On May 14th 2010 the Centre for EU Enlargement Studies (CENS) held – in cooperation with the Friedrich Ebert Siftung Budapest - an International Conference entitled: Inclusion completed, adaptation successful? - What divides new and old members in the European Union, 6 years on?

The high-profile event was opened by CEU President and Rector John Shattuck, who spoke of the role of CEU at the crossroads of Central Europe. Hans-Albert Huthmacher, the leader of the FES bureau in Budapest, also welcomed the assembled speakers and audience with a few opening words, lifting out the good and ongoing cooperation between CENS and FES.

The keynote speech was delivered by outgoing Foreign Minister Péter Balázs, who analysed in his address the development of the EU during the last few years, and particularly during his one year tenure. Minister Balázs highlighted his argument with historical comparisons based on his experience both as a national representative and a European Commissioner.  He argued for the continued strengthening but also the streamlining of the Union by arguing that under the current regulations Council and Commission meetings have become cumbersome and decisions are arrived at in smaller circles. Beyond these internal problems, the EU also faces a new international environment to which it has to adapt itself.

Panel 1

The first panel of the conference considered the mutual expectations between old and new member states in light of the experiences of the first 6 years of membership, and highlighted the ways in which the new members have been able to carve out policy niches and how they have been able to settle into their new roles. Enikő Győri, a Member of the European Paliament and an incoming State Secretary of the newly forming Hungarian government argued that while Hungarian diplomacy in particular and the Hungarian administraton in general have been able to establish themselves in the EU - and due to the upcoming Hungarian EU presidency this work is continuing – there is a stark contrast between Hungary and other regional competitors in the way in which they have been able to profit from membership. Ms. Győri put much of the blame for, what she called, a failure on the foregoing governemnt. Thomas Christiansen form the University of Maastricht spoke mainly about the situation created by the Lisbon treaty and the way in, which that has affected institutional arrangements such as the rotationg Presidency. He argued that the EU presidency is not a tool for pushing national interests, and that it plays a very important role in establishing a country’s reputation within the Union. Kai-Olaf Lang of the DGAP in Berlin argued that there is no general tendency among the new member countries, and there are complication among them. He also stated that previosusly existing clear pro-Americ, or pro-Russia lines are fading, and that regional states need to strengthen thir positions with bilateral alliances. Professor Anton Pelinka of the CEU highlighted his argument with multiple examples and stated that there are no readily identifiable groups neither among the old nor the new member states. He highlighted the similarities of EU countries, which exist despite divisions, and spoke out against defined divisions within the Union.

Panel 2

The second panel considered the impact of new memmber states on the EU decision making mechanism. Piotr Kaczynski from the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels argued that in the eyes of old members, new members appear truly new, and that new members found it hard to find their voice in decision making. When they eventualy did, it was either unsuccesful or negative, as in the case of Poland. He stated that real decision making power still lies with the old „big” states. Sabine Kajnc of the European Insitute of Public Administration argued that the most significant change has been a „change of faces” and that new member states have learend the „game of language” that is so important in EU decision-making. Ms. Kajnc further analysed the real and percieved splits among members states. Tamás Szűcs, the current Head of the EU Commission Representations in Budapest, who has also spent many years in Brussels in various leadership positions, argued from his own experience that individuals from new member states are more-and-more able to establish themselves in high positions, and that they have a positive reputation, particularly since a career in the EU still appeals to the best and brightest from these countries. Thomas König from the University of Mannheim finished this panel with a detailed introduction to his ongoing research on the first and second order effects of enlargement, which analyses scientifically the policy space and policy flexibility of EU member states and their leading parties. The panel concluded with a long and engaging discussion period.

Panel 3

The third panel of the conference was dedicated to the economic perspective of the enlargement, exploring questions on whether the transition economies have been able to adapt to the changing situation and if they were able to integrate with the central economies. Lothar Funk of the Fachhochschule Düsseldorf opened the panel arguing with the support of data that economic convergence has indeed occurred but that it has been slow and that the development model followed my many new member countries – which accepted large current account deficits – was particularly badly hit by the recent financial crisis. Marek Dabrowski from CASE in Poland recounted that the period between 2003 and 2007 was the ‘golden period’ of growth and that many countries did not expect the shockwaves of the financial crisis to reach them as well, but that they had to eventually bear the brunt of two waves: the global financial crisis, and the European public debt crisis. Concerning the future, Professor Dabrowski sees an opportunity for growth to return, but he expects it to be slower and also more differentiated among regional groups than earlier. Professor Ádám Török, a member of the Fiscal Council of Hungary highlighted the difficulties of defining a centre versus a periphery and argued that even though productivity and competitiveness figures have increased in new member states that came at some costs and has brought out long running social or public policy problems. Professor Julius Horvath of the CEU presented his argument with a long term historical view, showing the various division lines that have developed and have existed in Europe, and among which the old vs. new member dichotomy appears particularly weak.

Panel 4

Professor Leonard Besselink of the University of Utrecht started the fourth panel on the notions and differences of ‘euroscepticism’ in new and old member states with an intriguing case study of the Netherlands where there is a strong pro-European general sentiment and still a backlash against modern multiculturalism. He expanded towards the end of his presentation on the question whether the EU can take some scepticism on board. Vit Benes of the IIR in the Czech Republic gave a socio-historical explanation of the Czech euroscepticism, going from stage to stage, explaining the development of the notion through historical explanations. István Hegedűs of the Hungrian Europe Society explored and highlighted the differences between ’euroscepticism’ and ’europessimism.’ He followed through the Hungarian case of the last twenty years to bring out the role of elites, the effects of transition and the competing noitions sorrounding the EU as main factors influencing the populations’ view of the EU. Professor Nick Sitter of the CEU gave a detailed presentation of the various forms of euroscepticism, which is drawn out across the political spectrum and across the continent. His academically rigorous work gave a detailed view of the difficulties of combatting such an elusive and varying concept as eurospecticism.

The conference was concluded with a closing speech presented by Tibor Kiss, State Secretary for European Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who highlighted some of the main points of the foregone speakers and coloured his words with the expereience of many years of service in Brussels.

Download the Conference Papers below

See report on the conference on euractive.hu