Long-awaited clarification. The European Council has been the arbiter in a quarrel between enlargement and consolidation, placing the two concepts on an equal footing: neither takes priority but, as both are equally indispensable, there is parallelism. In this column yesterday, I made positive comments on this dialectical subterfuge, stressing that it represents definite progress compared to the time when the Heads of Government decided to agree on taking in new Member States without even bringing up the question of consolidation or deepening. Jacques Delors recounts that, at the European Council in Lisbon (26 and 27 June 1992), the Commission had raised the problem of Union effectiveness in the light of new enlargements, saying: “The impact of future enlargements on the Union when it comes to decision-making must be the subject of reflection and in-depth assessment (…). There is the matter of effectiveness (…). How can one ensure that more does not end up less?” Most Heads of State and Government at the time, however, had neither the time nor the willingness to look into this aspect in greater detail, mainly because, on the evening of 26 June, the European football cup final was being played out - Germany against Denmark - and, as the Commission president writes, this event “affected the European Council, at least regarding the quality of the debate on the prospects of enlargement”. Since then, the problems of Union effectiveness and functioning “have not been resolved” (a phrase written in 2004).
The “conclusions” of the European Council last week therefore represent the result of a very long process discussed on several occasions by the Heads of Government, sometimes with errors of terminology. For example, the expression “absorption capacity” had been abusively imposed until only last month, when the Commission finally replaced it with “integration capacity” (see our bulletin No. 9302 and No. 2452 in our series EUROPE/Documents).
Strengthened conditions. At present, the problem should be overcome as the two requirements - enlargement and consolidation - run theoretically in parallel. I say “theoretically” as, in practice, how does one evaluate parallelism? The Summit is positive in its clarification, I confirm, as it is no longer admitted that either one of the two principles should be ignored, but it would be naïve to consider that all ambiguity has now disappeared. The Presidency “conclusions” speak of “renewed consensus” on enlargement whereby the “EU's capacity to integrate new members” is combined with consolidation of the acquis communautaire and respect of the Copenhagen criteria, to which the Heads of Government have added the requirement of “communication”, that is adequate information given to the public in order to receive citizen support (the Commission had recognised that enlargements are sometimes the “source of doubt and misunderstanding”).
It is nonetheless impossible to scientifically dose the degree of deepening that should accompany future enlargements. The European Council has strengthened the rules for accession talks by confirming the requirement of unanimity at every stage and by introducing the principle that difficult questions should be tackled from the outset, such as the question on administrative and judiciary reforms and the fight against corruption, and that the fixing of deadlines should be banned. However, after discussions, each Head of Government placed emphasis on the aspect of his own choice. Tony Blair stressed that the European Council had very clearly decided to pursue the enlargement process (the text asserts that the “EU honours the commitments taken towards countries taking part in the enlargement process”, while Jean-Claude Juncker observed that no-one had said it was necessary to reform the institutions. Some circles close to the European Commission stressed, for their part, that the Commission is now responsible, before any talks are opened (its “opinion” speaks of preliminary obligation), for presenting an assessment of the impact this will have on the main fields of EU activity, and for ensuring that enlargements allow the EU to function effectively and to finance its policies in a sustainable manner.
Conflicts may arise between respect of these conditions and the commitments taken towards candidate countries. “This is what, in Europe, one calls constructive ambiguity”, Jean-Claude Juncker is said to have remarked. A short, acid comment that does not contradict the fact that institutional functioning and financial viability will now be duly taken into account before any further enlargement.
(F.R.)