President. The next item is the vote.

Report (A6-0063/2004) by Camiel Eurlings, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the 2004 report and the recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey’s progress towards accession

Mr Watson has the floor for a point of order. Which Rule of Procedure are you invoking, Mr Watson?

  Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, I rise because in ten years of service in this House I cannot recall an instance similar to that regarding today's vote on the Eurlings report …

  President. I would ask you to obey the Rules of Procedure and indicate which Rule you are invoking.

(Applause)

  Watson (ALDE). – I apologise, Mr President, I should like to make a point of order under Rule 162. As I was saying, in ten years' service I cannot recall a similar instance to that with which we are faced today. We consistently demand of the Council and the Commission openness and transparency in political decisions ...

(Applause)

… and it is an extraordinary practice for Members of this House to ask for a secret ballot on a political decision under Rule 162, which is designed for the appointment of individuals. How can we be accountable to our electors? How can we defend ourselves against charges of shame and hypocrisy?

Mr President, I urge you to face down this ramshackle coalition of cowards and autocrats, …

(Loud applause)

… to declare a secret vote inadmissible on the grounds that it is unworthy of this House and to seek an early change to the Rules of Procedure to clarify this Rule.

  Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, I have risen to speak on the basis of Rule 162(2) and (3) of our Rules of Procedure.

As Mr Watson has just pointed out, and to pick up on the remarks made by Mr Poettering, it is the European Union’s duty to take the historic decision on whether or not to open negotiations with Turkey.

There are those who are opposed to Turkey’s accession, and I have great respect for these people. There are also those who are in favour of such an accession, and I have great respect for them too. Yet I know of no one whom I respect who lacks the courage to say what they think about Turkey.

(Applause from the left)

I would ask Mr Poettering to make a public statement on whether he is for or against the secret ballot which will take place in this House today. Is he personally for or against the secret ballot?

(Mixed reactions)

  President. Mr Cohn-Bendit, you may ask the honourable Members to calm down, but I must remind you that you are speaking on a point of order. So please restrict yourself to that.

(Applause)

  Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (FR) I would ask that those Members who have signed this resolution with the far right to withdraw their signatures, as the resolution is beneath their logic and their intelligence. I call on all those with any self-respect to withdraw their signatures and to vote…

(The President cut off the speaker)

(Applause)

  Schulz (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, we are familiar with Rule 162, and we also see from the voting list that 147 Members are apparently invoking Rule 162 to justify holding a secret ballot on various tabled amendments and in the final vote. I would therefore like to make my group's position on Rule 162 clear: the Socialist Group in the European Parliament would prefer a vote by roll call, for we believe that Europe's citizens have a right to know how Members of the European Parliament are voting on this key issue.

(Applause)

In our view, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats in this House is incapable of adhering to a coherent and unified line. Most of the 147 signatures come from this group, and I would like to thank the former Belgian Prime Minister, Mr Dehaene, for informing the Members of this group in unequivocal terms that while this solution may be acceptable from a legal perspective, politically it is completely unacceptable.

(Applause)

  President. It is becoming clear that the point of order relates to the application of Rule 162 on secret ballots, in accordance with the request made.

  Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, firstly, this is one Rule that I did not draft. Secondly, let me underline – before you make your ruling – the significance of the word 'may'. Rule 162(2) of the Rules of Procedure says that voting 'may' also take place by secret ballot, if requested by at least one-fifth of the Members. It does not say 'shall'. The previous paragraph says 'shall' concerning voting on nominations of individuals. There is a clear difference between the two cases of 'may' and 'shall'…

  President. Mr Corbett, we must respect the Rules of Procedure. I realise that you are extremely knowledgeable on the subject, but I have not asked you for advice. I take good note of your opinion and I will take it into account.

Ladies and gentlemen, please only raise genuine points of order. Otherwise, this debate will go on forever.

  Wurtz (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, without wishing to offer unwanted advice, I should like to make a suggestion, namely, that the request made by a number of Members be put to the House. Parliament would then be able to decide whether or not it is in favour of holding a secret ballot.

(Applause)

  President. You have made a proposal to organise our work. The Presidency takes good note of that, but our work is regulated by the Rules of Procedure and they provide us with sufficient guidance on how to proceed.

  Landsbergis (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I just wanted to say that according to my reason – if not to the Rules of Procedure – I am against the secret ballot and ask colleagues from my Group – or some of them at least – to withdraw their signatures.

(Applause from the left)

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a debate on whether those who have signed have been right to do so or whether they should not sign. I am only giving the floor for points of order and I would ask you to respect that. Opinions on whether it is good or bad to sign or not to sign, on whether Members should vote one way or another, may be very interesting, but they have no place at this point in the procedure.

Accordingly, if a point of order turns out not to be one, the President will cut off the speaker.

  Speroni (IND/DEM). – (IT) Mr President, I do not intend to take your job from you or to give you advice. However, even if a request for a vote by roll call has been made, under Rule 162(3) of the Rules of Procedure the request for a secret ballot shall take priority over the request for a vote by roll call.

  Toubon (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, all that I am asking is for you to implement the provisions of Rule 162(3), under which one fifth of Members of Parliament may call for a secret ballot. I should like to remind Mr Cohn-Bendit, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and you, Mr President, that the aim of this is to safeguard our utmost priority, namely freedom of conscience and expression. The debate, Mr President …

(Mixed reactions)

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I invoke the same article as Mr Wurtz. The right to a secret ballot is a traditional minority right which I defend, although I make no secret of the fact that I am voting against Turkey's accession.

(Applause)

  President. It has become perfectly clear that these are not points of order, but rather explanations of the attitudes of each Member towards the issue we are dealing with and I therefore see no need or reason to continue giving the floor for points of order.

Nevertheless, we must organise our work and we must, of course, do so in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, which sometimes lend themselves to interpretations that must be clarified, as in this case.

The Presidency has received three requests for secret ballots presented in accordance with Rule 162(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which says, and I quote – I will do so in Spanish and naturally it will have to be translated: ‘Voting may also be by secret ballot if requested by at least one-fifth of the component Members of Parliament. Such requests must be made before voting begins.’

With regard to the application of this provision, in this case, having heard those Members who have spoken under the guise of points of order and naturally having sought the opinion and the advice of the legal services of the House and the General Secretariat, which I am obliged to do, I can tell you the following: firstly, that the competent services have confirmed to me that these requests have been endorsed by a sufficient number of Members and that they have in fact been presented on time. Secondly, we have the issue, that some of you have raised, of the interpretation of whether or not we are obliged to hold a secret ballot, since Rule 162(2), which has been mentioned so often this morning, says that ‘voting may also be by secret ballot’ rather than ‘voting will also be’. There is, therefore, room for interpretation of what the Rules of Procedure say.

Aware that this issue would be subject to debate, before this sitting, the Presidency studied the relevant precedents and judgments of the Court of Justice and, regardless of my own personal views on how things should be done, my obligation is to try to interpret the Rules of Procedure in a manner which is as close as possible to the Law and, to this end, I must point out to the House that there is the precedent of President Cox considering, in the meeting of 12 June 2002, that the term ‘may be secret’ implied that the proposal should automatically be accepted and that, if a sufficient number of Members requested it, their request should be granted.

Furthermore, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities issued a judgment in October 2001 in which it also interpreted the term ‘may’ or ‘can’ as an obligatory condition in relation to a Rule of Procedure similar to the one we are dealing with now.

