what does enlarged and multi speed EU mean for uk?
suzann...@ntlworld.com
member states of the EU, enlargement is imminent, making a multi speed
Europe not only a reality but also a necessity if we are to embrace an
enlarged European Union. With 10 candidate countries likely to join the EU
following the ratification of the Treaty of Nice, would it be naive to
believe otherwise?
Whereas the concept of the transitional period is well known and provided
for, are we to believe that it is acceptable? Are we allowed to question the
fact that some member states will not be implementing some policies that the
majority have agreed to and have in fact implemented? Can we indeed expect a
European Union that sanctions the concept of pick and mix to survive let
alone flourish?
Jon°
"sm...@ntlworld.com" <suzann...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
peter
sm...@ntlworld.com <suzann...@ntlworld.com> stated: -
THE TIMES
Opinion
November 25, 2002
A bumpy ride for the EU's poorest passengers
william rees-mogg
The Wiston House weekends are one of the benevolent secrets of the
Conservative Party. For the past decade they have provided a forum for
the Centre-Right parties of Eastern Europe to discuss the problems of
creating modern, democratic, open-market parties in a post-Communist
environment. Most of the early participants have become ministers in
their countries at one stage or another.
The Conservatives take these weekends seriously. They are organised by
the Conservative International Office and sponsored by the Westminster
Foundation for Democracy. They are attended by MPs and MEPs; this year’s
weekend was addressed by Michael Ancram as Shadow Foreign Secretary and
by Bernard Jenkin as Shadow Secretary for Defence. There were
representatives of 15 countries, including one Prime Minister. It was a
good international occasion.
I was asked to open the Saturday afternoon session on the enlargement of
the European Union, from the point of view of an independent journalist.
I had found the prior discussion on the individual countries
particularly interesting. It is not often that one has the opportunity,
in a couple of hours, to get the perspective of 15 different European
countries, given by some politicians in office, by some in opposition,
and by political intellectuals and advisers. It was a good moment to
hear these views, coming immediately before the next stage of
enlargement of the EU, and immediately after the enlargement of Nato.
If there is a positive vote in national referendums, ten new countries
are going to join the European Union. Their accession will be approved
next month at the Copenhagen meeting of the EU and will come into effect
on May 1, 2004. These countries fall into four groups: the three small
Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; the four Central
European states of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic; the
former Yugoslav country of Slovenia; and the two Mediterranean islands
of Cyprus and Malta.
The eight Continental countries had a tragic and bloody experience in
the 20th century. All of them formed part of the Russian or Austro-
Hungarian empires before 1914; all of them became independent states
after 1918; all of them were occupied by Germany in or after 1939; all
of them became part of the Soviet Warsaw Pact empire after 1945; all of
them finally regained their freedom after the collapse and
disintegration of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Their hellish 20th
century has left deep political, social and economic scars. Yet this
history has also been a school of realism and survival. The weekend was
refreshingly free of the smooth evasion of difficult issues which one
meets too often in European political circles.
The new countries are largely Roman Catholic, Slav and poor, joining a
European Union which is largely secular, non-Slav and wealthy. To our
Western European countries, the Second World War is an historic memory;
to these Eastern European countries the collapse of Soviet power is an
event from the immediate past. The four Central European countries will
be the most influential. Poland alone represents half the population of
the new entry. In terms of size, the new Europe will consist of Germany,
with about 80 million people, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, with
about 60 million each and Spain and Poland with about 40 million. These
will be the six largest nations of the new Europe, with most of the EU’s
population divided between them.
The new applicants have been in a weak bargaining position in the
negotiations for entry. They wanted both the economic opportunities and
the security which membership of the EU would give them. Nato is
important to them as well. The EU made them a “take it or leave it”
offer. They had to accept the whole acquis communitaire, all 85,000
pages of it. They were given no option about joining the euro. In the
history of negotiation this resembled Rockefeller’s Standard Oil
imposing terms on a group of small independent producers.
The Polish bargain is so one-sided that it will probably be adjusted;
indeed, it will have to be. Poland is a very poor country. As things
stand, Poland will have to pay 100 per cent of its obligations to the EU
from the starting date. At the same time the benefits to Poland from the
Common Agricultural Policy will only be phased in; the rate at the
beginning will be only about 25 per cent. As a result, Poland could
start off as a net contributor to the
EU, despite being much poorer than any existing EU country. Even
Brussels thinks that is absurd, but has not yet found a mechanism to put
it right. The rich men of Europe are standing outside their cathedral
asking the poor to toss guineas into their top hats.
Poland is predominantly an agricultural country; agriculture is also
important to the economies of most of the other new entrants. Like
almost everyone else, the Poles had expected that the reform of the CAP
would take place before, or at the same time, as enlargement. They were
amazed at the Franco-German agreement which has postponed the reform.
They could see that such a postponement might be in the narrow interest
of France, but could not understand why Chancellor Schröder had agreed
to it since Germany is the largest net funder both of Europe and the
CAP.
