Cuprins

Aceasta lucrare poate fi descarcata doar daca ai statut PREMIUM si are scop consultativ. Pentru a descarca aceasta lucrare trebuie sa fii utilizator inregistrat.

Extras din document

Contents
I. Introduction p. 4
The Idea of a United Europe p. 4
The Schuman Plan p. 10
The construction of the European Union p. 11
The Enlargement process p. 15
Hypotheses p. 19
The theoretic approach p. 20
Methodology p. 20
References p. 21
II. The body of the paper p.22
1. The institutions and the decision-making process p. 22
2. The enlargement in South-East Europe p. 35
Accession criteria p. 38
The convergence criteria p. 40
The process of negotiations p. 41
The case of Romania p. 46
The present economic situation p. 59
The analyze of the hypotheses p. 66
III. Conclusions p. 70
IV. Bibliography p. 74
Contents of the tables
Table 1: Number of seats per political group, as at 1 April 2003 p. 26
Table 2: Number of seats per country in the European Parliament p. 27
Table 3: The evolution of the important economic indicators for1990-1999 p. 51
Table 4: Estimated values of the economic indicators for the period 2000-2004 p. 53
Table 5: The evolution of the economic indicators between 2000 and 2001 p. 54
Table 6: Estimated values of the economic indicators for the period 2000-2004 p. 57
Table 7: The consumer price index p. 66

Alte date

?I. Introduction

The Idea of a United Europe

The idea of a united Europe was once just a dream in the minds of philosophers and visionaries. Victor Hugo, for example, imagined a peaceful ‘United States of Europe’ inspired by humanistic ideals. The dream was shattered by two terrible wars that ravaged the continent during the first half of the 20th century.

However, from the rubble of World War II emerged a new kind of hope. People who had resisted totalitarianism during the war were determined to put an end to international hatred and rivalry in Europe and to build a lasting peace between former enemies. Between 1945 and 1950, a handful of courageous statesmen including Konrad Adenauer [1 Konrad Adenauer (1876-1963) helped establish the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in 1945 and in 1949 became the first Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). He held power for the next fourteen years and during that time played an important role in restoring good relations with France and the United States. He retired from office in October 1963, and died in 1967. ], Winston Churchill [2 Winston Churchill (1874-1965) was a British Conservative politician that held numerous ministerial offices. He was prime minister between 1940-1945 and 1951-1955. In the wartime, Churchill displayed outstanding ability as a leader and as an inspirational orator. He negotiated the victorious alliances with the Soviet Union and the United States of America. He was also awarded with the Nobel Prize for literature in 1953.], Alcide de Gasperi [3 Alcide de Gasperi (1881-1954) became foreign minister of Italy in 1944 and, a year later, in 1945, he became Prime Minister, until 1953. In 1954, he was elected President of the Common Assembly of the ECSC, the forerunner of the European Parliament. ] and Robert Schuman [4 Robert Schuman (1886-1963) was born in Luxembourg, but he became the French Prime Minister between 1947 and 1948, and the foreign minister of France from 1948 until 1953. He is considered one of the founding fathers of the European Union, which rests upon the plan that has his name on it. ] set about persuading their peoples to enter a new era. There would be a new order in Western Europe, based on the interests its peoples and nations shared together, and which was going to be founded upon treaties guaranteeing the rule of law and equality between all countries.

Robert Schuman (French Foreign Affairs Minister) took up an idea originally conceived by Jean Monnet [5 Jean Monnet (1888-1979) is one of the founders of the European integration project, the driving force behind 1950 Schuman Plan, which led to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community. He became the first head of the ECSC’s High Authority and continued to play an active role in European integration throughout his life, though often behind the scenes. ] and, on 9 May 1950, proposed setting up a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Their plan involved the delegation of certain aspects of member state sovereignty to common, independent, and supra-national institutions. These institutions were to represent a common or joint “European” interest, rather than the interest of any one European state. In countries that had once fought each other, the production of coal and steel would be pooled under a shared authority – the ‘High Authority’. In a practical but also richly symbolic way, the raw materials of war were being turned into instruments of reconciliation and peace. The achieving of a lasting peace has been the chief motivating factor behind the drive for unity. However, economic advantage also played a role.

