After Copenhagen: making enlargement a reality

After Copenhagen: making enlargement a reality

Great expectations

There was a buzz in the air at the Bibliothèque Solvay when a completely full house assembled to hear the Friends of Europe debating how to make enlargement a reality. EU Commissioner for Enlargement Günter Verheugen called for patience, Unilever Chairman Antony Burgmans suggested we reach the hearts and minds of the citizens while Alexander Rondos, Ambassador of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, warned against putting our heads in the sand as we would get our backsides kicked. One thing is certain, this debate will run and run.

A monumental achievement

Günter Verheugen, EU Commissioner for Enlargement, argued that the success of the enlargement process had demonstrated the advantages of the community method, while adding that the EU’s new citizens needed time to assimilate the EU’s many rules and regulations. Antony Burgmans, Chairman of Unilever and the European Round Table (ERT) Enlargement Committee, referred to the process as a monumental achievement but warned against it leading to a further drain on Europe’s competitiveness and being used as an excuse for failing to meet the Lisbon goals. Looking beyond the EU’s borders, Alexander Rondos, Ambassador of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, gave strong support to Turkey’s entry into the EU and called for imagination to be shown in addressing the EU’s emerging cultural differences. Marek Grela, Poland’s Ambassador to the EU, described Poland’s reaction to events as realistic, given that the results had not been extremely favourable for his country. Following a lively debate, Giles Merritt referred to enlargement as an open-ended process and quoted the Centre for European Reform’s Heather Grabbe, who had called it just one stage in the refashioning of Europe’s decision-making processes.

Where are we going?

There was an air of expectation at the Bibliothèque Solvay when almost 200 europhiles assembled to hear Friends of Europe’s Secretary General Giles Merritt open the debate entitled ‘After Copenhagen: Making Enlargement a Reality’. Mr. Merritt emphasised that the debate would focus on making enlargement work and reach its full potential. Co-moderator, European Report journalist Peter O’Donnell, talked of enlargement’s honeymoon period being already over with Copenhagen only a distant memory. Setting the scene, O’Donnell said it would be extremely difficult with Rumania and Bulgaria on their way, Turkey determined not to be ignored and many other candidates waiting for their invitations to the club.

Günter Verheugen, EU Commissioner for Enlargement, opened the debate with he questions posed by German philosopher Ernst Bloch – “Where do we come from? Where are we going? What awaits us? ” Answering the first question, Verheugen declared that no one had believed that enlargement had been possible given the political and economic circumstances, but “everything had fallen into place”.

While Verheugen saw no problems in the future political process, with the Accession Treaty due to be signed in April 2003, he questioned whether the process would gain sufficient credibility through a show of support at the forthcoming referendums in the accession countries.

Turning to lessons learnt, Verheugen argued that the enlargement process had demonstrated the advantages of the community method. It had found a fair balance between the objectives of the member states and candidate countries, and had shown that the EU could achieve foreign policy objectives.

Verheugen declared that there must be a better analysis of the social consequences of such processes. The commissioner acknowledged that it would be hard for the citizens of the accession countries to understand the new rules and the EU’s policies and procedures, and asked for the EU to sh ow patience.

Verheugen also suggested that at the time of future accessions (when candidate countries would be checked for compliance with EU regulations), the opportunity could be seized to remove some of the unnecessary EU legislation.

Summing up, Verheugen said there would be major changes, as Russia and Ukraine become close neighbours of the EU. Although Verheugen argued that it was time to consolidate – institutionally, politically and geographically – there was also a need to explain to our new neighbours how co-operation could proceed.

The business view

Antony Burgmans, Chairman of Unilever and the European Round Table (ERT) Enlargement Committee, prefaced his remarks by saying that Commissioner Verheugen had been extremely modest, as he had played a major role in a monumental achievement. Burgmans stressed that both Unilever and the ERT were strong supporters of enlargement, and answered one of Bloch’s questions overlooked by Verheugen (who are we?), declaring that we are Europeans.

However, Burgmans insisted that several open issues remained:

• we must reach the hearts and minds of our new citizens, for if they disconnect from the European cause, it could lead to fragmentation
• the acquis communautaire must be implemented rigorously, “any differentiation within the EU would be a disincentive for business”.
• the enlargement process (with its 75 million new citizens) must not be allowed to have a negative impact on the EU’s ability to meet the Lisbon goals
• the European institutions should have clearly defined roles and responsibilities.

Burgmans argued that Europe was becoming “a secondary continent” with US salaries now some 50% higher than those in Europe. In this context, Burgmans warned against enlargement leading to a “further drain on Europe’s competitiveness”. For Burgmans, there was “little chance” of reaching the goal of spending 3% of GDP on R&D, as agreed in Barcelona, when we are spending heavily on low-tech industries such as agriculture. Speaking personally, Burgmans declared that Europe “badly needs a Senate similar to the US model”. He added that European citizens want to feel that powerful people are defending their national interests in Brussels.

Unfinished business … and an ongoing process

Alexander Rondos, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greece, examined foreign policy beyond the “EU’s shifting frontiers”. Initially looking at unfinished business, Rondos said that enlargement should be completed and include “the irreversible” trend for Turkey to join the EU. This would be “good for Europe and good for Turkey”.

He also warned of unfinished business in the Balkans, describing it as a different type of challenge that must be confronted. “If Europe does not come to the Balkans, the Balkans would come to Europe”. Turning to new frontiers, Ambassador Rondos explained that these were not just geographical. Cultural frontiers were changing with the EU’s centre of gravity moving to the East. Rondos warned that it would soon be necessary to discuss the application of a country that was neither part of the traditional concept of Europe nor part of the Christian concept of Europe. “Imaginative and open thinking are needed”, he added, “as any refusal of entry would deny the emerging cultural differences existing within Europe today”.

