MEPs seek role in enlargement conference

Date: 06/11/1997

By Mark Turner

FRANCE proposed it. The UK endorses it. Germany is not sure about it. The EU's applicant countries hate it. Now the European Parliament wants to be part of it.

"We would very much like to participate in the European Conference on EU enlargement," said a spokesman for Parliament President José María Gil-Robles. "After all, the Parliament has to say yes or no to the applicants in the end."

In the meantime, the EU's democratic arm is shaping up as the major opponent in the institutional triumvirate to differentiation between the ten eastern European enlargement candidates.

If a key plenary vote early next month goes as expected, MEPs are likely to demand that talks should be opened with all the central and eastern European candidates (CEECs) and Cyprus. The only exception would be Slovakia, with which Gil-Robles cancelled a key meeting last week due to its continued undemocratic behaviour. Nevertheless, few would be prepared to bet their houses on the precise outcome of the debate.

The Socialists, in particular, have a highly nuanced position which, in practice, veers towards opening active negotiations with only five CEEC candidates. "Although we feel the presentation of the avis was handled badly, we do think the Commission's opinions are a good starting point," said a party source.

The Christian Democrats, by contrast, are more in favour of the 'regatta approach', with a common starting line, and are becoming increasingly vocal.

The Parliament's foreign affairs committee will probably support the latter option when it votes on two key Parliament reports by Dutch Christian Democrat Arie Oostlander and Spanish Socialist Enrique Barón this month.

"While we respect the logic of the choices which the Commission has made, we are sensitive to charges of discrimination against those countries which received a negative avis [opinion]," said committee chairman and British Conservative MEP Tom Spencer.

Although all of this could lead to a head-to-head party clash this December, differences within the Parliament's major groups means the final plenary could look more like an undisciplined free-for-all.

But even if the Parliament does demand a common starting line, it is unlikely to have much impact on the decision taken by EU leaders at their December summit. "Our statement would be more symbolic than practical," admitted one official.

By contrast, the Parliament's debate on EU financing from 2000-2006 is attracting more attention, as the institution wields considerable power over budgetary matters. The budget committee recently endorsed arguments by Spanish Socialist MEP Joan Colom i Naval that fixing EU spending at 1.27% of gross national product was "premature", given that no one knew which applicant countries would join or what the agriculture and structural funds would look like at that stage.