Mr. Miroslav Laj?k:

It is clear we need a fresh approach and out-of-the-box thinking because the old methodology is not producing the results we wish to see. I fully understand the Chair's fear of temporary solutions and the risk of ending up with a two- or three-speed Europe. At the same time, what I see on the side of a number of member states is fear of the ethical dilemma of enlargement versus functionality. We know how important the functionality of the EU is in these difficult times. I see that many member states are afraid that bringing new members in would further weaken our ability to decide swiftly. Of course, the issue of decision-making will have to be addressed but that is a very complex issue. Therefore, during this consultation period, and I am now speaking more in a personal capacity, countries of the western Balkans would be very happy to be able to sit at the table to discuss their European issues because normally, when these countries are invited, it is because we are talking about them. They would then believe we are serious and that their European future is a reality. Of course, under certain rules, it has to be defined when they will become fully fledged members because we do not want them to be second-class members. The issue of functionality is very much an issue in Brussels.

I thank Deputy Ó Murchú for his comments and remarks. I see he is very well oriented in complex Balkan affairs. The thesis or narrative that we need to get our house in order first and then deal with the Balkans has been around for many years and, unfortunately, has been responsible for the problems we have there. These countries cannot wait. They are real countries, and real people, political parties and political life are there. We cannot put them on the back burner and say, "Wait until we are ready for you" because when we are finally ready, they might no longer be ready for us. We have weakened European political forces in the region. We said five years ago that you cannot win elections in Europe running on the enlargement ticket. Now, you do not win elections in the Balkans running on the EU ticket. I believe the EU has the capacity to address both issues in parallel, that is, to deal with our own issues but at the same time to let the parties show how committed they are to meeting the criteria. We should not offer any short cuts or discounts. We should also not be moving the goalposts as we have done in the past.

It is a mistake to make politics out of entering into accession negotiations, which we do. Let these countries enter the process and let us be very demanding when they present the results because this is what is fully in our hands. We should make sure that when they progress and close chapters, they have met all the criteria. This is a political decision but it should not be politicised. Again, we should not allow political games to be played by letting issues be put in the way of these countries making progress. It is a dilemma because we have a commitment to the region but the region is not ready. I even dare to say it is less ready, or less committed, than five years ago. Still, I do not think there is a better solution than full membership and, therefore, we need to make sure the process is credible and, at the end of the process, these countries are fully ready to join. This will improve our credibility and strengthen pro-European forces in the western Balkans. This game of pretending, which we both play, has produced the results where we have more past than future in the political agenda in the Balkans.

On third actors, they use the space we leave empty for them. We have the capacity to fill the political, economic, social and cultural space. If we do not engage, then others do. That is why we cannot blame these countries for that. The credibility of the European agenda and European future is the right answer. China is present in six of the western Balkan countries, mostly through investment.

There is no clear geopolitical strategy, other than just to be there in case. Chinese investment in the region has been a big failure in most cases, through not meeting the deadlines, the price ceilings or environmental standards. I would say that each Chinese investment is a good reason for not going into the next Chinese investment. Of course, the Montenegrin highway is the most striking exercise, but there are investments in Serbia, which are problematic, and people protest against them. There is a highway in North Macedonia that goes from nowhere to nowhere and nobody remembers when it was signed and how it will end. I would therefore not be overly worried.

Russia is a different story. Russia has a concrete political agenda, which is to prevent the Euro-Atlantic orientation of the region, to prevent enlargement of NATO and even to eventually get some countries out of NATO if possible, and spread disinformation about the European Union policy. It is present through an army of trolls, journalists and politicians, whom they pay. It has local TV and radio stations, and uses every mistake we make, or lack of clarity in our policies, to contribute to the mess that is there. The best answer, therefore, is for us to be credible and clear and to give the region the feeling that we are serious about it and its European future.