It is urgent to mend EU-Turkey relations

The European parliament has prepared its yearly report on Turkey. Usually, these reports are prepared by a nominated rapporteur and his or her team, and they are largely debated at the External Affairs Committee by different political groupings. When a consensus is reached at the committee among different political parties represented at the European parliament, the report is sent to the General Assembly, in Strasbourg, where a final vote takes place and the report is finalised.

It goes without saying that MEPs are allowed to submit amendments to the text of the report, first at the level of negotiations in the External Affairs Committee, then at the General Assembly. Usually, when a consensus is reached among different political parties, the groups' presidencies do not wish to support their representatives to alter the consensual text. Most of the time, unless there are last minute developments or agreements between representatives of a number of different political parties, the amendment proposals are rejected in a gentleman's agreement.

It is also a fact that the functioning rules of the European Parliament do not allow the structuring of political groupings based on nationality. However, it is also a known fact that when it comes to one EU country's national or regional interests, the MEPs of a given country do collaborate closely. A good example of this latter situation is the distribution of co-chair responsibilities in the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentarian Committee: The co-chair and the two deputy co-chairs on the European parliament side have been obtained by Greek and Cypriot Greek representatives.

Without wanting to be accused of nationalism, I would like to underline the fact that only two countries, totaling 28 seats out of 751 have been chosen to represent the EP vis-a-vis Turkey is, at least, very unusual.

Now, relations between the Turkish Parliament with the European parliament have never been very smooth. This is due mainly to the fact that the first political mission of a directly elected European parliament has been to survey and evaluate the elections in Turkey in the aftermath of 1980 military coup. The first direct elections for the EP took place in 1979 and in 1982, the EU suspended its political relations with Turkey, on the total abrogation of political parties and the usurpation of all their belongings and assets. This first "political mission" of the EP was the start of a very long and serious business, where Turkey has had the role of partner "under constant surveillance." Most of the time, despite the tone of the debates, the Joint Parliamentary Committee has remained a very lively platform to exchange views and sometimes very harsh repartees among EU and Turkish parliamentarians.

Sometimes, the reports from the EP have gotten out of hand; it has not happened often, but it has happened. Before the start of negotiations, a European parliament report was left to the voracity of different amendments and the final text that was obtained after the changes made through hundreds of amendments was shameful and opprobrious, even by the EP's standards.

Now this year's report is in no better condition - a record number of 400 amendments have altered the text and the end result was so dreadful that its deliberation has been cancelled and reported to the June Assembly General, obviously so as not to create tension with Turkey just a couple of weeks before the elections. This postponement will not solve anything, so long as the report is there, and very likely will be accepted at the General Assembly. Somebody somehow has to put a brake on the souring of Turkey-EU relations, this is the last thing anyone with some sense needs now.