In accordance with these precedents and regardless – I would insist – of the opinions of any particular person on whether matters should be done one way or another, the Presidency believes that, since a request has been presented on time and correctly, we must proceed to a secret ballot ...

(Applause)

... although this issue, for future occasions, must be considered by Parliament’s committee responsible for issues relating to Rules of Procedure. We shall probably have to clarify in the future whether or not the Presidency's interpretation is correct, but at this point in the procedure, the Presidency must take responsibility for the decision without having the opportunity to take the advice of the competent committees, and it is my feeling, having heard all the Members and the legal services, that according to a correct interpretation of the Rules of Procedure we must proceed to the secret ballot requested, and that is what we are going to do.

With regard to how the vote will be taken, I must inform the honourable Members that I have decided that we shall use the electronic procedure in accordance with Rule 161(1) and there is, therefore, no reason to designate a college of tellers. It shall be secret, but electronic.

Having said that, we shall begin the votes.

On Amendment No 71:

  Rocard (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to propose an oral amendment to Amendment No 71, as it mentions certain facts with which not everyone is familiar. On behalf of my group, I should like to suggest replacing the phrase ‘the re-opening to pilgrims of the Armenian National Mausoleum in northern Anatolia’ – in which the word ‘mausoleum’ is an inaccurate translation – with the phrase ‘the re-opening to pilgrims of the ruined Armenian churches of Ani, near Kars in Eastern Anatolia’. None of our Armenian friends were aware of this place or of its opening to pilgrims.

The same can be said for the second oral amendment I would like to propose. There is doubt as to whether Turkish historians are in fact keen to carry out research into the genocide, and I therefore propose removing the reference to ‘Turkish historians’ in the plural, and merely including the name of the head of their school, or ‘Halil Berktay’, the Turkish historian who has done a great deal to further our knowledge of the Armenian genocide. Ladies and gentlemen, many of you have said that you were unfamiliar with this name, and that the amendment was out of place, but you should now be aware that it is a reference to Halil Berktay. The rest is to remain unchanged, as these were merely clarifications.

(Parliament approved Amendment No 71 with the modification proposed by Mr Rocard)

(Parliament adopted the resolution as amended)

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCA
Vice-President

Report (A6-0052/2004) by Carlos Coelho on the initiative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for adoption of a Council Decision on tackling vehicle crime with cross-border implications.

Before the vote

  Coelho (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, vehicle theft is on the rise in Europe, as is a feeling of insecurity among our citizens. Europol tells us that of the 1 million-plus cars stolen in 2002, fewer than 39% were recovered.

In Parliament we have adopted and recommended various measures. We did this as recently as March and I congratulate the Council for finally implementing some of them. Better late than never. The proposal submitted to us by the Netherlands is well intentioned but in the wrong form. The text submitted to us should have fallen under the scope of the first pillar and not the third. The Commission upheld our arguments in this regard. Some people in this House felt that it should be rejected for this reason. We saw it differently in the Civil Liberties Committee. We have removed from the text anything that should exclusively fall under the Community pillar and included anything that could be covered by the intergovernmental pillar. Mr President, we have proved that Parliament has acted in good faith and is sensitive to the growing problem of car theft and the criminality that goes with it. We should like to give one message to the Council: it would be good if, in the future, the Council and the Member States showed greater respect for Parliament’s prerogatives.

One last word to thank all those Members of this House who contributed with proposals and advice, in particular the Members of the Transport Committee and Mr Jardim Fernandes and Mrs Wortmann-Kool.

(Parliament adopted the motion for a resolution)

Recommendation for second reading (A6-0049/2004) by Robert Sturdy on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC

(Parliament declared the common position approved as amended)

***

Joint motion for a resolution on the EU/Russia Summit RC B6-0197/2004 (seeking to replace motions for resolutions B6-0197/2004, B6-0198/2004, B6-0206/2004, B6-0207/2004, B6-0208/2004 and B6-0209/2004)

(Parliament adopted the joint motion for a resolution as amended)

***

Report (A6-0051/2004) by Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the asylum procedure and protection in regions of origin

On paragraph 28:

  Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, our oral Amendment No 28 is intended to provide better and more effective protection for the rights we intend to protect and to do so in a realistic manner, not through utopian proposals.

For the sake of realism, based on experience, what we are asking, Mr President, is that the expression ‘in the applicant’s own language’ be replaced with the expression ‘a language comprehensible to the applicant’.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment by Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra and approved the paragraph as amended)

On paragraph 33:

  Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, in order not to be tiresome, I will simply say that my arguments are the same as those I put forward in defence of oral Amendment No 28.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment by Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra and approved the paragraph as amended)

(Parliament approved the motion for a resolution as amended)

***

Report (A6-0067/2004) by Giusto Catania, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, incorporating a proposal for a recommendation of the European Parliament to the Council on the European strategy on fighting drugs (2005 – 2012)

(Parliament approved the motion for a resolution as amended)

President. – That concludes the vote.

EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE

- Report: Eurling (A6-0063/2004)

  Fatuzzo (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, it is with great pleasure that I give an explanation of my vote on the report on Turkey’s accession to the European Union.

I shall start by saying that I voted against Turkey joining the European Union, but I should like to explain how I arrived at that decision. Last week, on 9 December, I found myself in Reggio Calabria, where I had been invited by the Pensioners’ Party official Carlo Rositani to give a lecture at the Tommaso Gulli Teacher Training College. I asked a class of about 120 girls aged between 16 and 19 to vote for or against Turkey’s accession to the European Union. The ballot of these 120 youngsters gave the following result: 100 girls out of 120 voted against accession while the other 20 abstained. I have therefore willingly gone along with those young people’s vote.

  Konrad (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted against the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey. This is a matter of principle for me. The European Union, founded in Rome in 1957, has always defined itself in Christian and democratic terms, based on Greek philosophy, Roman law and Christian faith.

As a result of today's profoundly misguided decision by the European Parliament, we are abandoning this spirit of Rome. The former French President, Giscard d'Estaing, is quite right: it would indeed be the end of the EU as we know it. May God protect the West's Christian civilisation.

(Applause)

  Martin, David (PSE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on Turkey and I believe we did good work today. We have given encouragement to those inside Turkey and indeed to those outside Turkey who have campaigned and worked hard for a secular Turkish state, a Turkish state based on democracy and a Turkish state that respects human rights.

We have also sent a strong message to the 15 million Muslims who already live inside the European Union that this is not an exclusive Christian club. So all in all I am very pleased with the work we have carried out this morning.

  Czarnecki, Ryszard (NI). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to remind all Members of this House, both those who voted for and those who voted against, that the vote was not on whether Turkey should be accepted into the European Union or not. This may well be a good thing. What Parliament has done is to vote in favour of opening negotiations with Turkey. Whether Turkey joins the European Union or not will depend on the course of these negotiations and on their outcome. It is my impression that there are still Members of the House who are not aware of this.

  Borghezio (IND/DEM). – (IT) Mr President, I am opposed to Parliament’s decision to begin negotiations on Turkey’s accession, because Turkey is not Europe! In addition, we are running the risk of one day seeing a flag flying over these institutions – the Turkish flag – which is still stained with the blood of the Armenian people, whose holocaust is not recognised by Turkey.

We have betrayed the spirit of Lepanto, a thousand-year tradition of a Europe that is and wants to remain attached to its Christian roots. Turkish society, moreover, is still closely tied to the principles of Islamic fundamentalism, and that is a grave danger of which Europe should be more aware.