This bold and generous move was a big success. It was the start of more than half a century of peaceful co-operation between the member states of the European Communities. With the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, the Community institutions were strengthened and given broader responsibilities, and the European Union (EU) as such was born. [6 Pascal Fontaine, Europe in 12 lessons, European Commission ,Directorate-General for Press and Communication ,Manuscript completed in October 2003.]

“The idea and dream of a politically integrated Europe possesses a long pedigree. Along the centuries, numerous intellectuals and political leaders have argued for, and, had attempted to bring order and unity to the fragmented political mosaic of the European continent. As part of this long-standing dream, an increased intellectual agitation for unity in Europe emerged in the nineteenth century, but almost exclusively by people who were, at best, at the fringes of political decision-making. Their arguments and plans held little appeal or relevance for political leaders. However, there did emerge a more wide spread recognition that some forum of economic cooperation might well contain some potential political advantages for states.” [7 Derek W. URWIN, “The European Community: From 1945 to 1985”, In: Michelle CINI, European Union Politics, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, p12, from pp.11-27.]

“Although the actual steps which have been taken to achieve economic and political unity in Europe are mostly, if not all, post-1945 in origin, the idea of such a coming together is not unique to the last fifty or so years. Quite the contrary: history is littered with proposals and arrangements, which were designed to foster European unity.

As early as the fourteenth century the idea of a united Christendom prompted Pierre Dubois [8 Pierre Dubois (1260-1321) – French writer, public prosecutor of the king in Contances.] to propose a European confederation to be governed by a European Council of “wise, expert, and faithful men”. In the seventeenth century, Sully [9 Maximilien de Sully (1560-1640) – French public official, advisor, minister and marshal of king Henric the IVth. ] proposed to keep the peace in Europe by means of a European army. In 1693, William Penn [10 William Penn (1644-1718) – English Quaker, the leader of the emigrants from North America, the founder and legislator of Pennsylvania (1676).], the English Quaker, suggested “a European Diet, Parliament, or State” in his Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe. In the nineteenth century, Proudhon [11 Pierre – Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) – French philosopher, he was one of the most important theoreticians of the socialism from the XIXth century.] was strongly in favour of European federation. He foresaw the nineteenth century as opening an era of federations and prophesied disasters if such developments did not occur. It was only after the World War I that statesmen began to give serious attention to the idea of European unity. Aristide Briand [12 Aristide Briand (March 28, 1862-March 7, 1932) - French public official, he was for eleven times president of the Council of Ministers, one of the enthusiasts regarding the League of Nations, laureate of the Nobel Prize.] – a Prime Minister of France- declared that part of his political programme was the building of a United States of Europe.

Immediately after the end of the First World War, the organization of Europe as a continent, as a region of the world, begun to be seen as a real problem that had to be fixed. In the same time appears also, the opposition between two conceptions the “construction” of Europe. The first conception was referring to a simple cooperation, which would not undermine the state suzerainty of the European countries, while the second idea was about surpassing the states’ suzerainty through a process of unification, a process of “integration”, how it was later called. [13 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p. 9.] Private persons asserted the second conception, clearly federalist, firstly, with no importance in the decision-making process. The count of Coudenhove-Kalergi [14 Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972) The son of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in Tokyo, born in 1894, citizen of the Republic of Czechoslovakia after the Treaty of Saint-Germaine.] published in 1922, in Vienna, the manifest of Paneuropa in which he says that “the problem of Europe can be reduced at only two words: unification or collapse” [15 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p. 9. ]. In 1926, he even brought together, at Vienna, the constitutive congress of the Union of Paneuropa to which over 2000 persons attend. Another supporter of this idea is the Danish Heerfordt publishes in 1924 an essay, called “Europe Communis”, regarding the future federal European state. Beside an inter-parliaments assembly, a manager of the statesmen with a right of veto and a federal minister under the jurisdiction of the assembly, Heerfordt even foresaw a special treatment for agriculture and a transitional period before the realization of a custom union. [16 Ibdem.]

