Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Enlargement of the European Union'
Date: 1997-10-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU relations, European integration, accession to the European Union, enlargement of the Union

C 19/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Enlargement of the European Union’

(98/C 19/27)

On 20 March 1997 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the ‘Enlargement of the European Union’.

The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible
for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 October 1997.
The rapporteur was Mr Masucci.

At its 349th plenary session (meeting of 29 October 1997) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 72 votes to 21, with 16 abstentions.

1.
Enlargement of the EU, along with reform of the
Treaty and monetary union, is one of the great challenges
of the turn of the century. It marks the culmination of
the historic task of reuniting the continent politically,
economically, socially and culturally. It will have a
major impact on EU life over the coming decades, and
will alter the current balance in global relations.

2.
The ensuing benefits of enlargement will not come
automatically, and will pose a challenge for the European
Union. Some of them, of course, are an inherent part of
the process, such as the increased competitiveness which
an enlarged single market will bring, or the increased
political influence which will, logically, come in the
wake of the new global relationships. Others, such as
the social and cultural benefits, and those relating to the
political exploitation of a more influential economy, or
a fair distribution of the benefits, are only potential
gains, and are dependent on:

— the search for a European political and cultural

identity;

— the commitment and ability of the political and
socio-economic organizations which represent the
people;

— the existence of political leaders who have a European
strategy and are capable of mustering the support
and active participation of the peoples concerned.

3.

The problems are daunting:

— the situation in the individual countries, particularly
regarding the democratization process, respect for
basic rights and ethnic minorities, the situation of
women and the protection of minors, the operation
of the institutions and public administration, and
the degree to which the Community ‘acquis’ and
socio-economic model have been adopted;

— the criteria for launching negotiations;

— arrangements for the negotiations and for the first

wave of accessions;

— impact on EU policies;

— the resources needed for future policy funding;

— more generally, the problem of how to run and
develop a Union which has been enlarged to include
27 countries.

Launching negotiations

4.
The present own-initiative opinion aims to offer
pointers for the decisions which the Council will have
to make at the Luxembourg summit on 10 December
1997, on the basis of opinions prepared by the Com-
mission.

In the meantime, a wide-ranging debate should be
engaged. This should not be confined to ‘specialists’ and
to EU Member States. It should, above all, involve the
citizens of the applicant countries, in order to avoid the
mistake of entrusting the shaping of the enlarged Union
solely to political, economic and legal experts, without
involving ordinary citizens. To this end, the Committee
organized a hearing to enable the applicant countries’
socio-economic organizations to voice their opinions.

5.
In this respect, the Committee would point out
that in June 1993, the Copenhagen Council established
the criteria for assessing whether applicant countries
were ready for accession, and added as a rider that
‘the Union’s capacity to absorb new members, while
maintaining the momentum of European integration, is
also an important consideration.’

6.
The Committee welcomed the broad thrust of the
Copenhagen criteria, but feels that it is also important
to include conformity to the European socio-economic
model as a criterion in the assessment. This model seeks
not merely to achieve formal democracy and economic
efficiency, but also to bring about a high degree of social

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/103

acceptance, an ongoing social dialogue between the
social partners and the government, and social solidarity
and protection for the most vulnerable.

composed of eighteen ESC members, together with
eighteen Turkish representatives,
is already proving
useful in this respect.

7. On the basis of the assessments contained in
Agenda 2000, the Commission considers that Hungary,
Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia can
take part in the first wave of accession negotiations.

Another approach is gaining ground in the Council,
8.
advocating that negotiations should start at the same
time for all applicant countries, in order to avoid a
feeling of exclusion and hostility developing among the
general public in the countries concerned.

The Committee is paying close attention to this position,
as it is a clear sign of the Council’s concern. It provides
encouragement even for the rearguard, and can help to
resolve tricky political situations, if only for the purposes
of launching negotiations. It should be remembered that
launching negotiations with all applicant countries at
the same time does not necessarily mean proceeding at
the same pace, nor that the talks will all be concluded
at the same time.

9.
As regards Cyprus, the Commission takes the view
that if an internal political settlement has not been
reached before the start of negotiations — which the
Council has scheduled for six months after the close of
the IGC — only the government of the Republic of
Cyprus, which is recognized by international
insti-
tutions, will take part in the negotiations.

The Committee feels that it is necessary to foster the
right climate for a settlement to be reached in the context
of the decisions that will be taken regarding the launch
of enlargement negotiations, the aim being to achieve
the peaceful integration of the whole island into the EU.

10.
The Turkish situation is more complex. The
customs union, which entered into force on 31 December
1995, is working satisfactorily. The political situation,
however, has not provided further progress thus far,
and is the major obstacle to Turkey’s candidacy. Respect
for basic rights is not satisfactory. Macroeconomic
instability also continues to give cause for concern.

