Cautious approach to “accession” scenario. Due to the Polish presidency, in particular, a deepening of ties between the EU and the six Eastern Partnership countries has been achieved and will very soon be seen to bring forward tangible results. Free trade talks with Ukraine will continue in the hope of their being completed by the end of the year, as long as the problem regarding how the former prime minister Iulia Tymoshenko can be overcome. Negotiations for agreements with Georgia and Moldova could possibly begin soon. All the different member states support this Partnership. Misgivings and appeals for caution exclusively concern the hypothesis of the possible accession of one or other of these six countries later on (see this publication yesterday).
Principles to respect. Is it necessary to point out a few obvious, though sometimes neglected, principles? The EU is open to the accession of all European countries that fulfil the necessary conditions but enlargement should in no way compromise that the EU's perspectives or the way in which it operates. Any applicant country must share the common objectives and be willing to contribute to their realisation Projects are, however, increasingly extended and ambitious, and now cover domains that were previously only dreamt of. The scrapping of border controls, the single currency, European economic governance and defence policy instruments all now exist or are making progress under our very eyes. Future member states must share all these objectives and fulfil the conditions for taking part in them. Derogations are possible, but at what price? The euro has borne this out. If it had been necessary to wait for all the different member states to be able to participate in the single currency, it would still not exist. One country achieved admission by cooking the books and we are still paying the consequences for this.
Double danger. The dangers involved in accession scenarios that are not sufficiently thought out go in two directions: a) some member states reject certain essential European projects, notably the United Kingdom with regard to the single currency, the Schengen area and normal participation in common spending; b) other member states are unable to respect the commitments that they have made. Two countries have still not been admitted to the Schengen area because they do not meet the administrative criteria or anti-corruption rules (according to certain MEPs, their accession should have been delayed); other countries may no longer be able, in principle, to benefit from European regional aid because they are unable to finance their national share of the costs (even though derogations, in fact, allow for this obstacle to be overcome).
Firmness is crucial. EU institutions are striving to tackle difficulties being experienced in one or other of the different member states, which is normal because solidarity is an essential principle. Understanding, however, should not be allowed to impact negatively on the goals and efficiency of the European project. A Europe that overreaches its natural borders and is less strict in observance of its objectives, rules and regulations would be in danger of drifting towards becoming a kind of stand-in for the Council of Europe, as I indicated in this column yesterday.
Defence warrants specific mention. Instruments for carrying out action as contained within the Lisbon Treaty still have to be put into practice, with the possibility that only certain member states will participate in this action. The drama in Libya was an indication of how member states' positions could diverge, with Germany remaining on the margins of the armed intervention. Everything still needs to be clarified and any further extension needs to take this into account. The issue of future developments goes beyond the defence field. It raises a general question, when the future EU decides to go forward in new areas, will it be able to do so if the new member states do not agree? This is not a theoretical question. I can recall one particular episode that, to my knowledge, did not create much of a stir at the time. EUROPE 10450 provided a report on the subject. On 12 September, seven member states that are not part of the Eurozone, with Poland and Hungary at the head of them, expressed their deep dissatisfaction at being excluded from discussions on Eurozone governance. This relates to rules that do not exist in the treaty to which they signed up, but which they will at some stage in the future have to apply. They therefore requested that they be admitted into the discussions undertaken by Eurogroup on this subject, without which they could , when the time comes, be compelled to organise national referendums in order to apply rules that are not contained in the treaty that they had signed.
Financial concerns. Several other aspects should be taken into consideration, particularly the future budget of an enlarged EU, support for Eastern Partnership countries and the cost of further possible accession. These are very real concerns in member states, even if they are not talked about openly. This column will return to this subject tomorrow. (FR/transl.fl)