Mr. Miroslav Laj?k:

I am aware that Ireland has traditionally been a strong supporter of the European Union, and of enlargement. I thank it for that. The issue of staged accession or gradual integration has been circulating around the European institutions. There are several known interesting papers produced by serious think-tanks, which have not yet made their way into the system to be discussed. I suggest we look into this. The bottom line is basically to bring the countries into the room whenever possible under existing treaties, so they are part of our life and can see that we are serious. They will also get used to how the EU works, and we will get used to their presence and learn about their views on our issues.

I think it is still too early to assess what the European Political Community will become. We had two meetings, and they were seen as positive first and foremost because there were no formal documents adopted. There were no negotiations about declarations or anything. It was an opportunity for the leaders to have informal discussions. In Chiinu, in particular, the side events or the bilateral discussions were dominating over the plenary session. Whether this is good enough for this project to survive I am not sure yet. It certainly should not turn into a permanent waiting room for those who want to join the European Union. It should stay separate from the European accession process. If it becomes a platform where EU and NATO member states have the chance to engage with future potential candidate member states, that is fine. However, so far there is little substance to define what will be the future of this project. As I have said, we have to be clear about what we do not want this to be, that is, an alternative or plan B.

The Deputy asked where the resistance is coming from. There are several factors, both objective and subjective. First of all, objectively the big bang enlargement in 2004 did not prove to be as much of a success as initially expected. As has been mentioned, we have problems with the rule of law in some member states and some member states are bringing bilateral issues onto the European agenda. There is also the issue of social dumping. The presence of cheaper labour from central and eastern European countries has created issues in some traditional western European members of the Union. Of course, the prospect of enlarging the European Union further clearly brings with it the prospect of more labour coming and offering its services for a cheaper price, which is not appreciated. There are also issues with people using and misusing the social system and so on.

There is also the issue of functionality. It is a natural instinct for member states to ask how countries can contribute to the EU's greater functionality if a region or some of the countries in it are dysfunctional. They see that regional co-operation is limited, so they ask for proof that these countries will be able to function in a wider family of 30-plus countries. This is a relevant issue that cannot be easily dismissed. That is why the answer is a credible accession process, based on real reforms and progress, and not on papers and promises.

On the subject of Russia's influence, it is of course present, but to a different extent. I would say it is most strongly present in Serbia, with a wide network in terms of its presence in different segments of society. It also has a presence in Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where President Dodik overplays the Russian card, and positions himself as the number one Russian player in the region.

Russia has the least influence - it is almost non-existent - in Kosovo and Albania. Due their past and their clear orientation, these countries do not open space for Russia. Russia is present in North Macedonia and is trying to influence the debate on crucial issues. For example, Russia played an active and unfair role during the time of the ratification of the Prespa agreement. It is different. Russia uses every opportunity, every crack in the wall and every hole to enter and spread its narrative, which is dangerous and contradicts our narrative.