At a higher level, an inter-governmental one, the only conception expressed by the political leaders of Europe was that regarding a cautious cooperation among the states. More ambitious is the initiative of the French foreign minister from 1929. His discourse from 7 September 1929 taken in front of the tenth session of the League of Nations Assembly was quite ambiguous. “I believe that between peoples which are geographically grouped, as the European peoples are, has to exist federal relation”. However, he also says that, the “federal relation” must not “touch the suzerainty of none of the nations that would be a part of these assembly” [17 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p. 10.]. The only country that manifested support for this project was Yugoslavia.

Despite the fact that there was no shortage of plans to create a united Europe, it was nevertheless not until after 1945 that there occurred a combination of new forces together with an intensification of old ones, compelling action. In the first place, Europe had been the centre of yet another devastating war arising out of the unbridled ambitions of nation states. Those who sought, and still seek, a united Europe, have always had at the forefront of their minds the desire to prevent any further outbreak of war in Europe. By bringing the nations of Europe closer together, it has always been hoped that such a contingency would be rendered unthinkable. {At the end of the First World War, the most important organization of the international arena was The League of Nations. The creation of the organization was considered by Woodrow Wilson [18 Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was the 28th president of the United States of America, between 1913 and 1921. In January 1918 he issued his famous “Fourteen Points” as a basis for a just peace settlement. At the peace conference in Paris he secured the inclusion of the League of Nations in individual peace treaties although the American congress did not join the League. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1919.] to be the solution to put an end to world’s conflicts .In the American opinion the peace could have been maintained through mutual understanding. The honourable initiative failed, unfortunately, because of its lack of equilibrium between ideology and reality, the latter being ignored.}The Second World War left Europe economically exhausted. This engendered the view that if Europe were to recover, it would require a joint effort on the part of European states. The war also soon revealed that for a long time Western Europe would have to face not only a powerful and politically alien USSR, but also a group of European states firmly anchored into the Eastern bloc. An exhausted and divided Europe (since the West embraced cobelligerents) presented both a power-vacuum and a temptation for USSR to fill it. Then the ending of the war soon revealed that the wartime allies were in fact divided, with the two major powers –the US and the USSR- confronting each other in a bid for world supremacy. It was therefore not surprising that the “Europeans” [19 Europeans are seen here as members of European movement, who sought to break away from systems of inter-governmental cooperation and to create institutions in Europe, which would lead to a federal arrangement in which some national sovereignty would be given up. ] should feel the need for a third force, the voice of Europe. The latter would represent the Western European viewpoint and could act as a bridge between the Eastern and Western extremities.

After 1945, the necessity of reviving the idea of the European unity became pressing and started the formation of many pro-Europeanist movements, mainly not governmental. There were movements of the public opinion that did not always correspond to the governmental position. Among these movements more remarkable were those from the universities, labour unions and those coming from great intellectual and artistic personalities. On the other hand, the federalization of Europe needed a “central power complementary to the multiple powers” [20 Iordan Gheorghe BARBULESCU, Uniunea Europeana: aprofundare si extindere, De la comunitatile europene la Uniunea Europeana, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 2001, p. 45.]. Its objective was not the substitution of the national suzerainties with a European one, but the creation of adequate institutions, which, through competences and geographical dimension should be capable to solve the different problems that Europe was facing.

In this time, there were thoughts about organizing great continental regions, and about diversifying the decision-making centres. The two trends, the European movement and federal one, were completing and conditioning each other. The European federal movement was based upon political principles like autonomy, cooperation and subsidiarity. Without any doubt, the mistake of the federalists was that they looked for a parallelism between the future European “unification” and the model of the existing federal states like the United States of America and West Germany [21 Iordan Gheorghe BARBULESCU, Uniunea Europeana: aprofundare si extindere, De la comunitatile europene la Uniunea Europeana, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 2001, p. 46.]. There was not yet a good understand about the fact that there was the need for a different model, which would contain the federalist spirit, ideas, but would invent also new instruments, adapted to the particular situation that Europe was facing.