The Committee believes that the EU must continue to
support Turkey’s efforts to overcome its problems,
above all by finally releasing the funds allocated under
the financial protocol; the EU should also forge even
closer relations with Turkey and keep a close eye on
developments within the country.

The work of the EU-Turkey Joint Consultative Com-
mittee, which was formed at the end of 1995 and is

At all events, the progress of the negotiations should
be conditional on tangible progress in respect for
democracy, basic rights and minorities.

The impact of enlargement

11.
The analysis of the impact of enlargement on EU
policies raises a whole range of difficult issues, which
will require substantial financial contributions from the
Community and great commitment and considerable
sacrifice on the part of the people and workers in the
applicant countries.

The new EU financial framework proposed in
12.
Agenda 2000 is heavily influenced by the current climate
of austerity, and by the reluctance of the Member States
to increase Community resources. The Committee shares
the Commission’s view that ‘important domestic and
foreign financial resources, in particular from the private
sector, will have to be mobilized in support of these
strategies.’

The Committee believes that the Member States
13.
and their citizens will have to be persuaded that the
financial effort is worthwhile, and that it is in the
common interest. If there is a general perception that all
Member States will share in the expected benefits and
that the impact as regards increased trade and the
division of labour with the CEEC will be more equally
spread than was hitherto the case, this will facilitate the
project.

14.
The Committee believes that the project could
be facilitated by rectifying the original defect of the
pre-accession strategy framed in Essen, i.e. the failure
to include the Union’s socio-economic model among the
objectives.

15.
Enlargement will radically alter the EU’s insti-
tutional organization, decision-making procedures and
internal balance.

The complex machinery of Community life will be
affected, raising such disparate issues as the language
problem and the fundamental question of the formal
procedures for decision-making.

The conclusions of the Intergovernmental Confer-
16.
ence provided important progress in several areas but
were disappointing in the areas considered necessary for
the pre-accession phase, i.e. the institutional reforms
needed to complete the Maastricht objective of political
union, and for the operation of a Community of 27 rather
than 15 Member States.

C 19/104

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

The Committee believes that the problem of the smooth
political and institutional operation of the Union should
be dealt with long before membership exceeds twenty,
and that a new Intergovernmental Conference should
be convened when a decision is taken on the timetable
for negotiations, in order to tackle the problems left
unsolved at the Amsterdam Summit.

The Commission therefore rightly suggests that funding
should not exceed 4 % of GDP.

Socio-economic model and social dialogue

The Committee believes that the momentum needed to
overcome stumbling blocks and resistance could be
provided by adopting a more democratic method,
requiring the political consent of the European Parlia-
ment and the involvement of the socio-economic organ-
izations.

17.
The Committee also needs to reflect on the
consequences which enlargement will have on its own
membership and operation; it will have to be ready to
address the ensuing problems.

20.
The Committee has repeatedly emphasized the
importance of the European social model in the Com-
munity acquis, and the fact that the new Member States
must be able to sign up to it without weakening it.

Despite the Committee’s insistence, the Commission did
not feel it necessary to provide the applicant countries
with a guide to the social model, as they did for the
single market. This contrasts with the progress made in
the various texts of EC treaties and, most recently, with
the Amsterdam Treaty, and the ongoing debate on the
reform and development of the welfare state.

This reflection process can take place within the frame-
work of an ESC pre-accession strategy which will include
an annual report drawn up by the External Relations
Section and a hearing of the socio-economic groupings.

The opinions put
forward by the Commission in
Agenda 2000 shed little light on these aspects, and the
few comments that are made (particularly certain general
considerations) give cause for serious disquiet.

As regards the impact on the CAP, the Committee
18.
would reiterate the views contained in its own-initiative
opinion on this important issue, particularly its belief
that it is difficult to calculate the true cost of the CAP
after enlargement, but that the financial burden of
enlargement should not be regarded as a barrier to
accession.

Although the first wave of accessions will not take
place before 2002, i.e. after the deadline for the next
Community budget, it would seem wise to speed up the
planned reform of the CAP.

As regards the future of the CAP, the Committee is
issuing an own-initiative opinion dealing with the
agricultural aspects of Agenda 2000.

19.
Turning to structural policy, the Committee
points out that the transfer of funds could prove
counter-productive if the sums involved are greater than
the economic and financial systems of the applicant
countries can cope with. Large surpluses could be left
unspent, and the upshot could be a runaway increase in
demand which the production system could not meet,
problems for administrative checks, and widespread
fraud.

Enlargement will therefore bring with it some

21.
general risks for EU Member States:

— a lower level of wages and social conditions;

— more employment flexibility, and not subject to

collective bargaining;

— difficulty in carrying Community policies forward
(particularly concerning equality, labour law, and
coordination of social security systems), especially
in cases where unanimity is required.

