EU freedoms, or that big countries should be treated differently from small ones. No other accession country has been treated in this way and Parliament should reject these amendments. Indeed, Mr Howitt asked Commissioner Rehn "if the Council decides to start talks 'without delay', would he indicate in his reply how he would interpret this? What timescale would he recommend?"

No-one denies that there are important issues of concern relating to Turkey and these are well dealt with by compromises in the text in the Eurlings report. But if Leyla ZANA, ten years a political prisoner, came as she did two months ago to this Parliament saying that the promotion of human rights requires us to open the talks, who in this Chamber can with any credibility use human rights objections to support the rejection of Turkey?

The plain truth is that too many people use these arguments. They talk about European identity and the fundamental character of the Union to hide their true belief that a country with a majority Muslim population should never be allowed to join. They seek to talk up the clash of civilisations, yet for three million Turkish people in today's European Union, and for one million Muslims in my own country, the United Kingdom, the only civilised Europe is one based on the freedom of all religions and of none, of ethnic diversity and of combating racism.

No new preconditions, no further delays. Vote yes for a better Turkey, but vote yes, too, for a stronger, more prosperous, more influential, more tolerant and more secure Europe for us all.

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD (ALDE, UK) welcomed the prospect of Turkey's vibrant and generous culture enriching the European Union, as it already does in North London, not least through the presence of Turkish and Kurdish people as well as the excellent food.

She also regards Turkey's Muslim identity – a secular Muslim identity – as a positive contribution to a harmonious development of the EU as a multicultural society. But she would like to stress the paragraph of Mr Eurling's report that invites the Turkish Government to take more active steps to bring about reconciliation with those Kurdish forces who have chosen to abandon the use of arms. She hoped that, as part of the accession process, Turkey will be persuaded to seek a political solution to the desire of the Kurdish people to express their identity, perhaps through some kind of political devolution. The PKK's 1999 ceasefire is under strain, and only political negotiations can ensure permanent peace.

Response to the debate

Mr NICOLAÏ, in his response to the debate, stated that the concerns expressed by several MEPs with regard to human rights, torture, freedom of religion and minority rights, are also the concerns of the European Council. That is why it is hoped that the European Council will come to a new framework for negotiations, a new way of negotiating that will provide for better guarantees. One of most important elements in this new framework, he said, would be the possibility of halting the negotiations when things go wrong. The Presidency proposes that one third of the Member States will have the right to ask the Commission for a proposal on the suspension of the negotiations. The Council shall then vote on such a proposal by qualified majority.

Mr Nicolaï does not share the concerns some MEPs have with Turkey being a Muslim nation. The EU is about values, not about religion, he said. The European project of integration is a political and not a religious project.

On Friday, 17 December, the Presidency will try to obtain from Turkey a formal recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey can recognise Cyprus by signing the Protocol to the Association Agreement (i.e. extending the customs union).

Mr Nicolaï stated that the negotiations will be directed toward full membership and nothing less. However, the procedure will be an open-ended one.

In his response to the debate, Commissioner REHN expressed his thanks to MEPs for a very rich, analytical and multi-dimensional debate, which has covered virtually the whole spectrum of European public opinion ranging from future peace dividends to past crusades and, more seriously, from women's rights to religious communities and their rights in Turkey.

The Commissioner touched on a limited number of questions that MEPs addressed directly to the Commission. First, there have been numerous requests for rigorous monitoring of legal reforms and human rights in general. He fully agreed with this. The rigorous monitoring mechanism and the annexed suspension clause are indeed at the core of our negotiation strategy with regard to Turkey in the coming years. It is also very much in the interests of Turkey because it maintains the strong incentive to implement and consolidate the necessary legal and political reforms. We will be preparing a monitoring report during 2005 concerning the fulfilment of criteria in the field of human rights in general.