Along the history of the construction of the European Union, there were always present two opposed forces. On the one hand, there were the federalists, who wanted a faster progress and a faster development towards integration, and, on the other hand, there were the nationalists, or the inter-governmentalists, who preferred the simple cooperation inter-governmental, instead of the integration. The progress that followed demonstrated a continuous compromise between the two tendencies.

This compromise between these two trends defines what is now understood through the communitarian system, making out of the European Union a sui generis construction, a hybrid composition of inter-governmentalism and federalism possible through progressive integration, through concrete realizations in different sections and functions. The functionalism represents the most adequate way of putting under a common idea different sections thus creating the political and economic cooperation. It needs immediate actions. While, the federalism is the spirit, the attitude that transformed into reality, and anticipated this style of social organizing. It needs strategy and a long time vision. [22 Iordan Gheorghe BARBULESCU, Uniunea Europeana: aprofundare si extindere, De la comunitatile europene la Uniunea Europeana, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 2001, p. 47.]

Nowadays, the phrase “federal Europe” refers to a conception of the European Union that is constantly changing, but which has at its core a set of basic principles or assumptions that indicate a voluntary union of states and citizens. Committed to the shared goals of welfare, security and prosperity, the union is structured in a manner specifically designed to preserve nation states’ identities, cultures and interests, where these are consistent with the over-all well-being of the union. In practical terms, this means that the Union is based upon a combination of centralist and decentralist imperatives that facilitate common solutions to common problems. In some policy areas, the European Union acts on behalf of its constituent members as a whole, while in others it leaves action to the individual member states. This broad conception of a federal Europe is based upon a simple axiom: “unity in diversity”. When and where unity is required by common consent the European Union will act accordingly, while diversity will prevail in cases where and when the member states have agreed to act alone. The European Union is a voluntary union based upon political consent and legal agreement. [23 Michael BURGESS, “Federalism and federation”, In: Michelle CINI (editor), European Union Politics, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, p.66. – from pp.65-79]

The Schuman Plan

The maintenance of peace and the “voice” of Europe became reality in May 1950, when Jean Monnet elaborated a plan that was put forward by Robert Schuman. The Schuman Plan was essentially political in character. It sought to end the historic rivalry of France and Germany and to do this by making a war between France and West Germany not only “unthinkable, but materially impossible” [24 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p. 42.]. The answer was not to nationalize nor indeed to internationalize the ownership of the means of production in coal, iron and steel, but to create, by the removal of customs duties, quotas and so forth, a common market in these products. Every participant in the common market would have equal access to the products of these industries wherever they might be located, and, to reinforce this, discrimination on grounds of nationality was to be forbidden.

The French foreign affairs minister made the Schuman Plan public on 9 May 1950 in Paris in the Parlour of the Clock from Quai d’Orsay [25 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p.30.]. Its presentation took place exactly after the French Council of Ministers had approved it, and represented France’s offer to the Federative Republic of Germany to set both their steel and coal production under a common jurisdiction. Some authors [26 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p. 10. ] believe that, because of the great secrecy in which the plan was conceived, and of the unexpectedly way in which it was presented; the members of the French government did not really understand the stake of their decision. The Plan combines technical solutions (of uniting the coal and steel production), and a large political ambition, with great aims “the union of the European nations asks for the century-old opposition between France and Germany to be stopped”, Europe “would not be built at a stroke”, but, “through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity” [27 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p. 43.]. A common market for coal and steel was settled in two stages: a preparatory and a transitional one to allow the national industries to adapt to the new conditions.

The Plan, which remains amongst the most powerful symbols of Franco-German post-war reconciliation, was based at least in part on the experience gained from the International Authority for the Ruth (set up in 1949 and composed of representatives from Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, West Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America). [28 Timothy BAINBRIDGE, The Penguin Companion to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 1998, p. 435.]

Paradoxically, when the treaty was to be ratified, France was the country that faced the biggest resistance, the French government having to deal with opposition from two sides. Firstly from the French Communist Party, and secondly, from the French Popular Assembly, whose leader was Charles de Gaulle. [29 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p. 31.]

