The Enlargement of the European Union

By David Murphy

The key thinker behind the European Common Market, Jean Monnet reflected in the fifties that Europe never existed; it must be created. Against the historical landscape of war and struggle between princes and nation states the unification of Europe has appeared to be more an aspiration than a political possibility. Napoleon and Hitler attempted to unify the continent with the bayonet. Historians, such as A. J. P. Taylor, reflected that the nation state was the essential foundation of European politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The vision of a Europe at peace, and prosperous, appeared distant as nation states fought for dominance.

With the end of the Second World War, however, and against the landscape of bombed out cities and decimated populations, a new philosophy of state co-operation evolved between the western powers. The aim was to put in place political structures that would prevent war in Western Europe from happening again. The Cold War may have divided Europe, but a process of co-operation evolved that led to the Common Market and subsequently the European Union. This arrangement may have produced mountains of waste paper; however, it did build a peace in Western Europe for generations.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall a new phase in the history of the continent unfolded, and this has had a dramatic impact upon the course of European integration and political development. Whether the political architects of this process have designed a structurally flawed building remains to be seen. In a similar manner to a house with extensions the EU has certainly evolved from a two-up, two-down, to a more extensive building. Whether the extended family that inhabits this dwelling will actually agree on the housekeeping arrangements is debatable.

On the 1st of May 2004 this process reached a crucial point with the ten new members joining the club of existing fifteen members. This has caused political leaders to reflect upon the future of Europe, especially the issue of the proposed EU constitution being on the agenda. Tony Blair, for example, has called for a national referendum on Europe’s proposed constitution and has consequently exercised his right of veto. With reference to the abolishment of border controls within the EU region various governments, notably in richer Western Europe, have introduced restrictions on immigration. Concerns surrounding the cost of enlargement, social benefits and employment take away from the sparkle of EU enlargement. However, they are policy concerns that must be debated.

Three further issues have emerged of note with this current evolutionary process of EU integration. These are the end of America in Europe, the redefinition of Europe and decline of the political aim of ever-closer union. Since 1945 American troops have been stationed on the continent and have exercised an influence. With the fall of communism and the crisis in the Middle East, notably Iraq, the two continents are apparently drifting apart in reference to foreign policy priorities and styles. The geo-political priorities of the EU and US are now divergent as Brussels places a focus on Eastern Europe and Turkey. To underpin the new EU a new military alliance is required between members as the GIs go home. The future of NATO, therefore, is being debated between generals and politicians. This redefinition of NATO and the Atlantic alliance is linked to the new map of Europe in which the former eastern bloc countries have come into the EU family. On the one hand this is very exciting, given what these nations suffered at the hands of the Soviets. However, there are related economic challenges ahead. This point of the financial cost of absorbing these new states has led France and Germany to reaffirm their unilateral primacy as sovereign states to control their national, social and foreign policies. The challenge of May 1st is, therefore, how to manage growing diversity, immigration and changing demographics. An icy wind is currently chilling the process of EU integration in the minds of the western European electorate. A future resurgent Russia could also, in the future, attempt to exert pressure on their former client states.

The integration of the Eastern states is, therefore, essentially a geo-political move based upon EU security interests. Some commentators are reflecting that the process of uncontrolled immigration may ultimately destroy Europe’s welfare state structures. As with the Roman Empire the internal policing and cohesion of the EU State will be a matter of concern to citizens and presidents.

History will tell if May 1st 2004 was the beginning of a new and dynamic EU, or the beginning of the end. History, however, illustrates that the building block of Europe has been nation states that keep their sovereignty intact. In the early twenty-first century the movements toward the merging of national sovereignty and EU federalism will impact upon all our lives. The EU elections will uncover the public mood to this ambitious process of super state building. There may be some surprises for the politicians.

Back to Contents