Neale Richmond (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank them very much for their contribution. I am a strong believer in a deepening and widening of the European project. Ultimately, this is the greatest peace project in the history of mankind and the further we widen it into former conflict zones, the better for everyone.

Looking at the accession process, however, a concern I have which I raised with Mr. Kiely when he was here to talk about the future of Europe is the return for the accession process. If the ultimate aim is European membership and acceding to the European Union, that is great, but what happens in the meantime? What are the tangible rewards for coming to terms with the Copenhagen criteria? I think specifically of the case of Turkey, which Senator Craughwell mentioned. How long has Turkey been waiting? One could argue that it has been waiting since the 1960s, when Ireland, the UK, Denmark, and Norway first considered joining, yet nothing has moved. Has that changed the political impression in Turkey in recent years? Perhaps there is an element of frustration. Erdoan and his new brand of Islamic nationalism has forced them to look away from the European dream and to say perhaps the EU will never let them in and what is the point in bothering if the EU is just going to keep Turkey at arm's length. What can we do to show that there is not just an accession process but a step 1, step 2, step 3 and they come with certain rewards and goals as well as ultimate accession? We cannot just say the door is open.

If we look at the timeline for the expansion of the EEC, as it was, starting with our own accession in 1973, the longest we have ever gone without a new member state joining is nine years. It is five years since the Croats joined. I do not know if one of the applicant countries from the western Balkans will make it into the European Union in the next four years. How long will it be until we do extend the club, as such? We know it is going to shrink in about a year's time, whether we like it or not, but we do have to be prepared to broaden out and make sure that we are equipped, because many would argue that in 2007 we were too quick to let Bulgaria and Romania in, and perhaps they were not ready at that stage and, indeed, their economies suffered. Significant issues still remain in Romania, in particular with corruption. We heard that mentioned in the remarks of the witnesses.

I wish to speak to one country specifically, namely, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It ties in with what I have said. When I was on the European Committee of the Regions I was on the joint consultative committee, JCC, for that country and I travelled there a number of times and hosted delegations of local authority members from that region in Brussels. I did not quite manage to get them to Dublin but my former colleague, Hughie McGrath, did bring a group to Nenagh to show them the sights and sounds of that part of Ireland. When I was there it was at the height of the refugee migration crisis, which we are still experiencing, and there were mayors and local authority figures from a relatively poor country dealing with an avalanche of people trying to go through their country to get to the European Union. They were only passing through. They were not staying but the supports they were receiving from the European Union were small and did not meet their needs. They felt they were being used to an extent and, ultimately, they were told that it was all part of the process and one day they would be part of the European Union.

We can only treat countries in the region like that for so long, because the conflict in Syria is not ending, the refugee crisis is ongoing, and the civil war has been going on for seven years. If we are expecting accession countries to filter migration into the European Union and telling them that one day they will get a chance to join the great Union, after a while they will get pretty sick of just kind words on future accession. There have to be tangible rewards that can work both ways, that can be of benefit to the European Union as well as the accession countries. The challenge for the future of Europe debate is to formalise that relationship and put it down so it is quite obvious and clear to the layman in the accession countries or the remaining 27 member states what the accession process requires. We know that through the Copenhagen criteria, but what do countries get in return through the total process and not just the end result?