The construction of the European Union

The Schuman Plan met with a favourable response from West Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. The United Kingdom was invited to join, but refused. However, the six countries were undeterred, and in April 1951the, Treaty of Paris was signed. The European Community of Steel and Coal (ECSC) was brought into existence and the Community embarked on an experiment in limited economic integration”. [30 Dennis SWANN, The Economics of Europe: From Common Market to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 2000, p1.p6.

] A few years later, on 25th of March 1957, the six member states of ECSC, signed, in Rome, the Treaties for the constitution of the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC/Euratom) and of the European Economic Community (EEC). In the following years, nine states, and more recently another ten had joined the three communities: Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom in 1973, Greece in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986, Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995, and, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia, Cyprus, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia in 2004.

These founding treaties were subsequently amended by the Single European Act (1986), the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht, 1992); the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and the Treaty of Nice (2001).These treaties have forged very strong legal ties between the EU’s member states. European Union laws directly affect EU citizens and give them very specific rights.

The Single European Act (SEA) was signed in February 1986 and came into force on 1 July 1987. It amended the European Economic Community Treaty and paved the way for completing the Single Market. [31 Iordan Gheorghe BARBULESCU, Uniunea Europeana: aprofundare si extindere, De la comunitatile europene la Uniunea Europeana, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 2001, p. 66.]

On 7th February 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed. The Maastricht Treaty is best viewed as an edifice supported on three principal pillars, which are the base of the European Union. The European Union confers Union citizenship rights additional to those enjoyed at member-state level. Union citizens can take up residence in any other member state and can stand as a candidate or vote in municipal and European elections in that state. Abroad they are entitled to protection from any member state when their own government is not represented. They have a right to petition the European Parliament and can make applications to the European Community Ombudsman in respect to maladministration by Community institutions. The European first pillar relates to the economic, social and cultural competences of the Union. The Maastricht Treaty modified all three of the treaties setting up the founding communities (EEC, Euratom and ECSC) but the modifications on the ECSC and Euratom treaties were of no great significance, as the ECSC Treaty expired in 2002. By contrast, the modifications to the EEC Treaty were of enormous significance. Because the Rome Treaty now covered social and cultural as well as economic affairs, it was felt appropriate to re-entitle the EEC simply as the European Community. New and confirmed policy competences were added. The key new competence was that which provided for a process whereby the Common Market would be transformed into a European Monetary Union (EMU). It envisaged a process of economic convergence leading to a single currency controlled by a European System of Central Banks. The second pillar of the treaty involved the introduction of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). In due course, it was anticipated that this would lead to a common defence policy. The third pillar was concerned with the introduction of a system of Cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs (CJHA). [32 Timothy BAINBRIDGE, The Penguin Companion to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 1998, p. 344.]

The Treaty of Maastricht enshrined, for the first time, the ‘principle of subsidiarity’, which is essential to the way the European Union works. It means that the EU and its institutions act only if action is more effective at EU level than at national or local level. This principle ensures that the European Union does not unnecessarily interfere, in its citizens’ daily lives. European identity is a valuable asset to be preserved: it must never be confused with uniformity – which is something Europeans definitely reject. [33 Iordan Gheorghe BARBULESCU, Uniunea Europeana: aprofundare si extindere, De la comunitatile europene la Uniunea Europeana, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 2001, p. 28.]

A protocol was attached to the treaty incorporating a commitment to set up a cohesion fund to assist the poorer countries. A Committee of Regions was established in order to create closer cooperation and contact between the Community institutions and representatives of regional and local bodies.

The Maastricht Treaty did not replace the Rome Treaty, quite on the contrary; much of it was design to modify the founding Rome Treaty although the two provisions relating to the two inter-governmental pillars did stand separately from the Rome Treaty.

