POLITICS AND historical contingency more than geography or culture have driven the pace and scope of the European Union’s successive enlargements to take in new member-states. This is a good thing because it leaves the process open to negotiation and compromise rather than being reduced to tightly-defined cartographic boundaries or culturally determined identities.
These latter categories are themselves contested politically and are better dealt with when agreements can realistically be reached. It is a mistake to foreclose the EU’s enlargement, even if it is gradually approaching its continental limits.
Such considerations certainly applied to the EU’s jumbo enlargement five years ago this month, when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia joined, followed two years later by Bulgaria and Romania. They were candidate members from 1992, in pursuit of the political conditions for joining set out as follows at an EU summit in Copenhagen. Membership “requires that [the] candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate’s ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union”.
It took some years of negotiation before it was decided to go for a “big bang” approach instead of the more graduated and differentiated one originally supported by most of the EU member states – 15 after Austria, Finland and Sweden joined in 1995. In retrospect the “big bang” policy was the better one. It allowed these states to adapt their political systems and economies within the EU, a process which very much continues. They have proved to be constructive members – including in foreign policy – despite much talk of uneven development, tensions between old and new Europe and a definite enlargement fatigue among the oldest member states.
Such reservations have been reinforced during the present economic crisis; but on balance it is still preferable that they are in the EU rather than still waiting to join. Their membership reinforces the strong argument in favour of adopting the decision-making reforms set out in the Lisbon Treaty; but in the meantime EU business has not ground to a halt.
Looking ahead, these changes will help facilitate future enlargements. That prospect should be kept open in the spirit of the Copenhagen criteria despite the current negative sentiment. Successive enlargements have brought stability, democratic and economic development to Europe and its continuation promises similar benefits for the Balkan states now anxious to join. The same applies to the necessarily longer expectations of EU membership held out to Turkey and then to Ukraine, much larger states more difficult to absorb. Their prospects will look different in 2019 or 2024.