We are therefore proud to have voted against starting the procedures for Turkey to join Europe, and we consider that those European politicians who irresponsibly supported that decision should be ashamed of themselves, because the decision goes against the wishes of the majority of the people. We call for a referendum to be held in all the countries of the European Union so that the people can have their say, because the peoples of Europe are against Turkey’s accession.

  Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, in Le Monde of 8 December, Mr Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, stated that if the EU is not a Christian club, then it should be possible for an Islamic country such as Turkey to join. What this means is that Europe should abandon its individuality, or a large proportion of it anyway, while Turkey is allowed to stay an Islamic club. A few days later, Mr Erdogan, in The Times, alerted the European leaders to the fact that violence from Islamic extremists could escalate if Europe rejects Turkey as a candidate country. Since Mr Erdogan is himself from that background, we can consider this as a downright threat, as blackmail, pure and simple.

We in the European Parliament no longer even have the self-respect to act against that kind of blackmail. Moreover, how will we in future reject applications from Morocco, for example, if we include a non-European country such as Turkey? The public is being taken for a ride; we are told that Turkey is being assessed according to the Copenhagen criteria, but that does not appear to be the case. It is not a problem that in Turkey, torture is being carried out on a massive scale, that Turkey has its troops occupying part of the territory of an existing Member State and even refuses to recognise that state. I can only conclude that we in this House have become too pusillanimous to carry on protecting our own interests as Europeans.

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, let me focus on the positive aspects first. We have intensified our confrontation course on human rights issues – which is directed against the Turkish Government, not the Turkish people – by calling for rights and freedoms for the Kurds and for the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians to be acknowledged and properly examined.

Another positive point is that we have not demanded Turkey's accession, but merely the opening of accession negotiations, which I voted against. Given that the Members who are in favour of accession negotiations include many who are ultimately opposed to accession, we appear to be on the right track. We were in the minority at first, but our course is now endorsed by the largest group in this House, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, and we just need another 40 Members to adopt a clear position over the coming years. There will then be no majority in this House in favour of Turkey's accession to the European Union when we finally take a binding vote on this issue.

That apart, it is a matter for the PPE-DE Heads of Government, at the Brussels summit in two days' time, to stop the onward surge of the lemmings, which inevitably ends in disaster.

  Brepoels (PPE-DE), in writing. – (NL) Our Europe is an open Europe, founded on the European public culture derived from our common values and standards. This ‘unity in diversity’ is both Europe’s most important characteristic and its greatest asset.

The implication of such a political project is that there are limits. The Union’s further enlargement should not stand in the way of its becoming even deeper. After all, Turkish membership threatens to turn the Union into a merely economic cooperative which will no longer be able to carry out important supranational responsibilities in a coordinated manner.

A Union devoid of any strength and spirit, paralysed by internal contradictions; that is not the outcome for which many had worked and about which they had dreamed. There is no doubt that Turkey has made an important journey over the past few years. These reforms and in-depth economic cooperation must definitely be continued.

In this respect, a special partnership between the Union and Turkey seems to be the appropriate route, in which, alongside far-reaching economic cooperation, conditions can also be agreed in the areas of the Kurds, women’s rights and human rights in general. Since this latter element is not provided for in the report, I shall be voting against the report and the resolution.

  Carlotti (PSE), in writing. – (FR) Although the Commission’s report was well-founded, its recommendations of 6 October no longer required Turkey to recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915.

This genocide resulted in the death of over one million people, which was equivalent to nearly two thirds of the country’s largest minority.

This crime, which was carried out with intent and which led to widespread and systematic destruction, was the first genocide of the twentieth century, and yet even today the Turkish State continues to oppose references to it.

The worst possible course of action now would be to remain silent. The Commission’s silence could lead one to think that this tragedy does not concern it in any way, and that it is a problem for Turks and Armenians alone.

This is something I find disturbing, not for reasons of religion, history or community, but because this is a political issue which has direct bearing on democracy and human rights.

This is an issue which goes back to the very foundations of the European Union, laid after the Second World War when France and Germany affirmed their desire to bring peace to Europe. This meant that our continent’s most tragic hours were overcome, even though the full extent of the extermination of Jews would not be fully acknowledged until later.

This is why the Armenian issue is crucial for a Europe seeking to become an area of freedom and anti-totalitarianism where a modern and secular citizenship flourishes.

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Castex (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on the European Commission’s 2004 regular report and recommendations on Turkey’s progress towards accession for the following reasons.

I believe that the European Union’s inability to formulate, approve and construct a coherent political project is a major obstacle to the welcoming of Turkey into the Community.

It appears to me to be questionable, if not irresponsible, to pursue a policy of never-ending enlargement at a time when the political dimension of the European Union and its social and tax harmonisation are far from a reality. At present, the European Union is not in a position to make political proposals of genuine integration to a country the size of Turkey.

I would note that our position is not based on arguments relating to geographical, historical, religious or cultural aspects. It is not Turkey’s ability to meet a certain number of conditions which has caused me to hold such a view, but the European Union’s inability to provide the necessary framework to create a common future.

  Ferber (PPE-DE), in writing. – (DE) On behalf of the CSU Members of the European Parliament, I would like to clarify our position in relation to the possible opening of accession negotiations with Turkey once more. Today's vote has shown that the 'privileged partnership' model is endorsed by many of our fellow Members from all EU Member States and all political groups. This refutes the arguments, in particular, of those who claim that the CDU and the CSU are isolated on this issue in Europe. I hope that the European Council will also take this into account at its deliberations on Friday. We continue to take the view that the European Union's record of success would be massively jeopardised by Turkish accession. Anyone wanting Europe to degenerate into a free-trade area will achieve their objective through Turkey's accession. If, on the other hand, we want a strong Europe with the capacity to act, the special relationship established by a privileged partnership is the appropriate means by which to fulfil this aim. The European Council, at its meeting on Friday, must be mindful of this responsibility.

  Ferreira, Anne (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on the European Commission’s 2004 regular report and recommendations regarding negotiations on Turkey’s accession to the European Union for the following reasons.

I believe that the European Union’s inability to formulate, approve and construct a coherent political project is a major obstacle to the welcoming of Turkey into the Community.

It appears to me to be questionable, if not irresponsible, to follow a policy of never-ending enlargement at a time when the political dimension of the European Union and its social and tax harmonisation are far from a reality. At present, the European Union is not in a position to make political proposals of genuine integration to a country the size of Turkey.

I would note that my position is not based on arguments relating to geographical, historical, religious or cultural aspects. It is not Turkey’s ability to meet a certain number of conditions which has caused me to hold such a view, but the European Union’s inability to provide the necessary framework to create a common future.

  Ford (PSE), in writing. I will be voting in favour of opening negotiations with Turkey for membership of the European Union. Turkey does not as yet meet the criteria for membership. Its record on human rights with respect to its Kurdish and Assyrian minorities is deeply flawed. Its record with respect to trade union rights is poor. It has failed properly to come to terms with the Armenian genocide. Yet none of these should be seen as barriers to starting a process that will enable the Commission and Parliament to press for their correction. A 'yes' vote today will support the campaigns of all progressive forces in Turkey to shed the last remnants of Turkey's authoritarian past. If together we can achieve these changes I will support Turkey joining the Union, as my Europe is based on shared values that are not limited to one particular set of religious values and beliefs. If we do not achieve this, I will vote 'no', even if the economic conditions have been met.

  Gomes (PSE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of opening the process of Turkey’s accession to the EU. This does not entail making a final decision on this process, which will take years to negotiate. Furthermore, I voted against partnership status, because that would mean that the EU has not honoured its promises.

