Proceeding contribution from Andrew Mackinlay (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 December 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on European Affairs.
European Affairs
I would not put the matter in quite those terms, but I broadly agree with my right hon. Friend. I do not believe that we have anything to worry about with Romania and Bulgaria, who will join the EU just after Christmas. Earlier, I heard an Opposition Member go on about Polish workers. His remarks aggravated me, and I decided that I should repeat and place on the record something that a number of employers have told me. It seems that Polish workers have some peculiar characteristics—they turn up on time, and are enthusiastic for the work ethic. Those attributes are much needed in this country. I believe that we have lost sight of the fate of the former Yugoslavia. I have not heard any mention of the region in the time that I have listened to the debate this afternoon, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will talk about the final negotiations on the status of Kosovo in his winding-up speech. I believe that the Kosovo talks should pursue what is usually called a ““Hong Kong plus”” solution, which would mean that Kosovo’s final status would not be resolved this year. The enduring fiction is that Serbia and Kosovo are one country, when in fact it is clear that they are covered by two different jurisdictions. I do not want to get bogged down in a discussion about Serbia’s de jure geographical position or Kosovo’s independence but, under the formula that I propose, it might be possible to bring both territories into the EU. I am aware that there would have to be some collaboration with the war crimes tribunal, but EU membership for Serbia and Kosovo would be in our interests, if it could be achieved. There would also be ramifications for any refugees who might be created if there were to be a return to conflict in the area. We should take the initiative on Montenegro, a small country with a population twice that of the London borough of Wandsworth, and bring it into the EU. Some of the traducing of Montenegro is similar to what we used to hear about Slovakia and Malta not so long ago, but which we do not hear now. I do not accept all that business about it being a dodgy area with organised crime. If we brought Montenegro into the EU, it would be a signal to Serbia and other countries in the region that we also want to attract them to the Union. The EU is a great vehicle for conflict resolution and conflict minimisation, so we should be proactive in discussing EU enlargement with those states. I am conscious of the legitimate argument that the EU needs time to digest its rapid expansion over recent years, but we should go the extra mile for states that were part of former Yugoslavia and bring them in as expeditiously as possible. I depart from the Government on another point and would counsel them to listen to me for once, because during my years in this place I have noticed that things I have said that were dismissed from the Dispatch Box have come to pass on more than one occasion, although I will not list them now. The Government should reflect on the teasing of Turkey. There is no such word as ““never”” in politics, but Turkey will not be able to join the EU in the proposed time scale. It is wrong to tease Turkey; candour would be much friendlier and better for international politics in the long term. It would be much better if we said Turkey could not come in. My reasons for saying that are not those that have been canvassed elsewhere. I do not care which religious faith is practised in a country. I do not lie awake at night worrying about the geographical composition of Europe; after all, Hawaii is not part of the American land mass. Those things are not important. We need to consider two things with regard to Turkish membership of the EU. First, does Turkey meet the Copenhagen criteria? It is nowhere near them, so we should not be advancing its candidacy for that reason alone. Candidates should demonstrably meet the criteria: a robust parliamentary democracy, an independent judiciary, due regard for minorities in their constitution and practices and so on. Those criteria do not prevail in Turkey, so its candidate status should not be advanced. In fairness, Turkey can do nothing about the second objection to its membership, but when people join a club, they have to be accepted in their totality. Turkey is a large land mass, which has common borders with Armenia, Iraq, Iran and other friendly countries.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 454 c401-2
- 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 11:32:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363799
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363799
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_363799