Širitev Evropske unije: ali navdušenje hlapi?

Marjan Svetličič (Author), Andreja Jaklič (Author)

Abstract

V EU zaradi (proračunkih) stroškov, medtem ko pri kandidatkah kot posledica težav v procesih pogajanj in razočaranj, ker se ne uresničujejo prvotne iluzije navdušenje pada. Položaj danes podoben tistemu v času ustanavljanja ES za premog in jeklo, ko so prevladovali politični in varnostnirazlogi. Zato bi tudi danes kazalo izdelati študijo posledic neširitve, ker so ti stroški lahko višji kot stroški širitve. Širitev EU je namreč koristna za obe strani, njeni stroški so majhni v primerjavi z dividendami miru ali stroški kmetijske politike in v primerjavi z dolgoročnimi koristmi. Širitev ni darilo, kot menijo nekateri, pač pa sredstvo politične in varnostne staibilizacije Evrope, povrnitve Evrope na svetovni zemljevid kot velesile in sredstvo krepitve konkurenčnosti Evrope. Legitimnostni problem sedanje širitve je, da zaobsega najmanj razvite kandidatke medtem, ko so pogoji vstopa najtrši. Širitev pa bi morala biti instrument razvoja ne pa njegova posledica. Neproduktivno je, da se med kandidatkami vrši lepotno tekmovanje, katera bo prva vstopila v EU. Zaželena bi bila krepitev medsebojnega sodelovanja.

Keywords

Evropska unija;članstvo;Vzhodna Evropa;Srednja Evropa;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	1999
Typology:	1.01 - Original Scientific Article
Organization:	UL FDV - Faculty of Social Sciences
Publisher:	Fakulteta za sociologijo, politične vede in novinarstvo v Ljubljani
UDC:	339.9
COBISS:	19128413
ISSN:	0040-3598
Parent publication:	Teorija in praksa
Views:	977
Downloads:	149
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	Unknown
Secondary abstract:	It seems that enthusiasm over extending European Union is vanishing among the member-states, as well as among the candidates. The reasons are various; member-states are worried about the (budgetary) costs, while the candidates face many difficulties in the negotiation processes and are disappointed, since the primary illusions do not realise. This is a worrying situation, similar to the times of establishing European community for coal and steel, when political and security reasons prevailed. It would be useful today to carry out the study of consequences for the case the process of extending EU would not be realised. Extending EU would be useful for both sides, its costs are negligible in comparison with dividends of peace, costs of agricultural policy and long-term benefits. Extension is not a gift, as some believe, but a mean of political and security stabilisation of Europe, bringing Europe back on the world map as a 'superpower' and the mean of strengthening the Europe's competitive position. However, there is a legitimative problem, since the listof candidates includes less developed countries, while the conditions of entrance are severe. Extending EU should be an instrument of development and not its consequence. It is unproductive to perform 'beauty contest' among the candidates, which would enter the EU first. The strengthening mutual co-operation would be more welcomed.
Secondary keywords:	European union;membership;Eastern Europe;Central Europe;
URN:	URN:NBN:SI
Type (COBISS):	Not categorized
Pages:	str. 181-202
Volume:	ǂLet. ǂ36
Issue:	ǂšt. ǂ2
Chronology:	april 1999
ID:	1749750