Ireland stood to gain considerably from membership by way of grants and loans and the farmers, in particular, would benefit from the CAP (Dinan, op cit, p 67). The benefits for Denmark were somewhat lesser than that of Ireland, however since the majority of Denmark’s, and even Ireland’s trade was with Britain and Germany, it was prudent for them both to join at the same time.
The second and third enlargement of Greece in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986 (also known as the Mediterranean enlargement) brought many benefits for the member states, not least of which was Spain and Portugal who, with vast expanses of rural agricultural land, benefited hugely from the expanding CAP. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which had been set up in 1975 to stimulate economic development in the least prosperous member states had also to be expanded at this time.
The main benefit these states gleaned from EU membership was that of political stability however. Since membership of the EU demanded democratic government it was seen as a way to promote stability and prevent a return to previous authoritarian rule all three states had recently emerged from (Bache & George, op cit, p 542). Furthermore, the accession of the three member states set a precedent for future enlargement to the central and eastern European states where membership was not based purely on economic but geopolitical in that it was paramount the political stability of these states was protected.
This enlargement was seen to be equally as important as the first one. The political landscape of the EU had grown down into the southern regions adding a Mediterranean dimension to policies (Bache & George, op cit, p 542). Spain in particular proved to be a heavy weight in negotiating better deals from structural funds; however Greece and its long-standing quarrels with Turkey had a negative effect on the negotiations for the accession of Cyprus in 2004.
In 1995 three European Free Trade Association (EFTA) members; Austria, Finland and Sweden became the newest members of the EU benefiting mainly from closer ties with the now established single market. These EFTA states were concerned that the single market would have a negative effect on their economies and, in the case of Sweden; their government was concerned over its lack of competitiveness. Being part of the EU and the internal market would therefore alleviate these concerns somewhat. Further, Austria, Finland and Sweden had wealthy and prosperous economies that would contribute to the EU funds greatly especially since a proposed extension to the East was on the horizon. The EFTA enlargement also created a Nordic bloc within the EU with members providing support on mutual interests such as environmental protection, and it would also prove to be beneficial for the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in the eastern enlargement.
This particular expansion, however, did highlight issues relating to the institutional architecture of the EU that was soon to become more apparent with the largest expansion in 2004. The weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers became apparent as a problem that required attention along with other institutional issues such as the extension of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) and the actual size of the Commission. With the increase from 12 to 15 member states the actual workings of the EU became so complex that it may become almost unmanageable should further enlargement proceed and negotiations and decision making would become impossible. It became evident that in the event of further enlargement, the institutional nature of the EU would have to be reassessed and this was to be the main topic of discussion at the ‘96-97 Intergovernmental Conference (IGC).
The Fifth Enlargement in 2004 was the biggest of all EU expansions when an additional 10 states were acceded into the EU. On 1 May 2004 Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia became the newest EU members.
The new members (with the exception of Cyprus and Malta) felt it necessary to show that they were European first and foremost and thus prevent them from being drawn back under Russian control. The benefits and opportunities that membership created were myriad for the new states and for Europe as a whole. As well as the economic benefits many opportunities were created for existing member states simply due to the influx of new trade within the Union. For example Germany’s interest in the Czech Republic’s vehicle company, Skoda, this is now wholly owned by Germany’s Volkswagen company. Furthermore the new member states were not required to pay tariffs and had high access to all member states whilst being protected from outside markets. Eight out of the ten that joined in 2004 were emerging democracies and since the transition from Communism to capitalism is always costly, they stood to receive more investment from the ERDF and the European Social Fund (ESF).
Another benefit from this enlargement was that the EU moved further into the east and consequently became more geographically representative increasing the EU influence on the world stage and uniting Europe many years after the war. The new member states also gained higher international status than they would not have had on their own.
Poland however, was a major concern in this enlargement due to its sheer size and its demands for larger sums of money to prevent its farmers facing ruin. Negotiations were protracted but it was finally agreed that Poland would receive €1.5 billion extra to compensate. The second problem associated with this enlargement was Cyprus since the island was not unified and it is only the Southern Greek Cypriot side which is internationally recognised as part of the EU.