As for social dialogue and tripartite relations in
22.
the applicant countries, it has emerged at various forums
held by the Committee that the economic and social
organizations — save a few exceptions — feel that they
have not been involved in the pre-accession process, and
more particularly in drawing up the national preparation
programme provided for in the White Paper on the single
market. The Committee would take this opportunity to
point out that recognition of economic and social
organizations and their involvement in the political
decision-making process is one of the key features of the
type of society chosen by the European Union.

23.
The Committee feels that the problems which the
applicant countries are likely to face in adapting to the
European social model must be resolved at the moment
of accession by action on two fronts:

The applicant countries’ urgent need for structural
funding thus needs to be squared with an appropriately
gradual approach to releasing funds.

— on the one hand, by identifying the key points in the
negotiations and focusing specific attention on them

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/105

within the reinforced pre-accession strategy, under-
pinned by a special white paper establishing stages
and priorities;

— on the other, the EU should round off the debate on
the updating of welfare systems, and make the
extension of qualified majority voting one of the key
aspects of the next IGC.

The structured dialogue, both at ministerial level and in
the working groups, should be stepped up.

In particular, the establishment of joint economic
24.
and social committees should be encouraged between
the EU and the applicant countries, along the lines of
the existing joint committees with Hungary and Turkey,
so that their socio-economic organizations can become
steadily more involved in the spirit, the work and the
consultative procedures of the Community.

The reinforced pre-accession strategy and Phare

25.
In Agenda 2000, the Commission proposes a
reinforced pre-accession strategy to bolster the outstand-
ing commitment of
the Union and the applicant
countries, and focus the adjustment process on those
areas which will be instrumental in allowing the appli-
cant countries to adopt the Community acquis without
leading to economic and social destabilization and
without hindering the operation of the single market.

Brussels, 29 October 1997.

The Committee feels that the reinforced pre-accession
strategy is important, and hopes that it will be enforced
purposefully and that each country’s progress will be
monitored on an annual basis.

26.
In order to involve the administrations of the
applicant countries and give them full responsibility
for their actions, the running of Phare will be more
decentralized. Under the accession partnership, the
authorities of each country will carry out the pro-
grammes decided in the framework agreement. If ‘insti-
tution building’ is to be fully successful, it is vital to
involve not just local and regional authorities, but also
the social partners.

Moreover, it is important to strengthen the role of the
social partners in the operation of the Phare programme.
So far, however, the social dialogue programmes have
not made satisfactory progress, because the structures
representing
social partners — particularly
employers — remain weak and unclear. It is important
for the future then, that the Phare programme should
make a real attempt to promote a strong social partner-
ship.

the

27.
Finally, the Committee notes with interest the
Commission proposal to set up a conference of all
European States which hope to join the EU and are
linked to the Union through association agreements.
This could provide the ideal forum to hammer out
common positions on very sensitive, pressing issues
relating to the CFSP, justice and internal security.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

C 19/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21. 1. 98

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendments, which received at least one quarter of the votes cast, were defeated during
the discussion.

Point 3

Add to the second indent:

‘compliance with the criteria for launching negotiations, and their shortcomings with regard to the social
dimension’

Reason

This amendment provides a stronger wording, since it is not the criteria themselves which are a major
problem requiring solution. In point 6, the Committee expressly acknowledges the value of the criteria.

Result of the vote

For: 38, against: 56, abstentions: 7.

Point 8, first sentence

Rewrite first part as follows:

‘Another approach advocates that negotiations ...’.

Reason

Negotiations in the Council have moved beyond this point.

If the remainder of point 8 is retained, the following should be added at the end of the point:

‘If negotiations are launched with only one group of countries at first, care must ał
least be taken to
ensure that all the applicant countries are fully involved in the enlargement process (through accession
partnerships, annual Commission progress reports and a commitment to launch accession negotiations
as soon as certain progress is achieved).’

Reason

The Committee’s opinion should be brought into line with what is more realistically expected to come
out of the Luxembourg summit.

Result of the vote

For: 43, against: 49, abstentions: 9.

Point 8

Replace by the following:

‘Another approach pressed by some Member States is to start negotiations with more or even all
applicant countries in order to minimize feelings of exclusion and hostility developing among the
population of the countries concerned. The Committee is paying close attention to this option.’

21. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/107

Reason

1. This wording reflects more accurately the feeling of the Council.

2. It does not suggest that negotiations should be opened with all applicant countries simultaneously, a
procedure which would raise new problems and could well delay the accession of any one country.

Result of the vote

For: 30, against: 55, abstentions: 14.

Point 14

Insert the words ‘the gradual adoption of’ between ‘the failure to include’ and ‘the Union’s socio-economic
model among the objectives’.

Reason

Since the level of development in most applicant countries is still very low (as the Agenda 2000 opinion
rightly points out), they cannot be realistically expected to adopt the Union’s socio-economic model at
the moment of accession. Flexible transitional arrangements will be unavoidable.

Result of the vote

For: 24, against: 52, abstentions: 10.