The ex-communist applicants often lack entrenched democracies and are sometimes prone to political corruption which could undermine the existing strengths of the Union. Furthermore, current EU policies (e.g. on global trade, the environment) reflect the interests of its members, effectively a rich states’ club; it is not in the interests of these states, or their citizens, to dilute the present relative homogeneity of interests with several poorer nations with different priorities. So, with so many more nations joining the EU; it
- BBC News Website
will be hard to come to an understanding because of so many more different opinions coming from so many different nations, in so many different situations.
The whole idea of settling past quarrels is good for current EU members politically. It will extend to almost all of continental Europe a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in Western Europe for nearly half a century. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, as has been demonstrated by the negative examples of recent Balkan conflicts, which have involved other European nations in (expensive) military and humanitarian missions, and have created major refugee problems.
In my opinion the idea of European peace and integration sounds flawed. Expansion will place huge strains upon the already stretched EU institutions, e.g. the Commission and Court of Justice, endangering their effective working and the current benefits of membership of the EU. Expansion would be very risky unless it was preceded by major reforms of voting in the Council of Ministers to avoid deadlock in decision-making (or the tyranny of voting majorities by coalitions of small countries with a fraction of the EU’s population), and of the size and national-composition of the EU Commission itself, already unwieldy at 20 members. In addition, the EU stands to gain a long eastern border open to smuggling of both goods and illegal immigrants, and one which will bring the Union into constant friction with a suspicious Russia. The accession of divided Cyprus is also dangerous and is justification for current members to e worried.
The EU Enlargement is excellent for current EU members economically. As new EU members become more prosperous their citizens will consume more and more of the high-technology, luxury, and creative products and services produced by existing members. A very good example of how this can work is by looking at our neighbors over the Atlantic where despite protectionist fears to the contrary, NAFTA has proved a success for the USA as more prosperous Mexicans spend more on imported American-made consumer goods, while the availability of cheaper labor south of the border has helped American manufacturers compete globally.
Even if expansion was limited to the six best candidates, the EU would gain 63 million people, adding 17% to its population but only £133 billion, or 3%, to its GDP (3). This will put great strains on the EU budget, resulting in the removal of much of the regional aid currently available to poorer members - at a time when the advent of the Euro makes such redistribution of wealth ever more necessary to ensure economic stability. The current members should be worried about involving all these poor countries wanting to join the EU putting a further strain on the budget. I would be worried about all the nations being poorer not richer because of this
If the past is away to go by, the current members should not be worried about migration
Current fears are similar to those voiced before the accession of the relatively poor Portugal, Greece and Spain to the EU, but in none of these cases was there a flood of poor workers to the richer states. If anything the power to be mobile and free to study anywhere in the EU will create bonuses for EU members. The flow of information to the current members would be immense and valuable. On the other hand, allowing the free movement of workers within the EU threatens to flood richer current members with millions of poor job-seekers from the east, threatening the livelihoods of millions of people in the west who rely upon wages these migrants would undercut. The immense strain on the economy as a whole because the EU would not wholly finance the flow of migrants coming to the UK for example. If migration is this how now when it’s illegal, just imagine how many people would migrate when it’s legal! The whole case of losing an identity is a huge concern for EU members. Having such a diverse pool opens the doors for a loss of cultural identity and a loss in patriotism. Already the prospect of having a single currency for the EU has not gone down well with the British public who do not want to lose their sovereign
I feel that the Current members should welcome the enlargement because the enlargement will undermine the Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP’s subsidies are costly, inefficient and bad for EU consumers. Reform has been sought unsuccessfully for many years, so if EU expansion finally prompts change it will be a benefit. The prospect of cheaper food and manufactured goods from Central and Eastern Europe is clearly of benefit to EU consumers as prices actually begin to drop and money spent elsewhere within the EU to causes which deserve it more. On the other hand, expansion could devastate farming in Western Europe where land and labour costs and environmental standards are much higher than in the east. The prospect of new entrants receiving vast subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (current cost £25 billion per annum) would make this danger worse, while the collapse or reduction of the CAP under the strain of expansion would be catastrophic. Not only would a collapse of the farming industries of current members be an economic and strategic disaster, it would have grave environmental consequences.
The prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatisations, in human rights) which are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the likely early entrants to the EU has been impressive and deserves reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to these states, the often unpopular reform process might stall and public opinion could turn towards dangerous nationalisms.
Public opinion towards the EU among current members ranges from lukewarm to mildly hostile. Especially in the UK where it is widely hated. Here is a risk that expansion could turn this lack of enthusiasm into active hostility, as citizens see their tax-euros going east and poor job-seekers flooding west, while aid to their own depressed regions is cut, destabilising the EU and endangering the benefits it has brought over several decades.
New entrants are unlikely to wreak havoc on the EU’s workings just because they have not enacted all aspects of EU law and standards into their domestic systems – no current member complies with all EU requirements and some fall far short. Economic integration will be relatively easy as prospective members already enjoy free trade with the EU in manufactures already, and no one expects them to receive agricultural subsidies under the CAP as the current members do. Candidates may be backward compared to current members, e.g. industrially or in terms of corruption or environmental protection, but these shortcomings have domestic, rather than EU-wide impact.
Applicant nations need to do much more to prove their commitment to EU membership. It is inconceivable that any candidate state will have enacted the entire acquis communitaire (80 000 pages of EU laws and standards) into their domestic law within the next five years. They should be told to go away and come back when they have done so.
Current members have come so far already, why should they take the risk of going backwards because of inefficient members.
The debate over the enlargement is a long one. The current members are split in two minds whether the EU Expansion will be a good thing or a bad thing for them. The prospect of having a global power in terms of politics to rival the united states is a good reason. The enlargement will bring about good reforms for current members within the EU already. It will be less easy for France and Germany, acting together, to dominate the enlarged EU. There are some signs that in order to compensate for this they may be hoping to work more closely with the UK. The new members are expected to give strong support to the drive for economic modernisation in the EU. They are also generally more pro-American than some older EU member states, France in particular. The New potential members have alot to offer, but also come with a lot of excess baggage in terms of poverty and social disorder. These are I feel too much of a burden on the current members and clearly show that the cons outweigh the pros of the EU enlargement on it’s current members.
Bibliography:
-
ANON., 2003. "The European Union expands eastward" Radio Free Europe
-
ANON., Monday, 30 April, 2001 "The European Union" BBC
-
Steven P. M, 2001, The European Union A Critical Guide. 1st published, London: Pluto Press, p.3-5
-
Nugent, N. (ed.) (2004) EU Enlargement (Oxford: Oxford University Press). [Chs. 1, 4, 5]
-
McCormick, J. (2002), Understanding the European Union: A Concise Introduction, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke:
- Palgrave). [Chs. 1, 2, 3]
- http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=667bl5tnjcqt7?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Statistics+relating+to+the+EU+enlargement&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a
