| dc.description.abstract | The 2004 European Union (EU) enlargement resulted in the expansion of the EU from 15 to
25 member states. Academic literature on the 2004 enlargement often focuses either on the
post-2004 effects of the enlargement, or the history of the enlargement from the perspective of
candidate countries or EU institutions. However, the perspective and enlargement debates of
Western European countries on the 2004 enlargement is frequently understudied.
This thesis addresses the perspective of Western European countries on the 2004 enlargement
by taking the Netherlands as a case study. The central question formulated was: How did
discussions on the 2004 EU enlargement develop within the Dutch parliament and government
between 1997 and 2004? The study analysed 121 Dutch parliamentary and governmental
records which were obtained by a systematic search in the official archive and information
service of the Dutch public authorities and government, overheid.nl. The discourse framework
of Helen Sjursen on EU enlargement was used for the analysis, focusing on two types of
enlargement discourses: the pragmatic discourse and the identity discourse.
The findings show that, until the Nice Treaty in 2001, Dutch enlargement debates primarily
focussed on EU institutional reforms, which were seen as a necessary step before enlargement
with new countries could take place. After 2001, the focus of the debate shifted towards citizen
engagement (notably discussing referenda), and concerns about the lack of progress of
candidate countries in adopting EU standards (i.e. the Copenhagen criteria). Key enlargement
topics for Dutch politicians throughout 1997-2004 included the Common Agricultural Policy
reforms and concerns regarding individual candidates, notably Cyprus and, after 2001,
Poland. The results show that Dutch politicians across the political spectrum employed a
mixture of identity and pragmatic discourses. The progressive/left-wing parties leaned more
heavily on identity arguments, often to emphasise the political benefits of enlargement or to
critique human rights standards in candidate countries. In contrast, conservative/right-wing
parties favoured a pragmatic discourse when critiquing the enlargement process, typically
highlighting the risks of enlargement to Dutch national interests. Finally, the two largest
political parties between 1997-2004, Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA) and Christen Democratisch
Appèl (CDA), used a balanced mix of both discourses in their positions on the 2004
enlargement. | |