It is not only the Poles who are worried by this failure. The new
entrants do, indeed, want their farmers to have their fair share of CAP
subsidies, but they do not want the CAP to gobble up all the funds which
would otherwise be available to develop the economies of the new Europe.
One figure gives an idea of the impact that the CAP can have. The annual
dairy subsidies given by the CAP and the European governments put
together come to more than $800 per cow. That is greater than the
individual income of half the world’s population including more than one
country from the former Soviet Union. There is already a choice between
subsidising cows or helping people.
Even if Europe were much more willing to be generous, the task of
modernising the economies of Eastern Europe would be difficult as well
as very expensive. Fifty years of Communism have been cruelly damaging.
The bureaucracy destroyed entrepreneurship; the lack of incentives
destroyed productivity; the whole culture became inefficient. Despite
very large subsidies, and in the most favourable circumstances, East
Germany is still much poorer and less efficient than West Germany, or
than East Germany itself was, in relative terms before 1939.
The politicians I met at Wiston House are realistic. They do not imagine
that the EU can or will suddenly solve all their problems. They see the
EU as valuable to their countries but they also see that it is in need
of reform. They believe that their nations have no choice about joining,
but they do not think they will be entering a land flowing with milk and
honey. They are nothing like as starry-eyed as British politicians were
when we joined the Common Market.
It is not the attitudes of the candidate countries that worry me, but
the attitudes of the existing European members, including Great Britain.
France may be out on her own in displaying an active and watchful
selfishness which will never willingly give up one inch of French
advantage, but the rest of Europe is almost equally selfish, if in a
more somnolent way. The enlargement of Europe is the right gamble to
take, but it surely is a great gamble. To make it a success, these ten
countries will have to be helped to rise to the existing European
economic level.
That is the test of the policy of enlargement. The German experience has
proved that this will not be a business of a few years or a few billion
euros — it will be a huge task, with the possibility of failure.
That is not how enlargement in being approached. The voters of Europe
have been given little or no warning of the effort and sacrifice that
may be required. If the ten are accepted at the Copenhagen meeting, we
will be committing ourselves to help them develop their societies to the
European level. They naturally fear that they may be joining the
European Union as second-class citizens; they resent and reject that
idea. This is an experiment with the lives of 75 million people and the
future of viability of the European Union is at stake. The EU is taking
on a maximum commitment but, unfortunately, with no spirit of generosity
and a minimum of thought.
--
peter
Wotan
Richard J
The EU is going through the same process the United States did a couple
of hundred years ago. Starting with a relatively weak central
government, they are strengthening their stance now and reeling in the
independence of their member states. This is very similar to what
occurred with the original thirteen members of the United States of
America.
Remember that we did not have a Constitution for some time, but lived
under a Confederation with a very weak federal government. After a few
years, the US drew up a Constitution with a stronger central government,
but it took the better part of a century and a civil war to consolidate
the preeminence of the federal government over state's rights.
I figure you guys are a bit ahead of that curve, and the fight will come
in the next twenty to thirty years. Bear in mind what will happen is
some of those states decide they wish to secede from the EU along the
way. By then the eU will have it's own military forces and the battle
will be on.
Teflon
Hawksmoor
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DE24517...@hotmail.com...
I don't think that necessarily follows. The relative uniformity and
vulnerability of the thirteen states created the logic of the Continental
settlement that followed. Europe is made of ancient and proudly independent
traditions which I doubt will subside, even among those who subscribe to the
idea (not many of those in here). Which is why I think the
intergovernmental model will prevail, and it will of necessity take longer
and be a lot more bumpy road to get the benefits of sharing sovereignty as
we essentially are trying to have our cake and eat it too. Don't expect
d"Estaing's Convention proposals to be elegant Jeffersonian prose, it won't
be, of necessity. It'll be a bit of a mess, but it can't be as messy as
what we have now.
Richard J
We will see. Personally, I think that France and Germany figure this is
their chance to do what they have been unsuccessful at doing through
military force, conquer Europe and make it stick. Of course, when it
gets down to the sharing of power, i expect they will fight again and
we'll be right back where we were in the 1950's.
Teflon
Walter PAVESI
>
>We will see. Personally, I think that France and Germany figure this is
>their chance to do what they have been unsuccessful at doing through
>military force, conquer Europe and make it stick. Of course, when it
>gets down to the sharing of power, i expect they will fight again and
>we'll be right back where we were in the 1950's.
>
>Teflon
I belive no European now belives in a possible future war between
the old main countries of central Europe... F D I GB E
The level of integration is so high that is really difficult to
imagine.
Ciao da.... Walter
Milano - Italia
wal...@pavREMOVEesi.net
Richard J
And The First World War was the "War to end all wars". There was to be
no war following that one either. Dream on.
Teflon
Walter PAVESI
>
>And The First World War was the "War to end all wars". There was to be
>no war following that one either. Dream on.
>
>Teflon
I am not dreaming. I believe we europeans will very probably
never fight agains each other. Sure we will involved in new wars
against someone else.
Richard J
I hope you are correct, but if so, it goes against the history of the
region.
Teflon