[Comment] How big can the EU be?
"If member states can be represented by bricks in a wall, then the more bricks there are the more cement you need to hold them together" (Photo: wikipedia)
PETER SAIN LEY BERRY
17.11.2006 @ 09:12 CET
EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - How big should the European Union be? This question, childlike and beguiling, lies at the root of a whole series of issues with which Europe's leaders are now grappling. It is fundamental to concerns over enlargement; about how the EU takes decisions; to neighbourhood policy; to institutional reform; to future budgets. In short it informs, one way or another, the whole process of the future European construction and of European integration.
It is also the one question that is being dodged. Like an uncomfortable boil that no one wants to lance, it is being dodged by the member states in the European Council and by the European Commission. It is being dodged by the candidate and aspirant states and it is being dodged in the debate with the European public about the future of the Union.
It is, of course, a very difficult question to answer and, moreover, one which has profound consequences. The easy and safe thing to do is to put off any discussion whatsoever. This the Commission prefers to do.
A perfect parliamentary answer
"Are there final borders (to) Europe or will enlargement continue forever?" was the opaque interrogatory it provided in its 'Questions and Answers on the Union's Enlargement Strategy' on 8 November. The three paragraph answer merely said that any state that thinks itself European may apply, but doesn't have to if it doesn't want to. True, but at the same time meaningless: a perfect Parliamentary Answer.
Among the candidates it is easy to see why Macedonia, for instance, should argue that its small 2 million population would hardly be noticed among the other 470 million European citizens. Or Croatia should argue that a small amendment to the Treaty of Nice is all that need practically stand between it and accession. Surely there is enough space in the European lifeboat for one more state?
This argument is not easy to resist. Such arguments never are. But resist it we should until we have addressed the fundamental question 'How big should the EU be?' For without answering it we cannot address the wider issue of institutional reform on which further enlargement now hangs.
The European Union will meet its 50th anniversary in March next year with institutions designed originally for six states. At the time they provided the fledgling community with a unique model for democratic co-operation based on the rule of law. They have since been strikingly successful. Successive minor reforms enabled the institutions to adapt healthily to 15 states.
Strains of expansion
But we are now at 25 states and shortly 27. The further constitutional reforms deemed necessary to accommodate these states have not been ratified. The strains of expansion are starting to show.
If member states can be represented by bricks in a wall, then the more bricks there are the more cement you need to hold them together. If the bricks are the widening of the Union, so the cement represents its deepening. If you simply add bricks without an accompanying measure of cement the whole edifice is at risk of collapse. Adding more states within the existing structure simply dilutes the existing bonds and reduces the effectiveness of the Union even further. The candidate states need to appreciate this.
Yet even if, and it remains a big 'if', the constitutional treaty is resurrected successfully under the German Presidency next spring and then subsequently ratified (an even bigger 'if') we shall still be left with the question of how to manage effectively a Union of 40 states.
Mr Barroso seems to think that these institutional questions will be resolved shortly. "I am confident that the elements are in place for a major breakthrough" he told the European Parliament this week. I am not so sure. I suspect that without some resolution of the question of the future size of the EU, there will be no ratification of any constitutional treaty.
Addressing the big question
So what can be done in the meantime? We can begin to address the question of how big the Union should be and how it might be run. And this debate neither need nor should be confined to the present member states. The march of history is such that it seems unlikely now that the Union will stop short of eventually embracing most states that could possibly be described as European.
Besides the Balkans that will include Turkey, the Ukraine and the Caucasus. President Mikhail Saakashvili - who looks far too young to be the President of Georgia - expounded his country's eventual EU entry aspirations to the European Parliament this week. But what sort of Union will this be? What sort of government must it have? This is the debate that we need to start.
What is certain is that while writing constitutions is relatively easy, persuading a sceptical public to ratify them is somewhat harder. That is not going to happen quickly. Nor must it be allowed to happen by stealth. Institutional reform within the EU will proceed only at the pace the public will allow. And that will be slow.
So where does that leave Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey? These countries need a democratic framework to ensure their stability, a common regulatory structure within which their markets can develop, drivers for the reform of human rights. They need to be members of a community, of a union. This part of the analysis is surely correct and more than correct, pressing.
Yet if the EU could recognise the prospect of an eventual membership of 40 or so states, that would immediately create a geographically proximate community, of 13 states, broadly of common economic standing, all working for the same goal of eventual EU entry. Would this community not benefit from establishing common institutions through which to negotiate with the EU, and others, to drive internal reforms and to provide mutual stability?
Such an Eastern European community, that might one day adhere to the existing EU as a bloc, could provide its members with most benefits that they now expect to derive from EU membership. This solution may not be what those countries want most, but it might be the most practical way forward in the short term, both for them and for us.
The author is editor of EuropaWorld
