Three key points. Is, thanks to Elmar Brok, the real debate on EU enlargement policy finally about to begin? Mr Brok has laid aside the carefully chosen words that so often surround statements of views, and has set the fundamental issues (with one exception, which I will consider later) squarely before Community institutions and national authorities of member states. The glimpse he gave of the report he is drawing up for the European Parliament external relations committee shows that, in his opinion, the time for reflection, in the face of new accessions being announced and growing in number, has come (see our newsletter N° 9590). This reflection must, in his opinion, start from the following points:
- if the EU wishes to remain a political project, it cannot continue to enlarge as it has done over the last 20 years; it needs a period of respite, a period of consolidation;
- accession cannot be the only option for all countries deemed to be (current or future) candidates; other possibilities have to be considered, involving a new architecture which contains options ranging from the neighbourhood policy to full membership, with, always, prospects of ultimate full accession - the door to accession must never be closed;
- these options could be of interest, at least, provisionally, to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and some Western Balkan countries; it might even be the chosen option of Turkey.
These three major points cannot be divided, in part or in whole. Their great merit is to open the institutional debate, firstly, in the competent EP committee and, then, in plenary session. It is perhaps fortunate that Mr Brok is no longer the chairman of the external relations committee, a role which imposed a certain reserve. He is now more free to say what he thinks and to state that EU enlargement policy is in need of fundamental review. The debate in Parliament will probably bring similar reflection within the Commission and Council. Such reflection is already going on but in almost underground secrecy or suffocated by diplomatic requirements.
Neglected chapter. It is on the institutional operation of the EU that Mr Brok does not appear to have expressed himself clearly as yet. This chapter is perhaps subsumed in his call to highlight the EU's absorption capacity, an area which he reproaches the European Commission for neglecting hitherto. Future enlargement beyond what is planned (Croatia) is incompatible with the institutional mechanisms that are going to be put in place: the composition of the Commission (with its rotation system based on the principle of equality of nationalities), the European Parliament (with its minimum number of MEPs per member state which with, for example, the birth of Montenegro, and Kosovo soon, would see the former Yugoslavia gain many more representatives than any large member state) and the Council (where the double majority rule would make Turkey the most powerful member state). This must not be taken as a roundabout way of supporting no further enlargement of the EU, but an invitation to note that, with the mechanisms mentioned, the EU could not work. Do we want to assess this point too, or would we prefer to take no notice?
The Verhofstad option. It is true that the options are not easy. The EU must not reject clearly European countries when they meet the required conditions. Their accession would even be desirable. The most recent member states can be seen to be bringing the EU a clear and precious added extra. However, in present conditions, enlargement with no precautions would involve consequences that have to be faced up to. It is true that there is a tendency, among those who, according to classic terminology, want a European space and not a powerful Europe (or only accept it in an intergovernmental system), towards unlimited enlargement of the Union. But were this trend to prevail, the solution would be obvious: the Verhofstad option would become unavoidable, with its federal hard central core (with its currency, economic policy, cohesion) surrounded by a ring of those who prefer a simple common market with no political ambitions. It is an option that must always be borne in mind.
We are not there yet. Let us wait first of all for the new treaty to strengthen and improve the enhanced cooperation instrument and increase the number of qualified majority decisions. It is then that the reflection launched by Elmar Brok will find its place and its worth.
(F.R.)