I voted in favour, particularly in light of the testimonies of numerous Turkish human rights defenders, who have confirmed that there have been positive developments in Turkey. Those developments are not sufficient, of course; there are still political prisoners, there is still torture in prisons and there remains much to do. Stopping the process of opening negotiations at this time would have terrible consequences for the human rights situation in Turkey. I voted in favour, although we have not had the opportunity for serious contemplation as to where Europe should extend, and because I do not accept the political and cultural borders of the ‘Christian Club Europe’, nor the prophecies of the ‘clash of civilisations’. I voted in favour, provided that Turkey recognises, without delay, the EU Member State of Cyprus, and withdraws, without delay, from the part of Cyprus that it occupies militarily. I voted in favour of acknowledging the genocide of the Armenian people by Turkey, as I believe that this is essential for reconciliation with its neighbours and with its history.

  Goudin, Lundgren and Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The June List does not view Turkey’s geographical position or its Muslim religion as obstacles to its membership of the EU. We welcome the fact that Turkey is drawing closer to the EU. We must not, however, close our eyes to the fact that both Turkey and the EU must change before full EU membership is possible.

Turkey must acknowledge the Armenian genocide. It must give its minorities full human rights. It must achieve a level of economic development such that its membership does not release tensions that may threaten the internal market. The EU must also change. The common agricultural policy must be abolished, and structural policy must be revised before Turkey, large and poor as it is, can be absorbed.

To ensure grass-roots support, membership negotiations should, moreover, only be embarked upon once the issue has been debated in the Member States’ election campaigns up until 2008. Finally, the issue of the EU’s Constitution must be solved before the EU adopts a position on the issue of negotiations concerning Turkish membership.

  Grossetête (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this report.

Our fellow citizens are concerned about these future enlargements, and above all about the continuing lack of responses to the crucial question of where Europe’s borders lie.

Turkey does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union which it has occupied for 30 years, and it punishes anyone who refers to the Armenian genocide. Ninety-seven per cent of Turkey’s territory is outside Europe, and Turkey therefore has no right to join the European Union. Turkey’s integration into the EU would be tantamount to rejecting a political Europe straightaway, before it has even come into being, and to perpetuating the image of a Europe subject to blackmail and pressure. Would this be a sensible course of action?

Those in favour of Turkey’s accession hide behind the Copenhagen criteria under the pretext that Turkey could one day adhere to them, yet this is a trick. It is not enough to insist only on adherence to these criteria as an indispensable condition to be met before any new accession, because this would mean that any country in the world which adhered to them could, in its turn, join the European Union.

This is why I hope that the Council will agree to the idea of a privileged partnership put forward by France.

  Hortefeux (PPE-DE), in writing. – (FR) Today this House has finally reached a decision on Turkey’s membership of the European Union. This was a vote eagerly awaited by European citizens, who struggle to understand their governments’ attitudes on this issue.

I voted against the draft report by Mr Eurlings, as it came to the conclusion that ‘the European Council [should] open the negotiations with Turkey without undue delay’, and that ‘the objective of the negotiations is Turkish EU membership’.

The European project is a well-defined one, the aim of which is to share a number of competences between neighbouring and similar countries in order to build a new political whole. Integrating Turkey into this whole would be problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Turkey is not part of the European continent in geographical terms, as over 90% of its territory is in Asia, and 90% of its borders are with Asian countries.

Secondly, throughout history Turkey has shared none of our values, with such values ensuring that Europe today is based on a foundation of common traditions kept alive by all of us.

Finally, I should like to advance a weighty argument which directly affects our institutional structure; if Turkey enters the European Union it will have the largest population of any Member State, which will mean …

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Howitt (PSE), in writing. The European Parliamentary Labour Party strongly welcomes the clear recommendation in this resolution, that EU leaders should announce the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey without delay.

We recognise the sensitivities with regard to issues surrounding Turkey's relations with Armenia, however these will be dealt with during the negotiations process. The report does not in any way imply that resolution of these issues is a precondition to opening talks.

We also register our opposition to any permanent safeguards affecting free movement of workers. Turkey should receive equal, fair and proper treatment during the negotiations.

  Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) As Chairman of the European Parliament’s Delegation on the countries of the South Caucasus, I welcome the adoption by a large majority of the Eurlings report on opening accession negotiations with Turkey, and would reiterate how crucial it is for the peoples of Europe and for the stability of an entire continent to open the doors of the European Union to this country.

I regret the fact that the European Union did not make the issue of lifting the blockade and opening the border with Turkey’s neighbour, Armenia, part of the discussions on Turkey’s possible accession from the outset, and I regret that Turkey has not taken this historic opportunity to show goodwill by opening its border with Armenia.

Yet using the border issue and the Armenian genocide as reasons to refuse to open up to Turkey, as right-wing French political parties in particular have done, is unacceptable. They are wrong to brandish this argument so soon before the Council makes its decision on opening negotiations, and their only purpose in so doing is to hide their real reasons for rejecting Turkey’s integration.

  Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) More and more European nations, following the example of the French, Germans, Greeks and Austrians, are showing their opposition to Turkey, an Asian country which is part of the Muslim world, entering Europe. The leaders of the Europe of Brussels, in particular Mr Chirac, are well aware of this.

That is why they are maintaining that opening the accession negotiations would not automatically lead to Turkey’s accession. This assertion, repeated in Mr Eurlings’ report, is an untruth: since the first enlargement of 1972, every negotiation process has been followed by the accession of the candidate country. It will be the same for Turkey, especially as its Islamist leaders have warned us that they will not make any concessions.

If on 17 December, against the will of the people, the European Council decides to open accession negotiations with the Turkish Government, the referendum on the European Constitution will be France’s last opportunity to avoid being swallowed up in a union that is European in name alone, and in which Turkey, the most populous country, will play a prominent part.

  Lienemann (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I am against any further enlargement until the Union has achieved deeper political integration and created a powerful Europe and a social Europe. With each enlargement the prospect of a federal Europe fades. Turkey’s entry will further dilute the European project, and it is not desirable for it to be integrated into the EU in its present form. The issue that will arise for everyone has nothing to do with either religion or geography: the European Union has to be a political project.

This project is now under threat because it is being limited to a free-trade area with less and less regulation. We need to overhaul the architecture of Europe and have a federal core, then a Union of 27 countries and then a zone of enhanced cooperation with neighbouring countries such as Turkey, and also other countries like the Maghreb countries, with which we enjoy close links. Approving the opening of negotiations makes this a more distant prospect and continues a policy of ongoing enlargement. Legitimate requirements are made of Turkey, but it goes without saying that if this country meets them it will be impossible to refuse it entry. Before any possible accession negotiations we need to define the future shape of Europe. We should reject enlargement and begin a different kind of cooperation with Turkey.

  Lulling (PPE-DE), in writing. (DE) As a Member of this House, I have belonged to the parliamentary friendship group with Turkey for as long as it has existed. No one, therefore, can accuse me of not being well-disposed towards Turkey.

As things stand, however, I feel I am justified in asking whether all the conditions – especially as regards human rights – have genuinely been fulfilled. I gladly acknowledge that on the issue of women's rights, for example, more reforms have been introduced since Turkey was granted the prospect of accession than in the decades before. Nonetheless, they have largely taken place on paper; the reality still lags behind. I was recently confronted with information alleging that sterilisations of Kurdish women have been carried out in Turkey.