These criteria include the issue of trade union rights, which Poul RASMUSSEN (PES, DK) raised. He referred to an ongoing court case of which the Commission is aware. We are monitoring this case very closely. In our report we consider this to be a serious test-case with regard to the depth of legal reform in Turkey, which touches upon trade union rights, language rights and the rights of minorities in Turkey. This also involves the question of non-Muslim religious minorities, which has been addressed in depth by Mr Eurlings in his report and referred to by several MEPs in the debate. I would like to underline that although freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Turkey's constitution, non-Muslim religious communities nevertheless face a series of structural difficulties, such as the lack of a legal personality and the lack of full economic rights. The Turkish authorities are committed to adopting a law addressing these structural problems. A draft law on foundations is currently being discussed and the Commission has been officially invited to submit its comments to the Turkish authorities on this critical piece of legislation. We will continue to have dialogue and pressure the Turkish Government on this particular subject.

Concerning the enforcement mechanism of the suspension clause – to which Mr Duff referred – the origin of the suspension clause lies in the development of the acquis communautaire. The Union now has clauses in Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union and in the draft Constitutional Treaty that provide for a procedure to deal with cases where a Member State seriously and persistently breaches the basic principles of the Union. It is only logical and normal that similar rules should also apply to candidate countries. In fact, it has always been the case even in the past that such serious situations would lead to a suspension of negotiations. Thus the inclusion of an explicit suspension procedure is based on a new acquis and the Commission will base its proposal on these principles of the Treaty. Thus I am fully in agreement with Mr Nicolaï and with Mr Duff.

On the question of the privileged partnership, the instrument of a special partnership is provided for under the draft Constitutional Treaty. It is intended to give special treatment to neighbours or other partners representing a strategic interest for the European Union. The idea of the special partnership underlines in particular the New Neighbourhood policy, which the EU seeks to extend to its eastern and southern neighbours. This initiative does not apply to Turkey, which has been a candidate country since the Helsinki summit in 1999. It is hard to figure out how any more could be offered to Turkey than it already has under the privileged partnership.

First of all, Turkey and the EU are bound by a customs union which constitutes a far-reaching instrument of bilateral cooperation in the area of trade and economic cooperation, implying a great degree of economic integration. Second, Turkey already participates in numerous Community programmes in a wide range of areas such as culture, drugs, justice and home affairs, education, research and development. Third, in the key area of security and defence, Turkey participates as a NATO member – via both NATO and the European Security and Defence Policy – in the development of EU security operations. For instance, there are Turkish troops in many countries in the Balkans, and even in the 'European army', as one British newspaper recently dubbed the 'Althea' operation in Bosnia.

With regard to the privileged partnership, and as Mr Nicolaï also said, in my view, the clear objective of the accession negotiations will and should be accession if Turkey meets all the criteria for membership by the end of the negotiations. It would not be wise to set any final target date because we have recently learned that schedule should not override substance. We should set realistic targets, not deadlines that we cannot meet.

Finally, Mr Howitt asked about the start-date from the point of view of the Commission. Our mandate is to evaluate whether Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria. This is what we did. Concerning the start-date of the negotiations, we trust the wisdom of the European Council, of the Prime Ministers and Presidents to make the political judgment with regard to when in 2005 they deem it appropriate to start the accession negotiations.

From the point of view of the Commission, I can say that we are ready to start work – in the words of Parliament's resolution – 'without undue delay'. I only hope that somebody will explain to me the difference between 'undue' and 'due' delay. Nevertheless, we are ready to work without delay once the negotiations have been made and the process can be started.

Johannes SWOBODA (PES, AT) István SZENT-IVÁNYI (ALDE, HU) and several others made the very important point that if we succeed in this long process of negotiations, it should and will make the EU strategically stronger. This is the fundamental issue at stake here and the strategic, geopolitical and geocultural crux of the matter. We can learn some lessons from history – we do not have to apply them blindly, be we can indeed learn something. During the Cold War, Europe contained Communism and the Soviet Union and cooperated in terms of enhancing security and human rights with impressive results. We can see this from the significant number of colleagues from free eastern and central Europe who are here among us today as Members of this Parliament.

Now and in the future, the challenge is very much the relationship between Europe and Islam. Europe must, on the one hand, contain Islamic fundamentalism using all the means available and, on the other hand, it must build bridges and dialogue with those representing moderate Islam. If, after long and difficult negotiations, we achieve a situation where the rule of law genuinely prevails in Turkey, and where European democracy meets a predominantly Muslim population, then such a Turkey would certainly be an asset for Europe and a very important crossroads of civilisations.