Brussels, 05/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - « Absorption capacity » is a term that should be banished from texts. This is the conclusion of a study by the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), which is trying to de-construct this concept to evaluate the appropriateness of each of its components. Six have been distinguished, none offering a static response to a debate whose plausible time horizon is of several years. Apart from the accession of Croatia, the plausible timescale of a sizeable enlargement would be around 2015, or even 2020, if account is taken to possible transition arrangements on the free movement of workers, accedes to the Schengen area or the euro, say the authors of the study. As the commission believes, the proposal to set up definitive borders is not pertinent from a strategic point of view, stress the CEPS.
According to its analysis, absorption capacity should be de-constructed into six objective parts: the EU internal market and the euro zone. The economic impact of an enlargement is positive and must not be confused with the more sensitive debate on the effects of globalisation, says the CEPS. The labour market. The reality of demographic change in Europe will perhaps ultimately require it to be recognised that there is a need for immigration to deal with the gaps in the labour market. The Community budget. This matter seems quite manageable and relates mainly to the speed at which the new Member States catch up economically. If they can quickly reach the Community standard of living, they will no longer be eligible for some funding (from the structural and cohesion funds in particular) and will be less of burden on Community spending. EU institutional architecture. The issue remains but a response must not await a future sizeable enlargement. A recurrent call from heads of state and government for an analysis of the EU's future absorption capacity does not bring many new elements, in that it is incumbent upon them to decide on adjustments to improve this capacity, stresses the study. The possibility for society to absorb immigration. The climate of tension and fear linked to terrorism or radical Islam does not help an objective approach to migration, stresses the CEPS, which believes that the public has a tendency to associate this with Turkey. Better information is required, says the report. Finally, the possibility for the EU to ensure its strategic security. This point is related to the issue of the definition of EU borders, presenting a number of risks for the stability of the Balkans and democracy in Ukraine, in particular.
While the Commission replaced the notion of absorption capacity with the notion of integration (see EUROPE 9302), the analysis provided in its special report on future EU enlargement strategy did not persuade the European Parliament. In a resolution adopted by the foreign affairs committee, MEPs regretted the lack of in-depth analysis, particularly on the institutional and financial sections (see EUROPE 9313). Timo Summa, Director of DG Enlargement at the Commission, reiterated on Tuesday that it was a functional concept and certainly not a geographical one. He felt that while there was no great pressure to achieve institutional change, neither was there unlimited time. He hoped that discussions in the European Council next week would bring new consensus on enlargement. The CEPS analysis is available on: http: //shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=1381 (ab)