Mr President, Commissioner, I believe it to be extraordinarily important that Turkey will be closely associated with us. This is very much in our own strategic interests. It is, secondly, very much in our own interests that Turkey should become democratic and be under the rule of law, and that we should support developments towards this end. I do, though, have a number of unanswered questions. Looking at the region as a whole, Turkey is the country with the most highly developed democracy and rule of law. At the same time, Kemalism is, for a variety of reasons, an obstacle to membership of the European Union. Is it not perhaps the case, though, that Kemalism and the influence of the army are the reasons why Turkey manifests some degree of democracy and the rule of law? This is an inherent contradiction and a difficult issue, one that needs to be examined, and one of which we must not lose sight at the present time. The second thing I want to say is that I, unlike Mr Lagendijk, take the view that negotiations are indeed dependent on fulfilment of the political criteria. That was the line we took with Slovakia; that is why Slovakia was not on board as long ago as 1997, and that is the line we should be taking now. If we do, we are not discriminating against Turkey; we are applying the normal rules as we have always done. Where fulfilment of the political criteria is concerned, it is not enough for legislators to pass the relevant resolutions; these must be put into practice. The rule of law and human rights must not just be decided on in the Grand National Assembly, but must also be accepted and put into practice by district court judges in Eastern Anatolia, and this is where I have my doubts as to whether it will be possible for this to happen by November. I have no doubt whatever that the present government wants this, but I do doubt whether it will be possible. It is something we will have to examine in the autumn, in exactly the same way, for example, as we will have to examine – as the German Foreign Minister has said – whether Turkey can be regarded as a safe third country for the purposes of the asylum procedure, as Germany accepts more asylum seekers from Turkey than from any other country. If, though, someone is recognised as an asylum seeker, then the country from which they come cannot be said to be under the rule of law. This issue will have to be addressed, and an answer given. It must remain clear to us that the European Union’s integrative capacity has to be reviewed, that we have to consider whether its bonds are strong enough to prevent the occurrence of what Mr Van Orden has just described. We must be clear in our own minds about the fact that there are those in this House who seek to use enlargement to wreck the European Union. Let me add, though, that there are only a few of them; they are not all those who are in favour of Turkey’s accession, and I do believe that it is not only because of Turkey, but also because of other countries in Europe, that we need options for our relationships with countries that are not full Member States, including a new European Economic Area. While these countries, at any rate, should not be full members, at least at first, the option of full membership for Turkey, for the Ukraine, for the countries of the Western Balkans, will create serious problems for us in the coming years, and that is why we should come up with some new ideas. Let me conclude, Mr President, by saying what I would like to see done about the Cyprus question. I would like to see this House delay taking up a definite position until such time as we have had sight of the documents we need in order to do so, as we did, for example, with regard to the reunification of Germany, when we went as far as to set up a special committee to consider the issue.

Political group: PPE-DE