On the subject of economic frontiers, Ambassador Rondos insisted that “a managed migration and immigration policy” was required on economic grounds as “the EU’s competitiveness depends on Europe’s demography”. Rondos warned his listeners “we cannot put our heads in the sand, otherwise we will get our backsides kicked”.

Concluding with comments on security, Ambassador Rondos asked the audience not to underestimate the “power of Europe’s values”. Describing Europe as the “Holy Grail”, Rondos declared that it allowed r eforms to be undertaken which would not otherwise be possible. Furthermore, Europe could be a “midwife for peace” and gave the example of Cyprus where the dynamics have been fundamentally altered. Given Europe’s power, Ambassador Rondos asked if it was ready to address the greater challenge of the Middle East. “There is a security problem on our borders and unless we go to it with imagination, courage and vision, it will come to us”.

Marek Grela, Poland’s Ambassador to the EU, gave an overview of the situation in Poland after Copenhagen. While the reaction was “emotional”, it was not “euphoric”. He said that it was realistic, given that the results of negotiations had not been extremely favourable for Poland but that basic concerns had been met.

This would provide a sound basis for the referendum, which he thought would receive sufficient support. Looking to the future, Ambassador Grela underlined the assets that Poland could bring: “the spirit of enterprise” as shown in the 3 million private enterprises already created, its demographics, as Poland had the second or third youngest population in Europe, and flexibility – an asset much needed by SMEs.

He added that Poland was a firm believer in the community method, as the European Commission had been an “honest broker” during negotiations. He has concerns about the underwhelming reaction to enlargement in the member states and agreed with Burgmans that enlargement had to be established in the minds of all EU citizens.

Heather Grabbe, Research Director, Centre for European Reform, looked beyond 2004 and commented that the 10 new member states would bring their “own interests, hopes and positions” and have a significant impact on life in an enlarged EU. Grabbe welcomed their “can-do spirit” and foresaw a change in the EU’s political balance. Grabbe also foresaw a change in the political dynamics and asked how the new member states would react to a range of issues, such as tax harmonisation, foreign policy and defence, the single market, the environment and budgetary issues?

In conclusion, Grabbe warned that the Convention’s outcome (on the new organisation of Europe) would not endure unless it foresaw how the EU would change. Grabbe indicated this position with two examples:

• how will the 10 new members line-up, as there are likely to be flexible arrangements rather then marriages, i.e. like the Franco-German alliance?
• how will “flexible integration” work, given the demise of differentiated integration with some member states (new and old) unwilling to join all areas of integration?

The Q&A session

Keith Richardson, a Friends of Europe trustee, kicked off the debate by asking if enlargement would help in the creation of a common European foreign policy, given that some new member states were apparently ready to align with Washington? Commissioner Verheugen relied by saying that enlargement increased the demand for such an initiative and that the United States’ current stance acted as a strong incentive for the creation of a common European foreign policy. Marek Grela, Poland’s Ambassador to the EU, countered the argument that Poland was sometimes too pro-America. He said while there was support for America within the country, the issue should not be over-simplified.

Alexander Rondos, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greece, agreed with Verheugen, saying that the enlargement process could not be telescoped. On wider issues, Rondos argued that only one country could completely achieve its objectives through violence, and that made the situation “very interesting”. Europe must therefore pool its capabilities to achieve its common objectives.

For Antony Burgmans, Chairman of Unilever and the ERT Enlargement Committee, business needed a stable environment, adding that a common foreign policy was inevitable, otherwise Europe would become irrelevant.

T hese exchanges were followed by a number of questions from the floor. Anna Burylo, representing the capital region of Poland, asked how effective the European Commission’s communications strategy had been in informing the citizens of the EU’s member states? Walter Brinkman, a consultant, asked what could be learnt from Germany’s enlargement in the early nineties, in the context of winning the hearts and minds of the EU’s citizens? Finally EURACTIV’s Christophe Leclercq asked Burgmans to explain the opportunities within an enlarged Europe given that he had ended on a somewhat pessimistic note?

Verheugen insisted that presenting information and convincing citizens of the advantages of joining the EU was a job for the member states. However, he added that the European Commission’s decentralised program was working well with $30 million earmarked for 2003. As for Germany’s enlargement, Verheugen felt that little could be learnt, as the objectives were much different.

Burgmans responded on the enlargement question by repeating that it was “an incredible achievement” but that certain issues remained to be tackled. His key point was that enlargement should not be used as an excuse for not meeting the Lisbon goals.

Peter O’Donnell asked Verheugen if more money would have been useful, as foreseen in the Berlin ceiling? The Commissioner replied that certain funds had been promised to the existing member states, as part of the negotiations, but that with hindsight, additional expenditure would have helped the Czech Republic to enlist more support for the process. Verheugen admitted that it was hard to explain to new member states why their per capita support was so low compared with some richer EU members. He argued that while it was necessary to understand the history of the process and both the nature and necessity of the Berlin compromise, ” a feeling of unfairness remained”.

In conclusion, Giles Merritt, Friends of Europe’s Secretary General, said that the debate had underlined the extent to which enlargement could be a catalyst for the European institutions and for Europe itself. It made everyone think of what Europe really is – its identity and its need for security.  

For Merritt, enlargement is an open-ended process and quoted the Centre for European Reform’s Heather Grabbe, who described it as one stage in the refashioning of Europe’s decision-making processes and democratic structures.

Looking to the future, Merritt promised to bring the question of social, economic and business opportunities – following enlargement – back to the table at a future Monday evening debate.

For more analyses, see the Friends of Europe

website.