Strasbourg, 13/12/2006 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament today voted on the proposals for a resolution contained within the reports from Elmar Brok (EPP-ED, Germany), on the strategy to be followed in the enlargement process, and from Alexander Stubb (EPP-ED, Finland), on the institutional aspects of the EU integration capacity vis-à-vis applicant countries.
The resolution presented by Mr Brok (already summarised in EUROPE 9313) was adopted virtually unchanged by 481 votes to 66, with 38 abstentions. The main message from this report is that previous enlargements have been successful, but one of the lessons to be drawn from the past is that the definitive accession date must not be set too quickly. The EP, however, was also very critical: of the EU as a whole (call to honour commitments towards applicant countries and improve its integration and action capacities; of the Commission (which does not provide a sufficiently in-depth analysis of the points to be resolved before moving on to new enlargements, is too superficial in its treatment of the institutional aspects and is not exhaustive in its treatment of budgetary implications); and of the Council (which must not make commitments without an in-depth assessment on their institutional, financial, political and socio-economic consequences). All the institutions, including the Parliament, have in the past been too indulgent and accommodating, particularly in the areas of justice and combating corruption. The EP called on EU governments to close the constitutional process before the end of 2008, and to study urgently the financial impact of future enlargements, which EU heads of state and government have refused to incorporate into the 2007-2013 financial perspective. As far as Turkey is concerned, the EP adopted an oral amendment put forward by Mr Brok, calling on Turkey to cooperate constructively to ensure the application of the Ankara Protocol, and welcomed the invitation address to the Commission to submit annual reports on progress on the issues covered by the 21 September 2005 Declaration.
The resolution on the integration capacity (see also EIROPE 9307) was adopted by 398 votes to 99, with 36 abstentions. There was one single amendment, from Messrs Corbett and Carnero Gonzalez, on behalf of the PES, calling for the EP's assent be required not only for the decision to begin negotiations but also to close them. The resolution sets out in detail the institutional reforms required before any future enlargement, reform already contained within the text of the Constitutional Treaty, along with other appropriate reforms (adoption of the Fundamental Rights Charter and improvement of the solidarity policy, review of the financial perspective to adapt to an enlarged EU, redefinition of several policies (some put in place up to fifty years ago), and reinforcement of the neighbourhood policy. The EP also confirmed through this resolution its commitment to the enlargement, as an historic opportunity for Europe.
The prospect of accession is a basic factor in reform in applicant countries, was how Elmar Brok began: but reflection on the future of the European project was needed, “where the journey will lead us”, but this was not possible with a Constitution designed for the last enlargement. Mr Brok said that it was necessary to be able to say that full accession was not necessarily the only immediate solution for an applicant country. “A bit of creativity is needed, both in the interests of the countries which are waiting and in our own interests,” he said, adding that if no advances were made in internal development, the result would inevitably be second class Members. The situation was not made any easier, he lamented, by the fact that some countries which pushed for accession, later showed themselves to be the ones which tried to prevent deepening and integration. As far as Turkey was concerned, it was clear for Mr Brok that it would have to meet its commitments, but it would have been a mistake to break off accession negotiations.
We have chosen to replace the term “absorption” capacity with the “more dynamic” “integration”, said Alexander Stubbs, adding that this integration capacity should not be a “condition”, but a “criterion” which existing Member States must take into account. This idea affected the fundamental elements of European construction: institutions, budgetary matters, Union policies. When debating enlargement and integration, there is a clash of different points of view, said Mr Stubb: there are those who are for both, and he included himself among their number, those who are for the first and against the second, those who are against the first and for the second, and those, like Nigel Farage (UK Independence Party) who are against both, and one had to try to “swim” between these various stances. In terms of informing the public on the challenges of enlargement, Mr Stubbs gave the Council a good telling off: if you can't do it during the course of long years of negotiation, the failure is down to you. In addition, Mr Stubb stressed that the EU had to put some order into institutional issues before 2009.
Enlargement presented the Union with an opportunity, said Paula Lehtomäki, speaking on behalf of the Council, among other things because it made it better equipped to meet the challenges of globalisation, but enlargement had to be carried out in the best possible conditions. The idea of integration capacity could help the process to go smoothly, without its becoming a further criterion for applicant countries, rather a factor the EU had to re-assess at regular intervals. Let us continue with the necessary reform, she urged, and let us respond to “enlargement fatigue” with concrete factors which show it to be in the interests of the EU.
Commissioner Olli Rehn, agreeing with the two rapporteurs, made a point of stressing a fundamental matter in all this debate: when speaking of “integration capacity”, the EU must always bear in mind its own strategic interest. In the current debate, he said, “we often talk past one another”: some stressing only the strategic advantages of enlargement and some emphasising the Union's internal problems. The Commission, Mr Rehn promised, would further improve the quality of the accession process, by carrying out impact assessments and evaluating budgetary implications of the enlargement particularly with regard to agricultural and cohesion policies. He argued for “rigorous conditionality”: experience showed that the better the applicant countries were prepared, the better the EU would operate after enlargement. The most difficult issues (justice, combating corruption) must, therefore, be dealt with in one of the early stages of negotiation. But too complicated procedures should be avoided: there had to be clear rules which were understood by everyone. Mr Rehn did not fear for integration: in the past, the EU was able to enlarge and integrate in parallel, he felt. But a new institutional settlement had to be in place before the next country was ready to join the Union. In concrete terms, it should be reached by the end of 2008: this was necessary, Mr Rehn concluded, to reinforce the EU's role in the world, and also, and especially, for the citizens of the current Union.
EUROPE will return to the debate tomorrow. (lg)