valid question . For Ukrainian accession , I am insisting on investing in the best possible enlargement process , with both the European Union and Ukraine being well prepared for it .
I remember conversations with French and German MEPs regarding the growing inequalities after 2004 and their expectations that the very sharing in the same legal project would generate feelings of belonging , inclusivity and responsibility . That was good to hear but I expected that , in reality , solidarity would be put to a serious test after 2004 . I was not only thinking in terms of institutional or collective solidarity , based on law , but also solidarity on a personal level , between citizens . That was probably due to the fact that , in the new Member States , solidarity was seen as being based on emotion rather than on shared values .
The idea of the boundaries of solidarity popped up in the context of support from the European budget for the newcomers . It is true that , throughout the history of enlargement , the newcomers have always grown faster than the older members , also thanks to the solidarity-based policies . Of course , enlargements have never been only about economic benefits from trade and the single market for old and new Member States . And we all know , only too well , that , for the 2004 newcomers , the EU was an anchor ensuring that all the reforms put in place as they transitioned to democracy and a market economy would be irreversible .
The treaties had to be changed but there was relatively little change in the European institutions , beyond adjustments of size , which could hardly be seen as reform . This was true for the European Commission , where 10 new Commissioners were added and shared responsibilities with the functioning college until the next election cycle . It was true for the European Parliament , which was joined by observers appointed by national parliaments , from the
123