The substance remains the same. The paragraph which last week's Summit gave to the EU's “absorption capacity” of new Members in the future called attention particularly to one issue: the care heads of government took to specify it was not a new “criterion” to be added to the “Copenhagen Criteria” (and to which all new accession countries have had to adhere as a condition of entry since 1993). The idea of an additional criterion alarmed some third countries and provoked reactions even inside the Union, being seen as a covert way of closing the door or rejecting certain candidates for accession. It was, then, politically expedient to get rid of the false idea that the EU intended to add further criteria: the term “criterion” in relation to the absorption capacity (which had featured in the draft conclusions) disappeared, and the Summit president made it clear verbally that it was not a criterion, it was a condition. It comes to the same thing: but if the governments and others concerned are happy, why not? The details of this diplomatic skirmish may be read in our bulletin 9213.
What then is the outcome of the wisdom - an innate prerogative, we all know - shown by heads of government in their duties? First of all, there is a linguistic issue: the term “absorption capacity” has become official, even in French. Last month, the draft put forward by Paris spoke of the “ability to assimilate”, emphasising that this was the expression used in the Copenhagen text of June 1993 (and which, rather than a criterion, made it an “important consideration”) and that the same expression had been used in the conclusions of the Madrid Summit of December 1995. Chancellor Schüssel admitted that he did not like the idea of absorption, because the EU wants to welcome countries, not absorb them. However, the official text of the conclusions of the Summit (I have it in front of me) speaks of absorption capacity even in the French version. The power of English terminology has once again won the day.
Protecting common policies. In its substance, the text is explicit. Ii is important to ensure that, in future, the EU “is able to function politically, financially and institutionally as it enlarges, and to further deepen Europe's common project”. And the special report the Commission has to draw up should also cover “the issue of present and future perception of enlargement by citizens”. In the first quotation above, the term “politically” requires no further comment; the EU will not be able to do something that is not politically sustainable. The two subsequent adverbs are worthy of a few remarks. “Financially” does not refer only to the cost in itself of the accession of a country, but to the ability of the EU to finance its own structural policies. Last month's French document highlighted the link between future enlargements and the debate on the future of EU common policies and their funding. The meaning is clear: the accession of Turkey should not be the opportunity to get rid of the common agricultural policy or the cohesion policy, neither of which could be borne financially under current rules. Their removal, however, is a stated objective of some British political forces. Care is needed. The adverb “institutionally” could also be interpreted as a reference to Turkey, since it would carry greater weight than any other Member State, both in the Council and the Parliament, if the institutional reform provided for in the Constitutional Treaty comes into effect. Delicate, but unavoidable.
On the subject of Turkey. I don't think that there needs to be read into the above any French desire to put obstacles in the way of Turkey's accession (the authorities in Paris have always expressed their support), but the need to consider the factors mentioned, with a view to coming up with appropriate responses. The whole Turkish accession has seen some significant developments, which, in my opinion, confirm and reinforce the perplexity factors. The key issue is not to fight over theoretical arguments for or against the accession, because the discussion could go on and on forever gathering pros and cons, all of which seem perfectly valid at first sight, but to assess coolly if the accession is really possible. Viscount Davignon (taking part in a “mardi de l'IFRI lunch debate) and Jean-Claude Juncker have set out some observations, which will allow me to return to this topic in the near future.
(F.R.)