It seems that enthusiasm over extending European Union is vanishing among the member-states, as well as among the candidates. The reasons are various; member-states are worried about the (budgetary) costs, while the candidates face many difficulties in the negotiation processes and are disappointed, since the primary illusions do not realise. This is a worrying situation, similar to the times of establishing European community for coal and steel, when political and security reasons prevailed. It would be useful today to carry out the study of consequences for the case the process of extending EU would not be realised. Extending EU would be useful for both sides, its costs are negligible in comparison with dividends of peace, costs of agricultural policy and long-term benefits. Extension is not a gift, as some believe, but a mean of political and security stabilisation of Europe, bringing Europe back on the world map as a 'superpower' and the mean of strengthening the Europe's competitive position. However, there is a legitimative problem, since the listof candidates includes less developed countries, while the conditions of entrance are severe. Extending EU should be an instrument of development and not its consequence. It is unproductive to perform 'beauty contest' among the candidates, which would enter the EU first. The strengthening mutual co-operation would be more welcomed.
|