When we signed an Association Agreement with Turkey in 1963, which offered the prospect of membership, the European Union did not exist; at that time, we were still the European Economic Community. Since a customs union with Turkey has existed since 1996, what we have now is very similar to an economic community in which any remaining trade barriers can be dismantled swiftly.

From this perspective too, and because there is no question that Turkey must remain fully anchored in European structures, the option of a tailor-made special status instead of the discriminatory membership deal proposed by the Commission would appear to be a more accessible and honourable path for Turkey, aside from the fact that there are justified doubts …

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Matsis (PPE-DE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Εurlings on Turkey's progress towards accession to the European Union, because it is the product of compromise between the various political groups in the European Parliament. However, I am in no way bound by the phrase in paragraph 38 concerning use of the Annan plan as a basis for efforts to settle the Cyprus question, in that this plan was rejected by 76% of Greek Cypriots and 67% of all Cypriots. As Article 38 rightly says, a solution can be found on the basis of the principles upon which the EU is founded.

I also have reservations about the exact content of paragraph 39, which I consider to be incompatible with the report by Mrs Mechtild Rothe, which the European Parliament voted in favour of about a month ago (see: Rothe report, Amendment No 2, Recital 4a (new) (4a) page 6/15).

  Meijer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) Since the Atatürk revolution in 1923, Turkey has been a typically European country, albeit of the old-fashioned, authoritarian kind, which we no longer want in Europe these days. The army’s power is immense; there are political prisoners; parties and newspapers are often banned and an electoral threshold of 10% keeps even most legal parties outside of parliament. Kurds, Armenians and Assyrians are given the choice between leaving the country or adapting to the language, the culture and religion of the Turkish majority. Turkey must change a great deal before we can welcome it, not only in its legislation but also in daily life. After more than 40 years, it is now proposed to open negotiations shortly with a view to full membership of the EU. That is also what the millions of Europeans of Turkish origin want. A decision as to whether Turkey may join will be made not before, but during, the negotiations. There is the risk that the Turkish Government may consider that after three or five years’ negotiations, Turkey deserves EU membership, without the problems of democracy, human rights and ethnic minorities having been resolved by then, with the potential for conflicts and an eventual rift. The Copenhagen criteria must not be replaced by Ankara criteria.

  Morgan (PSE), in writing. I have voted for Turkey's progress towards accession despite having serious reservations.

I would like to emphasise that my reason for voting for Turkey's progress towards accession is because it is a Muslim country and will serve as an important bridge between Europe and the Middle East in particular.

I have concerns, however, that Turkey still has a very large number of human rights abuses. I also have concerns that a country with such a massive number of people living in poverty will not be able to reach the levels acquired in the acquis communautaire, and I fear that the emphasis has been on the market access to Turkey rather than the need for Turkey to conform to the social and environmental standards in the EU. I am not interested in seeing the enlargement of Europe simply in order to see a larger market. An equal emphasis must be placed on social and environmental considerations.

  Muscardini (UEN), in writing. – (IT) The Alleanza Nazionale delegation has voted for the Eurlings report on the opening of the accession procedure for Turkey, a procedure that will take several years. The opening of the procedure unequivocally heralds a change in the political course steered by the Turkish Government, not only in respect of the Community acquis and the Copenhagen conditions but especially concerning the resolution of the Armenian and the Kurdish questions.

The Alleanza Nazionale believes that the Council decision of 17 December should make it unequivocally clear that the opening of negotiations with Turkey requires the Turkish Government’s recognition of the State of Cyprus, a full Member State of the European Union, and consequently the resolution of the Cypriot question, which means the withdrawal of the 35 000 Turkish troops which, in occupying Cyprus, are occupying a territory of the European Union.

The Alleanza Nazionale will watch to ensure that the guarantees and conditions included in the report are complied with, because a successful conclusion to Turkey’s journey towards accession will not be possible unless they are complied with.

  Musumeci (UEN), in writing. – (IT) Turkey’s possible accession to the European Union brings with it many benefits and a few risks. The benefits are more political than economic since, as well as being a member of NATO, Turkey has signed a customs union treaty with the European Union that already permits free trade.

Its accession would not only fulfil the dream of millions of citizens of fully belonging to the secular western world, but it would shift the centre of gravity of political and economic influence towards the Mediterranean basin, confirming Europe as a world power no longer closed in within its geopolitical boundaries.

On the other hand, the risks that should be taken into consideration are, first, the reduced likelihood of seeing the birth of a Europe with its own common foreign policy, as well as the possible difficulty of making two diverse religious and cultural identities coexist. Can it describe itself yet as a democratic state that respects its ethnic minorities?

Secondly, it would have a negative effect on the allocation of European funds to regions currently considered to be ‘lagging behind in their development’, such as Sicily, at least in the short term.

Lastly, Turkey should withdraw from that part of Cyprus under military occupation, and it goes without saying that it must declare its willingness to square its account with history by acknowledging the errors it has made over the last hundred years ...

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Patrie (PSE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from the final vote on the Eurlings report.

It would, firstly, be reasonable not to consider any further enlargement before first deciding where Europe’s borders lie. Pushing back their limits indefinitely risks turning Europe into nothing more than a vast free-trade area. Such a renouncement is anathema to convinced federalists.

Secondly, experience shows that once negotiations have been opened, accession inevitably follows once the candidate country meets the conditions laid down, and in particular the Copenhagen criteria. But although we might legitimately hope that Turkey will continue to build on the progress it has made, particularly on democracy and human rights, there is as yet no guarantee that Europe is prepared to provide the resources, not least the budgetary resources, to go ahead with such an enlargement in a mutually satisfactory way.

My abstention is then a warning to the European Summit of 17 December: no more enlargement without deeper integration! We have to stop presenting the peoples of Europe with faits accomplis, and instructing them to ratify decisions taken in their absence several years earlier by the Heads of State or Government.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) This report updates Turkey’s development as regards its eventual accession to the EU, in common with the report by Mr Oostlander adopted on 1 April.

As I had the opportunity to write then, I feel that Turkey was perhaps hastily recognised by the Council as a candidate for accession. In the same way, I believe that the Commission recently repeated the mistake when it deemed that the Copenhagen criteria have already been satisfied, while there are still situations such as those detailed in the motion for a resolution that are blatantly at variance with this position.

I endorse the rapporteur’s position that this must be an open-ended process, without a predetermined outcome, albeit a process that does point towards accession. I also share his desire to see that, regardless of the outcome, Turkey presses ahead with and firmly establishes the welcome reforms that it has been carrying out. In so doing it will confirm its credentials as a fully democratic and responsible country and one that respects human rights.

  Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I supported opening accession negotiations with Turkey, and I did so for one reason above all: I want a better world for tomorrow, characterised by stability and security. No one can see into the future, but I know one thing: sharing this area of peace and democracy on which our Union is founded is a unique opportunity that we cannot allow to slip away.

Yes, we should stand firm in the name of historical truth, which is why I continue, as I have done in the past, to demand that the Turkish authorities acknowledge their part in the Armenian genocide. One truth and one history: we owe it to that same history also to remember that for 50 years Turkey has played an essential role as a loyal ally at the gates of Europe.

Standing firm means sending out a strong message: the marriage will only take place if further considerable progress is made on respect for minorities and gender equality. I am pleased that the European Parliament supported my amendment to Paragraph 26 on zero tolerance with regard to crimes of honour.

In conclusion, I would ask that the people have a say in the final decision: referendum or consultations …

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Szymański (UEN),  in writing. – (PL) Many advantages could be gained from Turkey’s accession to the European Union, above all an extension of the common market and a strengthening of transatlantic links. Yet both these goals can be achieved without Turkey joining the European Union.

