---

European Union (Accessions) Bill

My hon. Friend’s observation is right. I would make the further observation that, although he and I think that extending the rich man’s club is desirable, there are arguments among the rich men about how much they should pay and what they should get. That is one of the things that people are looking at in Romania, and I hope to say more about that, although I do not want to abuse the time available. The people whom I met in 1997 were told that the EU was about common purpose, being positive and so on. Today, they will be assessing that against how they see what is happening in the EU from the south-east of Europe. They will be looking at issues such as the constitution. For me, the constitution was about managing the EU better. That view is not held by all hon. Members. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the constitution was about the EU’s powers and the relative powers of the different EU institutions. We have the luxury, in a civilised and relatively prosperous place, to look at the EU like that, as part of a genuine political debate, but it is not a matter of life and death; nor is it about the future of our society. For people in Bulgaria and Romania, this is a matter of the future of their society, and we have already heard about the economic power of those countries and their GDP per capita. They are asking what accession will mean. I do not know whether they saying that the powers will change, or whether they are looking for a better management structure, but that question will be asked keenly, especially when the various technicians in those countries consider how to meet the acquis. They will also consider the budget. They will say, ““We are relatively poor people. What will being in the EU be like for us? Do we know the budget’s overall size?”” We probably do know the budget’s size—we have debated the 1 per cent. figure in the House before—and people in Romania and Bulgaria in south-east Europe will look at the EU and say, ““We know the budget’s overall size.”” Pleasingly, they will be able to see that virtually everyone in the EU is committed to moving the funding away from western Europe and towards the eastern European side of the EU. However, they cannot yet work out what will happen between 2007 and 2013—to which reference was made during Question Time—so although they will know that they will not be major contributors, they will not know how much they will receive to develop their economies and their society. That is an important issue in Romania and Bulgaria, when we are trying to persuade people that the EU is a good thing and that there is a need to work hard to meet the acquis. People in Bulgaria and Romania will also ask about the implications of other questions. If they join the EU, how will they relate to their neighbours? Will Croatia or Turkey become part of the EU in the future? What policy implications will that have for Bulgaria and Romania? Those questions are not yet answered, but looking from south-east Europe, both the Bulgarians and the Romanians can say that there is a relatively enlightened view about those matters. There is a willingness to extend the EU into areas such as Croatia and Turkey, but what the conditions will be and which acquis they must meet are unknown. However, that will generally be a positive thing when people in Romania and Bulgaria consider how they might achieve the acquis. The most important thing for the people of Romania and Bulgaria will be the fact that joining the European Union will lead to an irreversible shift in the political situation in which those countries and peoples find themselves. If they join the European Union, they will know that there will be no return to the communism or neo-fascism that led to all the horrors that they had to face for 30 to 40 years. The people of Romania and Bulgaria will know that joining the European Union will mean one zone, one political culture, one democracy and one set of human rights, and that will convince them of the necessary way forward.