WRITTEN QUESTION E-2293/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Combating instability in Eastern Europe by protection and the early development of alternatives to rapid accession to the EU

1. Does the Commission consider it possible that serious political instability will arise in the applicant countries in the next few years as a result an electoral backlash in which government and opposition parties which, despite their very divergent political views, jointly supported accession to the EU are punished and swept from power by voters disappointed by their experiences and expectations?

2. How does the Commission assess the possibility that if voters blame the parties now in government and the main opposition parties it may result in the rise to power of nationalist forces on a platform of preservation of national independence, affirmation of national identity and protection of the national economy?

3. How does the Commission intend to help dispel dissatisfaction and prevent the emergence of instability of this kind?

4. Has the Commission already considered alternatives to the early accession to the EU of the countries concerned, for instance a transitional period involving far-reaching cooperation agreements with the Visegrad countries and the Baltic States, modelled on the earlier agreements with the European Free Trade Association?

5. Does the Commission consider that a possible and acceptable solution would be for these States to be entitled, on the basis of a cooperation agreement, to financial contributions from the EU Cohesion Fund but at the same time be afforded protection against the selling off of land and firms to inhabitants of countries with stronger economies and against imports from such countries, in order to ensure the socio-economic security of their population?

6. How quickly could alternatives such as those described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above be submitted to the European Parliament and the parliaments of the applicant countries in the event of the accession of new member countries failing?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

1., 2. and 3. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member as stated in its Strategy Paper 2000 presented to Parliament and the Council in November 2000 along with the Regular Reports on the candidate countries' progress towards accession that it considers that stable democracies have emerged in Central and Eastern Europe and systemically they are already so robust that there need be no risk of a relapse into authoritarianism. Political stability in the candidate countries is rooted in common European values, to wit democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and protection of minorities, values that are reflected in the accession criteria laid down by the Copenhagen European Council of 21 and 22 June 1993 and subsequently written into the Treaty of Amsterdam.

The political stability is attributable to the candidate countries' citizens and is buoyed up by the enlargement process, which in itself constitutes the best way of securing that stability in the future.

The fact that there are in the candidate countries nationalist forces pursuing the objectives described by the Honourable Member is merely democracy at work. The Commission would point out that an enlargement process in tune with the basic principles of European integration in no way threatens the national identity of the new members.

The Commission feels that everything must be done to ensure that the citizens of the Member States and the candidate countries are properly informed on the scope and consequences of enlargement. With that in mind it has adopted a communication strategy that it is busy implementing.

4., 5. and 6. The Commission believes the enlargement process should continue to be implemented in the existing framework, namely the pre-accession strategy and the accession negotiations. Alternative solutions are not envisaged. The Community and the Member States have already concluded wide-ranging association agreements with the candidate countries and issues relating to the Cohesion Fund and the sale of land fall within the scope of the negotiations.