The European Economic Area is an excellent example of a platform for good economic cooperation with the EU. It could also be useful to propose a reform of security policy to Turkey, as the country is one of Europe’s major strategic partners in the field of security.

A privileged partnership of this kind with Turkey would provide us with the chance of avoiding a crisis of agricultural policy and cohesion policy.

If we wish to avoid migration-related conflicts, we should not be instrumental in a Muslim country becoming the European Union’s largest Member State in the near future. It is estimated that Turkey will have a population of around 90 million in 2020.

The development of closer relations with Turkey should also be kept more in proportion to Europe’s policy of openness towards Ukraine.

These are all good reasons why we cannot vote in favour of the Eurlings report. We consider it to be imprudent, as despite serious grounds for opposition to Turkey’s membership in the EU it continues to support such a membership. The ongoing discussion of Turkey’s chances of joining the European Union will fuel increased resentment in Turkey.

  Thyssen (PPE-DE), in writing. – (NL) I supported the Eurlings report and should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent work. I will say this in public since we were unable to demonstrate our position in another way on account of the unfortunate secret ballot. My vote in favour of opening negotiations certainly does not mean that I cannot wait for them to start.

My group rightly believes that it is actually too soon, and I share that view. At the same time, though, we would like to remain realistic, because after all, the train was put in motion in 1999 and in 2002. Moreover, we expect that the European Council will give the negotiations the green light. What matters to us in the ballot is that the Union should retain its credibility and that we send a clear message about the conditions under which these open-ended negotiations are to proceed. The conditions in the report are strict, but fair. We support them wholeheartedly, and that is why I have voted in favour.

- Report: Coelho (A6-0052/2004)

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the report before us because I feel that the initiatives concerned, which are intended to adopt a Council decision on vehicle crime with cross-border implications, addresses the concerns that we ought to have as regards combating crime.

Furthermore, despite the fact that conferring direct access to SIS may appear to run counter to the rule that ‘data may not be used for administrative purposes’, the truth is that the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that this cannot happen in this case.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) Vehicle theft makes up a significant proportion of crime and has cross-border implications for the EU, and as such is an issue requiring urgent action.

One must also take into account the fact that this particular form of crime is more often than not only one element of broader criminal activity, encompassing various types of crime spread across an enormous geographical area.

It is therefore crucial that the movement and registration process for vehicles from other Member States and, indeed, third countries is monitored extremely carefully.

The rapporteur was right to observe that the new feature of the Dutch proposal is that of national contact points. I feel that it will be useful to monitor the effectiveness of their activities and periodically to review the methods and practices adopted.

The Commission’s White Paper on the subject, as proposed by the rapporteur, will accord this issue a broader scope.

- Report: Sturdy (A6-0049/2004)

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) We welcome the amendments to the current recommendation for a second reading on the proposal tabled in April, given that they largely correspond with our proposals, which were as follows: that priority should be given to public health and to protecting the most vulnerable groups such as children and the unborn; that maximum residue levels (MRLs) should be set for products, taking account of the variations in climate and on the basis of the best available agricultural practices; that health risks should be explained to the public; that the risks to consumers should be assessed; that the results of national monitoring of residues should be published on the Internet; that the scope of the proposal should be widened to include imported products; and that civil society might be involved in setting MRLs.

It should be pointed out, however, that there is a long way to go on this issue, especially as regards implementing a common agricultural policy that respects the existing cultural diversity, whereby policies are put in place that promote small and medium-sized farming, in contrast with the current measures in place, which, if they achieve their aims, will sacrifice and penalise farmers with fewer resources.

The creation of MRLs on pesticides in food for ...

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  Martin, David (PSE), in writing. I welcome this report and the objectives contained within it.

However, we must remember that having established regulations for maximum residue levels of pesticides in food and feed of plant and animal origin, the main priority must be that it is properly implemented and regulated. Consumers deserve to be protected and thorough implementation can safe-guard their rights.

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I wholeheartedly welcome this report, because I consider that recasting and streamlining Community legislation in this area fosters trade within the internal market and with third countries, and does no harm from a Portuguese perspective.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The proposal before us seeks to recast Community legislation on pesticides by replacing the four directives in force with one single regulation. The proposal also seeks to safeguard certain key objectives, such as establishing a homogenous level of consumer protection throughout the Community, by defining the role of the European Food Safety Authority, and by increasing the trade in foodstuffs within the EU.

I believe that significant progress has been made between the first and second readings, namely the Council’s adoption of both the amendments tabled by Parliament and the introduction of amendments to its initiative, which have certainly improved the Commission’s original proposal.

I feel, however, that there remain aspects that could be clarified, such as the distinction between residues – in the context of maximum residue limits (MRLs) – and pesticides. I agree with the rapporteur, however, that when MRLs are exceeded, those responsible must be held to account and subgroups that may consume more of a certain type of product must be fully protected.

- EU/Russia Summit (RC B6-0197/2004)

  Posselt (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I welcome the fact that we have made our position clear to Russia. Like Turkey, Russia is a country which is only partly European and will never join the EU, but it is an extremely important partner. However, precisely because it is an important partner, we must steadfastly oppose the systematic dismantling of democracy and the rule of law in Russia and the continuing genocide against the Chechen people in a colonial war. I therefore wish to send a clear message to President Putin from this House: we regard Russia as an important partner, but the statement which he has made against Ukraine, its liberation movement and the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe is an attack on free Europe. We are hoping for cooperation here, not for a continuation of this unacceptable confrontation course.

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of this motion for a joint resolution because I feel that the question before us – relations between the EU and Russia, which is an important international player and the most important neighbour of many of the countries covered by our neighbourhood policy – is crucially important for the future of the area that we share throughout the European continent, and as regards certain concerns at world level.

Nevertheless, I must point out that, in spite of the reservations that I have expressed, I welcome the concern at Russia’s interference in countries that were previously part of its sphere of influence.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The strategic relevance of relations between the EU and the Russian Federation is undeniable, and the ongoing initiatives to promote and institutionalise those relations are to be welcomed.

Indeed, common borders and interests combine to create an enlarged area of understanding, given the mutual interest in maintaining permanent dialogue on the fields proposed for the four common spaces, the common economic space; the common space of freedom, security and justice; the common space of cooperation in the field of external security; the common space of research, education and culture.

That is not to overlook the worrying signs in the area of human rights and civil liberties that have come to light in Russia, as regards political processes and procedures and the question of Chechnya. The same can also be said of Moscow’s disastrous interventions, recently in Ukraine and previously in Georgia and Belarus, which have done nothing to benefit the political processes of those countries.

I note and appreciate the desire shown by Russia to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Second World War, but I completely reject the manner in which the victory for democracy and freedom is compared with the criminal totalitarian subjugation to which all peoples to the east of the iron curtain were subjected.

- Report: Lambert (A6-0051/2004)

  Coelho (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The two Commission communications on the common asylum policy are most welcome. They are intended to raise the standard of application of the current directives in the EU, providing for the possibility of a review and to improve conditions for the vast majority of refugees within the region they are fleeing.

I welcome these Commission proposals intended to improve the assessment process by adopting a single procedure, thereby simplifying the process for both the applicant and the administration. Improvements are to be introduced to training, in-country assessment and the related information and judicial procedures.

I also welcome the additional measures proposed, which offer the means for managed, legal entry into the EU, not least if they help to reduce trafficking in human beings, along with the intention to develop high-quality protection regimes in receiving countries.

