Last days to go...

More interesting topics needed?

This has definitely been a month that didn't feel like a month. Didn't I arrive just three days ago, or two...? I am so integrated in the office, my corridor, some international friends, the rhytm, the sandwich bar, AFCO... And now to please my best friends, who say that my blog is not interesting enough, and that they only read the "men-parts" and skip everything that refers to the letters e and u. My point... that I will miss some certain people especially...

Talking about AFCO. I was there again today. And so was Margot Wallström. And so were the freaking Englishmen (no offence). Always when I attend this committee I start believing that everybody hates the new Treaty and that it will be killed by at least the teadrinkers on the island. And really, I love UK citizens! Oh oh oh...

Go enlargement, it's ya birthday!

Well, let's talk about enlargement now! The word ‘enlargement’ awakes a lot of mixed opinions among EU citizens. Questions like: “Isn’t it too fast, too costly and too dangerous?” “What are the real benefits, and doesn’t it make the EU weaker?” are often asked. On the other hand the pro-enlargement people are saying that the EU has been the most successful peace project in human history having unified successfully 27 Member States (MS) and created a Pax Europa of 50 years.

At the moment, the EU is inspiring Turkey, Croatia and the other Western Balkans to extensive reforms, especially in the fields of economy, human and minority rights and democracy. If you give a child a lollypop, she normally acts in the wished way. Therefore, the tempting Union is a good way of seeding the principles of European welfare. All European countries benefit from having stable democracies and prosperous market economies as neighbours. The conclusion is that a carefully managed enlargement process extends peace, democracy, the rule of law and prosperity across Europe. And so it has happened that the so called new MS have integrated extremely well and contributed to further integration development – often even better than the old MS.

There is, however, still a voice questioning the grounds of enlargement, saying that it is time for a full-stop and that the Union does not longer have absorption capacity. Besides, where should the boarders of the EU be drawn? To solve the problem, the Copenhagen accession criteria were set in 1993 (reinforcement in Madrid 1995). Article 49 of the Treaty on EU (TEU), which forms the legal basis of accession, states that the EU is open to all European countries. In addition to the geographical fact, the applicant country must adhere to the principles which all the MS subscribe to, and on which the EU is based: freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

The Copenhagen summit also stated that the EU has to take good care of both its integration and enlargement capacity. An engine should be working constantly. Therefore, we have to ask: What do we want first, enlargement or integration? This question is also fundamentally linked to the constitutional issue. Are the existing treaties enough for further enlargement, or do we need a constitutional sheet in order to extend the Union? The absorption capacity cannot be defined scientifically: it is an issue of quantity and quality. The capacity is based on mainly three points: Can the decision making system bare enlargement? Is the budget ready for enlargement? And are the tasks of the EU up-to-date? Integration capacity is a dossier of the EU and its MS, whereas the candidate countries do not have that much of a say.

Alex Stubb says that integration cannot be the criterion of enlargement. The Western Balkan countries have been promised their membership and the EU should be fair enough to keep its promises. This, however, does include institutional, financial and political reform – and much more. Only in line with the Treaty of Nice, enlargement cannot go on, because it sets a limit to 28 MS, whereas the new Reform Treaty will not be put into action before 2009. Enlargement is probably one of the most controversial issues in EU politics. It is an easy target of populism and it splits opinions. The former President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, thought that Finland was a threat for Europe’s stability - but have a look at the queen of competitiveness now! The question is: Is there a right moment? And if so, do we stick to the old criteria? If not, what are the reforms needed?

Yep, that's my committee topic in BLISS. I'm intrigued to here what my delegates find of it!

Yours,

Cecilia