The effective implementation of the acquis communautaire is not only a  8  BIS Review 2/2003  legal prerequisite for accession to the EU. It also implies the effective transformation of accession countries’ economic framework, which should facilitate their integration into the EU and, later, the euro area. In this context, it should be ensured that there is no discrepancy between the central banks’ formal status in the legislation and the implementation of that legislation. It is of utmost importance that all present and future Member States respect this economic and institutional ground rule of the European framework. –  Sixthly, let us not forget the present and future contribution of Central and Eastern European countries to the economic prosperity of Europe at large. It seems that this contribution might be sometimes underestimated, while the relative influence of the US economy, for instance, might be sometimes overestimated. In fact, transition economies, as a whole, are as important as the US in terms of external demand addressed to the euro area: they both enjoy the same share, i.e. 13% of our exports. And, during the last two years, transition economies contributed for two-thirds to the overall growth of our total external demand, while the US contributed for less than 0.1%. More generally speaking, Central and Eastern Europe countries are already major contributors to the overall growth on the European continent. In 2001, despite the international context, they remained at quite high a level of growth, around 2.8%.
The sustainability of nominal convergence itself presumes that sufficient preliminary progress has been made towards real and structural convergence (and namely having set a fully-fledged market economy, catching-up in income and productivity levels, as well as economic and social infrastructures, upgrading of the legal system…). Conversely, a sustainable catching-up process requires macroeconomic stability. Therefore, nominal and real convergence should be pursued in parallel, and are not antagonistic. –  Secondly, I noted that several accession countries have already expressed their intention to join ERM II rapidly after EU entry. This intention is to be welcomed, although it should be clear that ERM II membership needs neither to happen immediately after EU accession in all cases, nor to be limited to only two years, which is the minimum before adopting the euro. It would be totally misleading to consider ERM II as a mere “waiting room” before the euro. On the very contrary, ERM II membership allows countries to retain some limited exchange rate flexibility during the catching-up process and offers a meaningful, flexible and credible framework for increasing nominal and real convergence with the euro area, and for helping determine the appropriate level for the eventual irrevocable fixation of parities, in the best interest of candidate countries themselves. To enter the Eurozone is a very important, very grave and irrevocable act. Neither the accession country concerned nor the Eurozone could afford the risks associated with a mistaken decision. –  Thirdly, accession countries must strengthen their fiscal and external positions.