I cannot agree, however, with some of the proposals put forward by Mrs Lambert in her report and shall, therefore, be voting against. One of the main reasons why I reject the report is that it plans to extend the scope of the Directive on minimum standards for procedures

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

  de Brún (GUE/NGL), in writing. I supported, spoke in favour and voted in favour of Jean Denise Lambert’s report on asylum procedure and protection in regions of origin (2004/2121(INI)) on Asylum. The overwhelming majority of the report was positive and in line with my own party policy. However I have strong reservations about point 19 when it states ‘Considers that a decisive common foreign and security policy committing the EU as a matter of priority to the resolution of long terms conflicts and conflict prevention…’

Sinn Féin believes that the EU through its member states must play a greater role in conflict prevention and resolution and in promoting dialogue and negotiation as an alternative to military intervention. However we are wary of the moves within the EU towards the development of a common foreign and security policy as this would undermine national sovereignty. The most appropriate vehicle for dealing with such issues is through member state cooperation and under the auspices of the United Nations. The EU should play a more pro-active role on conflict resolution and prevention within this context.

  Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Whilst we do not accept, and are in fact critical of, certain aspects of this EP initiative report, such as its supranational outlook and its support for the common foreign and security policy, we also appreciate its positive aspects.

We feel that, as part of the current policies pursued at EU level, this resolution criticises very mildly, and does not condemn clearly, the impact of the current EU asylum policy. It does, however, among other points, highlight this threat to ‘the European humanitarian tradition’ and criticises what is termed the ‘outsourcing’ of the process of application by sending applicants for refugee status to a third country, and condemns the lengthy processing of asylum claims.

The resolution contains a number of points that we welcome, such as its call for strict compliance with international standards, encompassing the principle that refugees may not be expelled (allowing the asylum seeker to enter the country in which the request was made); the rejection of any funding for detention camps or any other centre restricting asylum seekers’ personal freedom; and an end to the policy of repatriation and readmission aimed at sending immigrants back to their countries of origin, as our group had proposed. Hence our vote in favour.

  Goudin, Lundgren and Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) The report on asylum procedure and protection in regions of origin is part of establishing the first stage of a common European asylum system, and the aim is to apply one and the same procedure to international protection in all the Member States. The June List does not, however, wish to contribute to any Fortress Europe. An EU Member State must be able to conduct a generous refugee policy if it wishes to do so. We cannot therefore support the report.

  Lang (NI), in writing. – (FR) This report is a further step towards the adoption of a single asylum procedure. Curiously, it does not apply solely to political refugees, who should nevertheless be the only ones entitled to apply for asylum under the Geneva Convention. It also applies to all of those who might benefit from ‘subsidiary protection’, that is those who cannot return home because of the general situation in their country of origin. The future European asylum application procedure will therefore cover all those who wish to migrate. It is true that in the borderless Europe of Brussels there is a political tradition of systematically fostering immigration. Moreover, Paragraph 25 of the report states that we need, ‘a common asylum procedure within the EU based upon high standards of delivery’.

This report on the rights of migrants makes no mention of illegal immigrants, however. Furthermore, the return policy is strictly defined: the refusal to grant asylum has to be duly reasoned in writing in an ‘authenticated document’ in the applicant’s own language, and it is not possible to use charter flights. In addition, the report rules out the possibility of setting up detention centres in transit countries.

  Marques (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) I wish to congratulate Mrs Lambert on her important and timely report on asylum procedure and protection in regions of origin. I endorse the report, in particular where it proposes, in addition to the current European common asylum policy, the creation of measures both to develop orderly and better organised entry into the EU of persons in need of international protection and to step up protection capacity in the regions of origin.

The aim is therefore to protect, at an early stage, political asylum seekers and refugees who, given the lengthy processing of asylum claims, especially in crisis situations, may resort to illegal means of travel, which may undermine their personal security.

Statistics show that in 2003 some 70% of the world’s refugees remained in their region of origin. It is therefore essential to offer greater protection of better quality in those regions, but to be clear that this is in addition to the EU’s current responsibilities to offer protection under international agreements.

  Martin, David (PSE), in writing. I welcome this report as it stresses the need for a high quality asylum procedure that acts acquiescent and compatible with the Geneva Conventions in addition to other existing international legal instruments.

I am in agreement with this report whereby the speed and administrative efficiency are important in assessing any system but they cannot be the only criteria when people’s futures are at risk.

I commend the report for recognizing that although the intention to develop high quality protection regimes in conjunction with receiving countries is to be welcomed but should not become a means to enhance border control with the intent of preventing people moving on or a way of abdicating our own protection responsibilities.

  McDonald (GUE/NGL), in writing. I supported, spoke in favour and voted in favour of Jean Denise Lambert's report on asylum procedure and protection in regions of origin (2004/2121(INI)) on Asylum. The overwhelming majority of the report was positive and in line with my own party policy. However I have strong reservations about point 19 when it states 'Considers that a decisive common foreign and security policy committing the EU as a matter of priority to the resolution of long terms conflicts and conflict prevention.........'

Sinn Féin believes that the EU through its member states must play a greater role in conflict prevention and resolution and in promoting dialogue and negotiation as an alternative to military intervention. However we are wary of the moves within the EU towards the development of a common foreign and security policy as this would undermine national sovereignty. The most appropriate vehicle for dealing with such issues is through member state cooperation and under the auspices of the United Nations. The EU should play a more pro-active role on conflict resolution and prevention within this context.

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) My opinion of this report is based on the following main factors:

On the one hand, I am in favour of some of the essential issues raised, in particular where the report proposes to establish universal standards for applying existing directives, and advocates improving conditions for the vast majority of refugees in the countries of origin.

On the other hand, I disagree on a key point: the application of asylum procedures to other situations of subsidiary protection.

In the end, I voted against the report in light of the vote on certain amendments that I considered fundamental.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The approach to issues relating to the granting of asylum has swung between two extreme perspectives, neither of which has, in practice, proved an effective means of resolving the problem.

The truth is that neither the concept of Fortress Europe nor that of Sanctuary Europe has much to do with reality. They are both caricatures, distortions of a complex issue that is intrinsically linked to people’s rights and expectations and to the need to safeguard collective security and public order.

At a time when the area of freedom, security and justice is being consolidated, I feel that it is appropriate to address this issue and the role of countries of origin and of transit in the problem before us.

Whilst I understand the generosity underpinning the rapporteur’s proposal, I cannot vote in favour of it, because, as regards granting refugee status, the proposal does not only deal with the cases of individuals – it widens the scope to subsidiary protection, and this raises doubts as to the appropriateness and proportionality of the proposal.

  Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The ΕU wants to remove by all possible means the victims of the intervention policy which it is following together with the USA in a series of countries.

Anti-asylum legislation, the inhumane record numbers of asylum requests refused and mediaeval living conditions in immigration centres were not enough. Now it also aspires to keep anyone seeking asylum, seeking international protection, outside the ΕU. Only those who are obedient and organised are accepted as necessary at the altar of the 'competitiveness' of the European monopolies.

The proposed 'Community-wide system of resettlement' is a mantle for public opinion to accept the creation of camps to round up immigrants outside the ΕU. Finally, the 'protected entry procedures' promote non-entry, in that asylum requests will be completed in a country outside the ΕU. Within the framework of the 'sharing of responsibilities' between the ΕU and third countries, the burden of keeping immigrants until the deportation decision is formally received is being passed on to them. The text is teeming with references to human rights, accompanied by proposals and policies which violate them.