The Maastricht Treaty also provided for a process of review. This was scheduled to occur in 1996, when another Inter-Governmental Conference opened. The official purpose was to revise the European Treaties with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of the institutions of the Union, particularly in the face of a substantial enlargement. Euro enthusiasts expected a great deal. In practice, the results were disappointing. Some limited steps were taken but important issues were put off until later. At the end of the Inter-Governmental Conference, the Treaty of Amsterdam was signed on the 2nd of October 1997 and came into force on 1 May 1999. It amended the European Union and European Community treaties, giving numbers (instead of letters) to the EU Treaty articles. Employment policy was given a higher profile, the European Parliament’s role in the legislative process was considerably strengthened, but the need to reform the institutions in the face of enlargement was largely left until later. [34 Timothy BAINBRIDGE, The Penguin Companion to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 1998, p. 489.]

Meanwhile the member states were attempting to converge their economies in the hope of qualifying to be participants in the single currency market. Sufficient convergence was achieved by 1998, when eleven member states have qualified. It was therefore decided that the European Monetary Union final stage should be launched in 1999 with the single currency –the EURO- being fully established by 2002.

The Treaty of Nice, signed on 26 February 2001, entered into force on 1 February 2003 and was necessary in the perspective of the future enlargement. It further amends the other treaties, streamlining the European Union’s institutional system so it can continue to work effectively after a new wave of member states joins in 2004.The institutional reform was set on three things: the composition and functioning of the European institutions, the decision-making process inside the Council of Ministers and a better cooperation between the institutions. [35 Iordan Gheorghe BARBULESCU, Uniunea Europeana: aprofundare si extindere, De la comunitatile europene la Uniunea Europeana, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 2001, p. 305.]

The treaties are the foundation for everything the European Union does. Whenever the treaties have to be reviewed and amended, this is done by a special conference of the EU’s national governments (an “inter-governmental conference” or IGC).The treaties have been amended each time new member states have joined. Moreover, every decade or so, the treaties have been amended to reform the EU institutions and give them new areas of responsibility.

In the spring of 2000 The Development Strategy in 2001-2010 was finished, its fundamental aim being the transformation of the European Union into the first economic power of the world, with the most dynamic economy of the world. The concrete measures that have to be taken involve firstly, the computerising of the entire society and the creation of facilities for a large access to Internet, considering that these two factors sustained the dynamic growth of the economy of the United States of America. The European Union foresaw the constitution of a common space in the research domain and the substantial cut down of the costs of accessing the Internet. Another concrete measure of the Strategy is the ensuring of a economic growth of about three per cent in the next ten years. All these measures should create about twenty millions new work places, which would solve another important social problem, as is the employment. [36 Ion AVRAM, Uniunea Europeana si aderarea Romaniei, Editura Sylvia, Bucuresti, 2001, p. 121.]

The Enlargement process

The creation of the European Union was one of the most remarkable events of the last century. It represented the first time in history that independent nations have voluntarily surrendered significant portions of their own national power to a supra-national body. This could open a door to a change of the political aspect of the entire globe. From a single treaty involving only coal and steel production among a half a dozen nations, the European Union became virtually all of Western Europe joined into the present world’s strongest economic force. It went far beyond simple mutual economic measures to include a system of European government and of statutes and laws subject to the ruling of a single court, a single common currency, a single financial control. Now it aspires to move to a single social standard and perhaps even a common political policy enforced by a single defence force. [37 Nicholas SELLERS, “Cracks in the wall: The uncertain future of the European Union”, In: Corneliu C. POPETI (editor), Politici integrationiste europene, Editura Eurobit, Timisoara, 1998, pp.35???] The first steps towards this creation were taken by only six nations and, without the enlargement processes today’s Union would not be as powerful as it is. Enlargement is the process by which countries join the European Union. Article O of the Maastricht Treaty specifies that: “any European state may apply to become a member of the Union. It shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members” [38 Timothy BAINBRIDGE, The Penguin Companion to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 1998, p.148.]. In practice, the procedure is more complex and takes long time. First, the candidate state sends its application to the Council of Ministers. Second, the European Commission delivers its formal opinion, procedure that can take up to three years, and takes place the consultation with the European Parliament. Third, negotiations begin between the applicant state and the presidency of the Council and the Commission, but only if the Council, acting unanimously, decides to go ahead to the next step. Forth, after the end of the negotiations, the candidate state and the representatives of the member states initial a draft accession treaty. Fifth, follows the assent procedure, which means that, the European Parliament has to approve the treaty by an absolute majority of the total number of members of the Parliament. Sixth, all signatory states must ratify the treaty, “in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements” [39 Article O from the Treaty of the European Union, Maastricht, 1992.]; this may involve a referendum, especially if amendments to the applicant country’s constitution are involved. The seventh step is the formal signature of the accession treaty and the last one is the entrance into force of the treaty on an agreed date.

