David Madden
In the good old days, it was a relatively straightforward process for
European countries to join the EU. One met the political and economic
criteria for membership, received the formal avis or tick of approval
from the European Commission (a bit like giving one’s coin to Charon),
passed the entrance exam of satisfying the acquis communautaire (all the
rules and regulations painstakingly negotiated and agreed by ones
future partners) and entered as a full member. Countries joined
individually or as in groups: diplomats spoke of regattas and flotillas -
the land-lubbers in Brussels tending to favour nautical terminology.
Easy!!
One joined a club where there were agreed norms, rules and values.
Joining it showed that one had arrived, and that one belonged: that one
was entitled to the benefits of membership; and even had an equal voice
on the Council with eg Germany. Not bad for a country of the size of
Cyprus or Slovenia. More, joining pointed the way towards transition,
economic convergence and strengthened democracy.
The profound crisis in the Eurozone, and its likely consequences,
have changed this simple, even idyllic, picture of the road towards
convergence. Frankly, the EU has become less convincing: as an economic
model, as a source of growth, as a policy anchor, and as a normative
power with effective conditionality. Above all, there is lack of
clarity: on the precise terms of how the crisis in the Eurozone will be
overcome; what new banking/financial/economic/political structures will
emerge; and how counties inside the Eurozone will relate to countries
outside the Eurozone, individually and collectively. In short, what sort
of EU will future members be joining? And what will the future acquis
communautaire look like? Croatia joins this year, but who is next? And
what does the experience of Greece mean for other countries in the
region? The idea that joining the EU/euro “clubs” is a passport to
growth, stability and political solidarity must be badly shaken, from
their perspective.
Yes, life used to be so easy. Or was it? One thinks of De Gaulle
vetoing UK accession, Greece joining despite a negative avis, the
travails of Turkey, the years it took for Spain and Portugal to
negotiate entry, and the complications of a divided Cyprus joining the
EU. Perhaps entry was never as uncomplicated as it looked on paper. On
the other side of the balance, were all the founding member states
paragons of political and economic virtue? Was there an inflation of
standards? There is no doubt however that the challenges and
complications of entry have increased.
SEESOX has for all its ten years strongly supported enlargement of
the Union. This remains the position. But, neither ostriches nor
Ozymandias, our heads remain vigilant and well above the surrounding
sand. For this reason, and reflecting our combined expertise on the
region, we are running an 8-Part seminar series in the Hilary Term
revisiting the theme of convergence and what it means; and tackling
individually the various themes: economics, society, reform,
power-sharing, foreign policy and the all-important domestic policy.
Uppermost in our minds will be the two questions: What is happening? And
what is to be done?
The first seminar takes place on the 14th January. Two of the three
convenors of the series, Othon Anastasakis and Jonathan Scheele (Max
Watson will speak in the second seminar), get together with Kalypso
Nicolaidis and Dimitar Bechev, to debate the question “Europeanisation
and convergence in practice – in neutral or in reverse?”
No comments:
Post a Comment