The enlargement of the EU to the East is hailed by the leaders of Europe as its greatest achievement. A majority of the public would probably disagree. Whilst the spread of democracy and prosperity is seen by the elite (for want of a better word) as cementing peace and stability for all, the general publimc see competition for jobs and housing from the influx of migrant workers. I believe enlargement and the perceived threat from Polish plumbers and their ilk was an important element in French and Dutch rejection of the proposed EU constitution in 2005. Though the tide of migrant workers into Britain has receded the issue of immigration is still there as a potential flash point for anti-EU feeling. Croatia and Serbia are now in line for membership of the EU. There should be no problem with their accession. But France and Austria have promised a referendum if Turkey ever reaches the threshold. Unless attitudes change in the meantime the vote will be negative. While I seem to be very much in a minority among those of my friends who discuss this, I too would vote against Turkey’s membership. Turkey’s size would mean a major presence in EU councils and its agenda could be quite different from the majority of members with its economic underdevelopment and geographical and political position. As a member it would eventually have to enjoy the benefits of free movement of people and, again, the size of the potential influx of migrant workers into the west would turn the general public against the EU and all its works. The high-paid people w ho make decisions in the EU must recognise these downside aspects of democracy!
*****
After the embarrassing underestimate of migrant numbers with the 2004 enlargement it was sensible to delay an open border policy when it came to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria at the beginning of 2006. There have been other challenges too with their membership. Despite years of pre-accession talks and agreements on the provisions of the acquis communautaire, their record on stamping out corruption has not been satisfactory. The Commission has withheld development funds as a result. That has been probably a better response than delaying their membership until conditions were fully met.
*****
Back in 2002, before enlargement and just before the referendums in each country, I took myself around central Europe to meet business people, academics and citizen groups. Knowing very little about these countries at the time, I was keen to explore their attitudes towards the coming change. This was perhaps an amateur effort, but at least I met real people. I heard about how endemic corruption is and how it thrives on unemployment and low wages for civil servants and academics. I heard about how divided society is after years of fascism followed by years of communism followed by years of pretty raw capitalism. It was clear that some were expecting too much from the EU and others were fearful and ready to blame it for their problems. At best people could see no alternative. It was a shallow basis for success.
I have been back since and spoken to and corresponded with some of the people I met. Again I cannot claim a statistical survey, but the comments are disturbingly similar. Some people have clearly done very well out of enlargement, but have the majority? On the surface things look good. Budapest, for example, is altogether smarter; the shops are full, public buildings have been cleaned, there are big cars cruising around. But the health system and welfare state generally I am told has been denuded of funds. Now money talks. There is disillusionment with what the EU has brought.
*****
When all is said and done, and the pluses and minuses have been added up, surely we can say that enlargement has been a great success. It has spread democracy in place of dictatorship, extending human rights - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association etc.. Today it might be forgotten that Spain, Portugal and Greece were only allowed to join the Union in the 1980’s when they had rid themselves of dictators. In the 1990’s, who could doubt that if the Balkan countries had been in the EU the suspicions and intolerance which led to the vicious civil wars would have been exorcised. When it comes to the Central European countries who acceded in 2004, democracy has been a fragile flower since they regained independence after WWI. In the 1930’s it gave way to semi-fascist nationalism and, after communism, governments were unstable. Accession to the EU has not changed things in that respect so far, but at least it could be argued there is a more stable framework.
*****
Discussions with Croatia and Serbia have now begun with a view to their joining the Union. The start was delayed until they cooperated in apprehending alleged war criminals from the fighting in the 1990’s. Each country will be expected to adopt all the EU laws enacted so far, all the directives and regulations under over 30 “chapters” of the acquis communautaire covering justice, taxation, human rights, etc. One issue not covered is how these small countries will be accommodated into the decision-making processes of the EU. At some stage the problems must be faced of how to get decisions made when there will be over 30 members of the club round the table. And on important issues each has a veto! You would not run a local tennis club with that sort of constitution.