An interesting issue is to understand how large can the concept of the “European state” be. The Maastricht Treaty fails to explain what the European Union’s leaders understand through “European”. It always remains the question of how large can the European Union become. The enlarged EU of 25 countries and 454 million people might expand even further in 2007, when Bulgaria and Romania should join – if all goes according to the plans agreed at Copenhagen. At that meeting, the European Council also agreed that it could decide, in December 2004, to begin formal accession negotiations with Turkey if the European Commission’s report recommends it. Negotiations with a candidate country can begin once it has met the EU’s political and economic criteria. Already in 1999, the Helsinki European Council had decided, “Turkey is a candidate State destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States.” Turkey is a member of NATO and the Council of Europe. It has had an association agreement with the European Union since 1964 and has been an applicant for EU membership since 1987. However, Turkey lies on the very edge of the European continent, and the prospect of its joining the EU raises questions about where to draw the ultimate boundaries of the European Union. [40 Dennis SWANN, The Economics of Europe: From Common Market to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 2000, p. 355.] Can any country anywhere apply for EU membership and start negotiations provided it meet the political and economic criteria laid down in Copenhagen? Certainly, the countries of the western Balkans such as Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia could apply once they have achieved political stability and meet the Copenhagen criteria. Indeed, it is in the EU’s interests to promote stability in the regions that lie on its doorstep. Enlargement pushes back and lengthens the Union’s borders. From 2004, the European Union has Belarus, Russia and Ukraine as its next-door neighbours. It has to step up cross-border co-operation with them on transport and environmental policy as well as on issues such as internal security and the fight against people smuggling and other forms of international crime.

Another problem that was raised every time a new enlargement was about to take place is that of choosing to enlarge or to better integrate the already existing member states. This dilemma appeared even from the first enlargement when, Charles de Gaulle, the French president of the 60’s opposed the joining of the United Kingdom on the basis that this would slow down, even on purpose, the process of continuous European integration. [41 Charles ZORGBIBE, Constructia europeana: Trecut, prezent, viitor, translated from French by Speranta Dumitru, Editura Trei, Bucuresti, 1998, p. 59.]

Six enlargements involving twenty countries have taken place since 1957. The first enlargement, from six to nine members, took place in 1973, at twelve years after Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom decided to join the Communities and send their applications to the Council of Ministers. The second enlargement took place in 1981, six years after Greece applied for membership. Spain and Portugal joined the European Communities in 1986, nine years after they applied. The forth enlargement did not quite follow all the steps presented above, East Germany joining the Communities in 1990, after the German reunification. It is the special case when a state became member of the Communities without applying for that. The next enlargement took place in 1995, when Austria, Finland and Sweden became members of the European Union. [42 Dennis SWANN, The Economics of Europe: From Common Market to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 2000, p. 27.] The last enlargement took place this year, when ten former candidate states became fully members of the European Union on 1st May 2004. These states are Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, the accession treaty being signed at Athens, on 16th April 2003.

