Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04BRUSSELS4817
2004-11-09 14:59:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Brussels
Cable title:  

EU ACCESSION NEGOTIATION TIMELINES: THE

Tags:  PREL PGOV ETRD EUN USEU BRUSSELS 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 004817 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PGOV ETRD EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: EU ACCESSION NEGOTIATION TIMELINES: THE
HISTORICAL RECORD


SUMMARY
-------

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 004817

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PGOV ETRD EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: EU ACCESSION NEGOTIATION TIMELINES: THE
HISTORICAL RECORD


SUMMARY
--------------


1. (SBU) The EU is now preparing for its sixth wave of
enlargement with the expected accession of Bulgaria and
Romania on 1 January 2007. Croatia and Turkey, and perhaps
Macedonia and other Balkan states, are waiting in the queue.
The only consistent lesson that can be drawn from looking at
the historical record is that the EU has traditionally
preferred to handle candidates in groups (Greece's accession
in January 1981 was the exception). There is considerable
variation in how quickly accession negotiations start after
agreement to open them, or how long it then takes for the
candidate countries to actually join the EU. END SUMMARY.

FROM APPROVAL TO OPENING OF NEGOTIATIONS
--------------


2. (U) In previous accessions, the amount of time it has
taken the EU (or its predecessor the EEC) to move from a
formal decision to begin negotiations to the actual
commencement of those negotiations has varied. For the
newest EU members from Central Europe, the time lag was
either 2 or 3 months. But the time has ranged anywhere from
just one month (in the case of Austria, Finland and Sweden in
1993) to six months (with Denmark, Ireland and the UK in
1970). The latter number, however, is in the process of
being extended as Croatia, which received a formal decision
to begin negotiations in June 2004, will have to wait at
least nine months to March 2005, or perhaps even more than a
year, for its negotiations to begin. (A table listing all
dates for previous enlargements can be found at
www.state.sgov.gov/p/useubrussels).

FROM BEGINNING NEGOTIATIONS TO ENTRY INTO THE EU
-------------- ---


3. (U) The variation among time lags for starting
negotiations, however, has no correlation to how long it has
taken candidates to join the EU. Again, Austria, Sweden and
Finland represent the fastest end of the range, with their
entry to the EU coming just twenty four months after
beginning negotiations. But the next fastest group was the
trio with the longest lead time prior to opening of
negotiations -- Denmark, Ireland and the UK -- who entered
the EU just 37 months from the date of beginning talks. At
the other end of the range are Spain, which waited just two

months to begin negotiations, but then spent 83 months, or
just under seven years, before joining the EU; and Portugal,
whose accession treaty negotiations and ratification took
over seven years (87 months) to complete.

WHY THE VARIANCE?
--------------


4. (U) It is no coincidence that the speediest accession
process involved Austria, Finland and Sweden. EU accession
is essentially about how quickly new Member States can commit
to applying the EU's body of laws and regulations (the
"acquis communitaire") and how quickly the EU is willing to
include the new Members in all of the EU's budgetary
programs, including agricultural, regional and cohesion
funds. Therefore, accession negotiations for small, open,
and thoroughly regulated rich economies that will become net
contributors to the EU budget (read: Austria, Sweden and
Finland, or, in the future, Iceland or Norway) can negotiate
entry quickly. These countries were helped by the fact that
their membership in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) meant
much of their legislation had already been adapted to EU
legislation. Bigger or poorer economies with far greater
tasks ahead to align their legislation, such as Spain or
Portugal, took longer to agree the various "transition
periods" required for full application of the acquis.


5. (U) Finally, the timetable for accession negotiations is
heavily influenced by political will within the EU. Six of
the ten new entrants of 2004 began their negotiations in
1998, while the other four only got underway in 2000. And
yet they all entered on the same date. This was because the
EU-15 decided it would be much easier to bring them in
together and adjust EU budgets, Commission assignments,
voting weights in the Council, or seats in the European
Parliament for the group as a whole rather than individually.
But this logic only goes so far. Bulgaria and Romania,
despite beginning negotiations just as quickly as Malta or
Lithuania in 2000, faced much larger administrative,
financial and economic hurdles than their classmates (not
least their impact on the EU budget),and will spend some two
and a half to three years longer securing their eventual
entry into the Union.

COMMENT
--------------


6. (SBU) Only wealthy countries can expect to negotiate entry
into the EU at all quickly. And even some relatively rich
countries (Cyprus, Malta) that would not demand much from the
EU budget have seen accession take many years when their
domestic structures and politics were complicated enough.
The real lesson from the historical record of EU accession is
that, in all 22 cases where the EU began accession
negotiations (including Norway, which later decided not to
join the EU),the EU has NEVER failed to finish them
successfully.

MCKINLEY