Proceeding contribution from Lord Risby (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 December 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on European Affairs.
European Affairs
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Turkey is a secular nation. For all its human rights and religious minority difficulties, it is moving in the right direction. A snub at this point may well have that effect, with awful consequences not only in Turkey but in the surrounding Islamic countries, which would draw a clear message from it. I should like to refer to another country on the borders of the European Union—Ukraine. Many of the states of central Europe were offered the prospect of membership of the EU and NATO as an ultimate reward for their diligent pursuit of democratic and market reforms, but Ukraine received no such serious offer after it had declared independence. That has rendered its transition that much harder and given political ammunition to those in Ukraine with a deep mistrust of the west. Western scepticism may thus have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The orange revolution constituted a critical point of departure in the EU’s new relationship with Ukraine. Over the past year, there has been a concerted effort to upgrade the EU-Ukrainian relationship, despite persistent political instability in Ukraine. That includes pressure on it in terms of creating a market economy, making progress on anti-dumping legislation, efforts to simplify visa rules, and a feasibility study on an eventual free trade agreement. The idea that this should, in stockbroking language, be ““all or none”” is irrelevant. In relation to a country such as Ukraine, which is of huge geopolitical significance given all the pressures, particularly from Russia in the north, we should have flexible arrangements that enable it to participate in aspects of life within the EU in order to encourage it to make progress on democratic practices, human rights and opening its markets without ultimately requiring full EU membership. Such flexible arrangements would work much more satisfactorily in the globalised world that we inhabit. The EU considers Ukraine to be a priority partner country and calls for an increasingly close relationship. Indeed, an EU/Ukraine summit took place in the autumn of this year. It is very important that the country be stable and successful. For example, a large amount of the energy supplies that come westwards from Russia come through Ukraine. Regardless of the outstanding problems, we should extend the hand of friendship to Ukraine at this time and try to develop these relationships. Ukrainians look to this country to lead on the matter. Many have contributed to the economic life of this country and listed some of their companies on the London stock exchange. They feel comfortable in this country and look to us to take a more pragmatic view than some of our European partners of the European Union and its future. Let me consider two other countries that have been especially problematic. Other hon. Members have commented on Croatia and the western Balkans. However, I should like to consider the problem of Moldova, which is a close neighbour of existing EU countries. In February 2005, the EU and Moldova adopted a bilateral action plan. It is a political document that sets out strategic objectives to be fulfilled over a time frame of three years. It covers strengthening administrative and judicial capacity, respect for freedom of expression and freedom of the media. Furthermore, there are issues linked to border management and the fight against trafficking and organised crime. Of course, it is a poor country with a low standard of living, yet we need to encourage it to undergo reforms. Moldovans are in a difficult position because they are so dependent on the Russians. We should assist them through opening up our markets and encouraging investment and other reforms so that their dependence on Russia lessens and they become more integrated with the more sophisticated economies to their west. The same applies to Belarus. That country is in a difficult position through an unsatisfactory political process. Again, the assistance that the EU pledged through social and economic development needs to be provided in a future European neighbourhood partnership agreement. We have learned in the past few years that we cannot escape the problems of our neighbours. If there are problems in those countries, we get migratory flows and all the attendant difficulties. Trying to find a way forward in the western Balkans, trying to find a way of securing Turkey’s accession to the EU and stretching out the hand of friendship to Ukraine to involve it more in the western side of Europe and our conduct of our national lives is in our interests. From a strategic, security and economic point of view, those countries will be increasingly dependent on us. We should encourage them to undertake the reforms that will enable them eventually to have a much improved standard of living, give their people hope, and, in doing that, underpin democratic standards in their countries. The people of these countries would welcome that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 454 c370-2
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Climate change Carbon dioxide Immigration Environment protection EU accession EU enlargement European Constitution Treaty EU common foreign and security policy EU economic policy EU justice and home affairs Pollution control Migration NATO Russia Turkey European Council EU defence policy
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:35:43 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363734
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363734
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363734