There are still countries that applied for European Union membership but did not join yet. It is the case of Norway, which applied both in 1962 and in 1992 but its people rejected the draft accession treaties, by referendum, in 1972 and 1994. Turkey has also applied for membership from 1987 but it did not have a favourable Commission opinion in 1989. Morocco applied in 1987, but the Council rejected it as a non-European state. In 1992, Switzerland applied for membership but, for fear that the Swiss aren’t yet prepared to adapt to a system in which supra-national institutions play a pre-eminent role and which would require them to open both their frontiers and their economy to other Europeans, the following steps toward joining the Union were not taken anymore. [43 Timothy BAINBRIDGE, The Penguin Companion to European Union, Penguin Books, London, 1998, p. 151.] In 1992, the Swiss rejected by referendum the membership to the European Economic Area [44 European Economic Area is a free trade area of 18 countries and about 380 million people established by a treaty signed on 2 May 1992 in Oporto. It is responsible for about 40 per cent of world trade and its members are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Greece, France, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg.].

The theme of this paper refers to the last enlargement, its economic admission criteria and the way in which Romania relates to them. More explicitly, Romania begun the accession negotiations and applied for membership in the same period with the ten new member states of the European Union but is promised to join the Union later, most fortunately in 2007. Romania had to accomplish the same criteria as the newly members, but failed to do so. The criteria that raised the biggest problems were the economic ones, which are still not accomplished. The enlargement of the European Union is important not only from the Romanian point of view but also from the international one. The European Union is not simply increasing its surface area and its population, but it also puts an end to the split of the European continent, the rift that, from 1945 onwards, separated the free world from the Communist world. Therefore, this enlargement of the EU has a political and moral dimension. It is for the first time in the history of the European Union when such a big number of countries join the Union in such a short period of time. The importance of the theme comes especially from the fact that the hypothesis refers to the future of Romania and its citizens and shows a realistic perspective.

Hypotheses

The subject of this paper is the analyze of the economic criteria of accession into the European Union established on the European Council from Copenhagen on 22 June 1993 and the extent to which Romania accomplished them. The paper will also refer to the advantages and disadvantages that Romania and the European Union would have in the eventuality that Romania would or would not join in 2007, and to the quality of the information that the public opinion receives about this subject.

There are three hypotheses that are to be debated in the paper. The first is that unless the Romanian government applies a programme of economical reforms that would assure the fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria, Romania will not have a functional market economy and will not join the European Union in 2007. The second hypothesis is that Romania will join the Union in 2007 with the condition that there will be enough progresses in order to receive in the Regular country report from November 2004 a favourable decision and a very tide programme of the Commission supervising our economy. This would allow Romania to maintain the same position as Bulgaria, even though it would mean a delay in the already scheduled agenda. The third hypothesis is that Romania, under the most optimistic circumstances, will not be able to join the European Union in 2007.

The process of enlargement brings major challenges to the European Union. The European venture started out as an arrangement involving six states that were broadly similar in terms of economic development, culture, values. It is now in the process of expanding to 27 member states and perhaps more in due course. The European Union will be a pan-European grouping and not just a club of the rich. It will be economically diverse, as the differences between the old and the new member states and the candidate ones in terms of per capita income are extremely large. In political terms it represents a union between countries where democracy is well established and those where it has only just got under way. Enlargement will pose resource and competition problems, the budget will be faced with a group of countries contributing relatively little to it but being well placed to benefit from the structural funds [45 Structural funds are the principal means whereby aid is directed towards the less-developed regions of the European Union. ]. The European Union may also have to contend with major migratory flows, which, by hitting particular centres or countries, could give rise to a hostile political backlash.

The theoretic approach

The hypotheses can be analyzed from two theoretic perspectives: a normative and an empirical one. The normative theory refers to what it should be, while the empirical one refers to what really is. In our case the normative theory can be identified with the idealist trend, where as the empirical theory is seen as a realistic one. There could be two scenarios. From the idealistic point of view, the first two hypotheses could be true, and Romania could join the Union in 2007 although it still had to work very hard for this. The argument of this scenario is what happened in 1999, when our country began the accession negotiations even if the economic criterion was not yet accomplished. The reason for this was the Kosovo crisis that affected a lot the development of Romania. In the second scenario, from the realistic point of view, only the last hypothesis is true and the Romanian government should rethink the accomplishments of the economic policy or else the membership of the European Union will be delayed. In this case, the paper will also analyze the consequences that Romania will have to suffer.

The methodology