This paper analyses the process of the preparation for the EU enlargement to the Central and Eastern European Counties (CEECs) from the Madrid European Council in 1995 to the Luxembourg European Council in 1997. It sheds light on and compares roles played by main actors of the European Union, i. e. the European Commission, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. It also argue that there was a clear division of labour between the Commission and the Member Countries, before and after the publication of the Opinion for the Enlargement (‘Agenda 2000’).The agreement between France and Germany in the mid-November in 1995 created an important foundation for the EU to agree at the Madrid Summit to speed up the preparation for enlargement process. This enabled the Commission to launch the enormous task for preparing the Agenda 2000'. The role of the Commission was dominant and decisive, in processing huge data, contacting the applicants and diffusing information from time to time concerning technical evaluations by the Commission both to the applicants and Member States.In the meantime, the three main Member States were consolidating their positions toward enlargement issues, rather than committing the process actively. Partly as the result of the efforts for policy co-ordinations between Germany and France (especially in the framework of the “Weimer triangle”), the position of the French Government gradually shifted towards that of the German; it started to admit the possibilities to start the accession negotiation with the most prepared candidates (i. e. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic).The United Kingdom has always been a strong advocate for the EU enlargement Eastwards. Despite changes of government throughout this period, there seemed to be no major policy change between the Conservative and the Labour government; in favour of an early enlargement, with the most prepared CEECs, i. e. Vishgrads (and Baltic countries).Thus, when the Commission submitted the ‘Agenda 2000’ there were little difference in the positions of the three Member States. It means that there already exited a ground to admit the method proposed by the Commission (to start the accession negotiation with the 6 applicants) was created without harsh bargaining between the Member States, well before the Luxembourg Summit. Rather, the focus of the discussion was to keep the ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘comprehensiveness’ of the entire negotiation process, without leaving the ‘second waves’ outsides. Here, the role played by the French government, advocating the idea of the European Conference, which is to gather all the applicants into one umbrella, is remarkable. And the British government, who determined to commit to the European Affairs stronger than its previous government, and tried to take an advantage of taking the next EU Presidency, committed actively to rap up the agreement for the Luxembourg.
Read full abstract