Coercive readmission clauses in agreements with third countries are advocated. There is not a word on combating the causes for the waves of refugees. A common foreign and security policy is advocated which will pay greater attention to 'conflict prevention'; in other words, which will fan the flames of the fire ignited by imperialism.

- Report: Catania (A6-0067/2004)

  Goudin, Lundgren and Wohlin (IND/DEM), in writing. (SV) This report contains proposals and wordings that reflect a liberal attitude towards drugs. We are thus voting against the proposal.

We are opposed to drugs being classified as ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ and to the fact that drugs described as ‘soft’ are not regarded as addictive. The ‘alternative policy’ recommended in the report involves a more liberal policy towards drugs, emphasising harm reduction measures against drug use, rather than preventive work.

We are opposed to a common EU drugs policy. Such a policy would involve countries with a restrictive drugs policy, such as Sweden, being forced to conduct a more lenient and liberal drugs policy. It is up to each national Parliament in the EU to make decisions concerning their national drugs policies.

  Le Pen, Marine (NI), in writing. – (FR) Drug consumption is on the increase throughout Europe. Around 7 000 people die of overdoses every year in the European Union, and three times as many die as an indirect result of drug abuse (suicide, violence, AIDS, road accidents, and so on).

It appears that Brussels wishes to tackle this scourge. Great, except that what it is proposing in the fight against drugs is not to prevent young people from taking drugs or to give drug addicts the means to come clean, but to make drug addiction more hygienic. For example, it has tabled proposals for recovery rooms, rooms for injecting heroin under supervision and needle exchange programmes.

We cannot accept such a policy. Prevention is of course essential in the fight against drugs, but so is repression. We should increase the penalties for drug dealers and introduce court orders for medical follow-ups for users.

Finally, we should not draw a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs, as neither are harmless. Moreover, this over-simplistic classification has led to a considerable increase in cannabis consumption. We must not forget that there is scientific evidence linking the use of these drugs and mental health, with the occurrence of schizophrenia being between 30% and 50% higher in cannabis users.

  Maaten (ALDE), in writing. (NL) I take the view that negotiations with Turkey should start as soon as Turkey complies with the political Copenhagen criteria, for example in relation to the protection of human and women’s rights, the combating of corruption, the punishment of torture and the outlawing of child labour. Turkey has made impressive progress in these areas, but it is apparent from the reports by non-governmental organisations that it has not yet achieved these objectives. The negotiations will be commenced with a view to acquiring Member State status, but if the conclusion seems appropriate that membership is not feasible, other forms of cooperation are possible.

  Martin, David (PSE), in writing. This is a commendable attempt to draw attention to the EU's increasing Drug problem and find solutions using a scientific and practical approach.

Steps to combat the drugs trade would threaten one of the most important sources of income for organised crime and terrorist organisations. For example, according to the Europol report on organised crime, drugs production and trafficking continue to be the main activity pursued by criminal groups in the EU. No other field of organised crime is quite so profitable.

I welcome the view that a Community project should be launched for the purpose of introducing alternative forms of detention, so that drugs repression ceases to focus exclusively on imprisonment. The anti-drugs strategy should be regarded as a form of social intervention concentrating on the reasons for social unrest with a view to preventing drugs use by refining a strategy of repression which is currently targeted solely at drug users.

  Moraes (PSE), in writing. The European Parliamentary Labour Party voted for the Catania report on the EU drugs strategy because we believe it provides a comprehensive approach to tackling the harm done by particular drugs to individuals and to the spiral of crime, violence and trafficking caused by the trade in particular substances. It addresses harm reduction, addiction and crime.

On Amendment 2 concerning the issue of the distribution of particular substances under controlled circumstances, the EPLP voted against both parts because we do not believe this amendment enhances the report or is in line with the UK Government's drugs strategy, which the EPLP fully supports.

  Queiró (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The issue before us is the EU’s anti-drugs strategy that the Council decided to establish in June 2004 and that is set to be adopted at the next European Council. This report goes against the grain of the EU’s fundamental concepts, as it chooses to take the view that the strategy currently being implemented is not bearing fruit, that in some cases it has violated citizens’ rights and, accordingly, that a different path must be followed; it even suggests that some drugs should be decriminalised. Furthermore – and this makes sense within the logic of the report – it takes the view that the subsidiarity principle is not very important in this area.

This is not my understanding of what the anti-drugs strategy ought to be. I therefore voted against.

  Ribeiro e Castro (PPE-DE), in writing. (PT) The fact that this report was passed so narrowly in the committee concerned shows that the rapporteur deviated from the European Strategy against drugs, by proposing a solution that, to my mind, does not solve the problem, but rather exacerbates it.

It is nothing new in this House to see Members try to put liberalisation forward as a solution, to see the notion of damage limitation as the be-all-and-end-all and to speak the language of surrender when it comes to drug trafficking. This practice already has a notable history, with the common thread being that it is up to the Member States to enforce it – at complete variance with the subsidiarity principle, which must continue to apply to this issue – despite the need to coordinate the fight against drugs.

The slackness and decriminalisation that have been proposed are well known ways of removing responsibility from the public authorities and are a false ally of those whose drive and judgment have been subdued by the effects of drugs, and therefore constitute a deeply flawed message to give to the youngest members of society.

It is ironic that the rapporteur cites fundamental rights and claims to fight against an ‘ideological approach’ to this subject, in order to justify a highly ideological position that, strictly speaking, runs counter to basic fundamental rights.

  Roure (PSE), in writing. – (FR) On 16 and 17 December, the Council will decide on the new European Union Anti-Drugs Strategy for 2005-2012. A political agreement has already been reached in the Council, with no transparency or democratic scrutiny by Parliament. Indeed the Council has been very reluctant to meet our repeated demands for information about the progress of negotiations, even though we were discussing the same issue in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

Today I voted in favour of Mr Catania’s report, because the European Parliament has to show the Council what its vision of the new anti-drugs strategy is for the years to come.

We note that the European strategy has achieved little to date, and at the same time, drug use has increased in Europe. We therefore want to step up coordination and cooperation at European level so that Europe can bring added value to the fight against the scourge of drugs while respecting the principle of subsidiarity.

We must finally make the protection and health of drug users a priority. We must therefore step up prevention, provide better care and enhance health policy so as to avoid human tragedies and reduce exclusion.

  Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The European Parliament recommendation has not taken account of the recent annual report of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addition, which demolishes the so-called Dutch experiment and the argument that cannabis is allegedly harmless.

In the name of a non-existent realism, the recommendation distorts the nature of the problem from a social to a medical problem, something which results in submission and defeatism. The rapporteur endeavours to achieve the general application of the Dutch experiment through the back door, adopting the dangerous approach of dividing drugs into soft and hard. He uses the word 'consumers' instead of victims/users and proposes the creation of official drug administration centres. As a consequence of this dangerous approach, all the proposals which detract from the primary concern – prevention – focus on damage limitation (substitution programmes) and look for solutions in the mechanisms and resources of the ΕU. The connection between drug trafficking and the funding of so-called terrorism gives arguments to imperialist propaganda and is becoming an alibi before the people.

We do not demonstrate any tolerance of the drug culture. The reasons for drug addiction cannot be divided into 'hard' and 'soft'. Preventive and therapeutic measures and measures to reintegrate users are needed, together with a movement which will fight to overturn the social causes and the barbaric policy of capitalism which leads to drugs.

  President. That concludes the explanations of vote.