Perhaps the most contentious area for this enlargement was the policy issues and the institutional character of the EU itself. Expanding to incorporate 10 new members and potentially another 2, with Romania and Bulgaria expressing interest, took its toll on the EU.
“In order to be ready to take as many as 12 new members, the EU had to deal with some difficult issues requiring reforms of both policies and institutions. Two policy issues were particularly crucial to the prospects for enlargement - agriculture and the structural funds. In both cases the existing member states that were beneficiaries from the funds proved very reluctant to surrender their benefits to facilitate enlargement. The institutional questions were those that were already apparent at the time of the EFTA enlargement: the weighting of votes under QMV and the size of the blocking minority; the abandonment of the national veto in more policy sectors; and the size of the Commissions.”
Bache & George, (2006) p 353
The final enlargement took place on 1 January 2007 and completed the EU’s fifth enlargement, when Bulgaria and Romania were acceded into the EU. Aside from the obvious benefits of expanded trade within a single market there are very obvious issues to address with the membership of these two countries. High-level corruption in both countries is very much an issue, along with human trafficking, bad human rights record and child welfare concerns, although Bulgaria and Romania have made vast improvements in this area. Judicial reform was also a concern and the EU has imposed strict benchmarks to be met. Most notably is the clarity and transparency of Bulgaria’s justice system in which they are required to prove that investigations into high-level corruption are both professional and non-partisan. Also, Bulgarian aircraft are deemed sub-standard and unsafe and if not improved, will consequently be banned from EU airspace.
There are many reasons why each EU enlargement has been beneficial. Firstly, membership of such a large organization promotes and maintains peace, stability and prosperity in Europe. It boosts economic growth and helps creates jobs and better employment prospects. Additionally, a growth in trade in the EU will generate better employment and growth within member states leading to an improved quality of life for citizens and increasing cultural, economic and political diversity. Membership of the EU also enhances political stability by creating democratic institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights. Since membership criteria demand stable institutions that guarantee human rights, democracy, rule of law and respect for and protection of minorities (Dinan, 1999, p 191) thus improving and maintaining the standard of living for many citizens across throughout the member states as candidate countries align their legislation and practices to EU standards.
A larger organisation strengthens the EU in world affairs giving member states the ability to compete against other world powers leading to greater prosperity, better opportunities for consumers and expanding trade for member states. EU member states have access to a single market with in excess of 500 million people where all participants have to respect the same regulatory principles. Poorer states also benefit greatly from the EU’s financial assistance.
In conclusion enlargement presents a huge task for the European Union. It offers both opportunities and benefits to all member states regardless of size or geographical position. Beyond the legal requirements, there are many complicated practical and political issues that must be successfully managed. Whilst the goal of the EU is to integrate Europe into a single market, it must be acknowledged that the EU has moved beyond just a “common market” and has now legislated in areas of human rights, the environment and workers’ rights. It must be said that the organisation originally set up for just six countries has moved well beyond the scope of its original plan. Each successive enlargement will bring with it its own set of opportunities and problems and it will be a test of the infrastructure of the European Union as to whether it can handle the expansions admirably.
Word count 2,075
REFERENCES & BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bache, I and George. S. (2006) “Politics in the European Union” 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dinan, D (1998) “Ever Closer Union” 2nd Edition, Palgrave, Hampshire
Redmond J. and Rosenthal G. (1998) “The Expanding European Union: Past, Present, Future” Lynne Rienner Publications, Boulder.
Zielonka, Jan., 2001. How New Enlarged Borders will Reshape the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3
http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/esc/esc-lectures/EUconditionality.doc. (accessed 26 March 2008).
2005 Enlargement Strategy Paper, COM (2005) 561 final, concerning the Western Balkans in particular. [Online] http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:f5jYQhqZxuMJ:eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0561en01.pdf+2005+Enlargement+Strategy+Paper,+COM+(2005)+561+final,+concerning+the+Western+Balkans+in+particular.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 (accessed 13 March 2008)
Treaty of Lisbon at a glance. Europa [Online] http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm. (accessed 29 March 2008)
European Commission. June 1993. Copenhagen European Council. [Online] http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm (accessed 13 March 2008).
