Community circles involved in enlargement negotiations are rather sceptical as to the possibility of this week's Summit definitively deciding on the European Commission recommendations regarding the conclusion of negotiations with ten candidate countries and the attitude to adopt towards the other three. The existence of disagreements on the content of these recommendations is the first difficulty, but not the most serious. The main obstacle resides in the link several Member states make between enlargement and domestic problems in the EU, like the reform of the common agricultural policy and the future funding of the Union. But is has already happened that, becoming miraculously aware of the significance of decisions to take and thus their responsibilities, Heads of Government have risen above internal quarrels and purely national interests to aim higher. Let's thus not rule out the possibility that this should happen again. Bilateral talks will continue between Germany and France until the beginning of the Summit, the Dutch parliament may authorise its government to show more flexibility, and other developments are still possible.
Having said that, the state of preparatory work is now as follows:
1. List of candidate countries ready to conclude negotiations. Fourteen Member States have no reservations of principle as to the list of ten countries. But, in the Netherlands, the former governmental coalition has expressed doubts as to the state of preparedness of some of them, including Poland, based on reports by the Commission itself. The Commission stresses that its recommendation refers to the possibility of concluding negotiations by the end of the year, and not yet to actual membership (see following point).
All candidate countries except for Turkey accept the Commission's conclusions.
2. State of preparedness for accession. No Member State has disputed the analysis (made in liaison with institutions and organisations like the Council of Europe, the EIB, the IMF, etc.) of the situation of the candidate countries as contained in the Commission's "national" reports. The Commission considers it has presented a sincere and honest overall view of each situation. Certain Member States have observed that this exercise points to serious shortcomings in some candidate countries and have drawn the conclusion that for some countries accession seems premature. The Commission has responded recalling that:
- half-way through next year it will present a new overall assessment of the state of preparedness of each candidate country, and the Summit will be invited to decide as last resort. For now, what is formally recommended is the conclusion of negotiations;
- it has provided for a "general safeguard clause" that, when the time comes, will allow certain elements of accession to be suspended, if one or another of the new Member States cannot stick to their commitments. This precaution would, notably, enable us to see whether they all effectively control the EU's new external borders eastwards. If not, free movement, without controls, of people could provisionally be suspended for the new Member State at fault.
The cost of financing accessions for the next three years. Reservations, conditions laid down, blockages even, are many, notably on the part of Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria. The Commission considers that its spending predictions for 2004, 2005 and 2006 are very reasonable. Commitment appropriations it is calling for are in the order of 40 billion euro, but no more than 25 billion in payment appropriations, 15 of which provided by the candidate countries themselves as their contribution to common expenditure. Actual expenditure for the Fifteen would thus be in the region of 10 billion euro over three years! After which, the enlarged EU will have to define its new financial perspectives for the period 2007-2013; its budget will define its ambitions. The aforementioned Member States are calling for guarantees, especially over the cost of the CAP and its financing. Even if some of their demands are in part justified, they should not take candidate countries hostage to secure satisfaction. I have heard in high places the nature and style of these negotiations between the Fifteen being described as "shameful" that offers a "painful picture of the EU in relation to the stakes".
The difference between the fundamental directions for the future EU toughens stances. Some Member States seem to welcome the prospect of a dilution of the EU into an enlarged free-trade area; they may see move their former dreams moving closer. Others, on the contrary, consider that enlargement is inadequately prepared and that first the present EU needs deepening before enlarging. Finally, some seem aware of the historic significance of the stakes. One can only hope that this last tendency will gain ground in the few hours between now and the Summit. (F.R.)