How many pauses does the EU need? September 29, 2006
Posted by Kirsty Hughes in Blogroll, EU, Kirsty Hughes.trackback
This week, the head of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso announced that, with the agreement to allow Bulgaria and Romania to join the EU on January 1st next year (despite their still dubious records on corruption), it was time for the Union to have an ‘enlargement pause’. A couple of weeks before he’d told the Financial Times in an interview that the Union shouldn’t be obsessed with its comatose constitution but must get on with real politics. But now he says enlargement must pause while the EU obsesses with its comatose constitution (quote: “I do not think it would be wise to proceed with any enlargements before we have resolved the constitutional issue in Europe”.) Well who said politicians have to be consistent? <
Keen followers of the EU will of course remember that, after the French and Dutch voters expressed their clear and negative view of the bloc’s putative constitution in summer 2005, the EU’s leaders decided the best response to this raspberry from the voters was a ‘pause for reflection’. Having reflected for a year and being still stumped, the leaders this June decided ‘pausing and reflecting’ was so good, they would do it for another year (i.e. wait for a new French president to be elected in mid-2007 and hope he or she could point a way out of the mess).
So while the EU is pausing, doubtfully, on its constitution, Barroso apparently now thinks it should pause too on enlargement. Which merits the simple response: ‘why’? Given that the Union is already in membership negotiations with Croatia and Turkey, given that Macedonia has candidate status, and not least given that the EU is wondering how to avoid a crisis in its negotiations with Turkey this autumn (over Turkey’s refusal to open its ports to Greek Cypriot shipping – always the big issues for EU crises), why does Barroso call for an enlargement pause?
Did he discuss it with his 24 colleagues who are meant to act collectively with him in representing the European interest? No (in fact the Commission is due to discuss enlargement on 12th October, but if you’re its president why wait?). Did he get a steer from the 25 heads of state on this? Well, no again, because the 25 leaders are all working up to a mega discussion on enlargement at their December summit: what to do about Turkey and ports, what to do about the – new buzz word – ‘absorption capacity’ of the EU (previously known as the impact of having more member states), what to do about problem states like Serbia (still refusing/failing to catch Mladic) etc.
And the EU’s leaders don’t agree at all on all this. France has gone hugely off enlargement (well and was never that keen in the first place, seeing eastward enlargement to the former Communist countries as reducing its influence and status as the EU’s key political leader). German politicians and public are suffering enlargement fatigue too while the UK is gung-ho keen as ever, and countries like Finland and Spain still think enlargement is an important part of the Union’s foreign policy towards its neighbours.
So why is Barroso letting off steam so early – because calling for a pause won’t impress candidates Croatia and Turkey. And it certainly won’t help the political mood in Turkey where public and politicians are saying ’sorry EU but could you explain again why we have to open our ports to Greek Cypriot ships but the Greek Cypriots can block the Turkish Cypriots from trading out of their ports with the EU?’.
And anyway, even if Croatian and Turkish negotiations go smoothly (which they won’t) at the earliest Croatia could get in around 2011 and Turkey certainly not before 2015. So actually there’s no need for a pause because there’s no chance of a new member joining before 2011 which is 5 years away (how long can a pause be?).
And what anyway does a pause mean – because Barroso didn’t seem to be saying stop negotiating with Croatia and Turkey. So the conclusion for now seems to be that Barroso’s call for a pause was meaningless. So why did he do it?
Well, rather large numbers of Brussels denizens, including those dusty souls working inside the European Commission under Mr Barroso, will tell you for free that although a new Commission president won’t be chosen until 2009, our Mr Barroso is already doing all he can to polish his record and get the message out that he’d like a second term. And if the French are going off enlargement and the Germans too are starting to say it could be time to define the EU’s borders (as Chancellor Merkel did just last week), then what better way to get onside with these two key member states than come out with anti-enlargement comments?
Of course, this means putting to one side the Commission’s normal role in enlargement which is to drive the process forward once the EU’s leaders have said negotiations can start. And it means putting to one side the need, much emphasised by the same leaders, that the public needs to be well informed on enlargement in future and understand its benefits (because it’s a bit hard to tell voters it’s a good thing but we need a pause even though there’s nothing to pause on because no one’s coming in for half a decade).
But if politicians are looking for re-election and re-appointment, then who cares about serious foreign policy concerns including relations with neighbours such as Croatia (emerging relatively successfully from the war torn 90s), ditto Macedonia, or Turkey (a modernising, democratising secular country in a key geostrategic position and with a Muslim population)? Who cares – well apparently not Barroso.
I hate to look as a lazy commentator, but it´s few times in life that a Council Presidency can be quoted in support without the need of adding anything. See the following: Brussels, 29/09/2006 (Agence Europe) – The Finnish Prime Minister and current President of the European Council Matti Vanhanen has refuted the suggestion by Commission President José Manuel Barroso that, after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007, there should be no further EU enlargement to allow the 27 Member States to carry out the appropriate institutional reforms. Only then could potential new Member States, like Croatia and the other Balkan countries, be considered (see EUROPE 9272 and 9273 on the statement of Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn). Certainly, EU absorption capacity was an “important consideration” which had to taken into account alongside the Copenhagen criteria, “but it should not lead to further conditions being set for enlargement,” Mr Vanhanen told the Finnish Parliament, where, on Thursday, he was taking stock of the first half of the Finnish Presidency. “We already have one reflection period, for the Constitution. It would be a huge set-back for Europe to launch another one for enlargement. In practice this would mean shutting the door in Croatia’s face, even though it is a deserving candidate,” he said. He also underlined the need keep the prospect of the Balkan countries’ joining the EU real and “tangible”. “We need to maintain a policy that keeps the EU open to countries that are willing and able. If we set further conditions – conditions internal to the EU that potential candidate countries cannot influence – we risk demoralising deserving candidates, for whom the prospect of EU membership, however distant, is a strong incentive to reform and live up to European standards”. He concluded by saying that current enlargement policy, based on objective criteria, was a “success” and should continue to be pursued as it was.