Is the EU enlargement process increasingly political? Felicity Slater reports from the workshop that addressed this issue at the PES Re:new Convention.

Political ideals and realities have always shaped the course of the European project. To imply that it has been exclusively driven by economic considerations is to misunderstand the motivations for deepening and widening the union: stability and prosperity are political objectives that have been at its heart from the outset. The workshop’s conclusion that the enlargement process is more political than ever was perhaps therefore unsurprising. However, its political dimension is multifaceted: just as the decision to enlarge is political, so too are many of the transformations that it can trigger. Ultimately, as these embody progressive aims, we should not shy away from making a progressive political argument it its favour.

Several contributions highlighted how the prospect and process of accession to the EU can be a catalyst for political change. In particular, Ranko Krivokapić, president of the Social Democratic party of Montenegro made a poignant case for enlargement as a motor for cohesion. Given strong internal national divisions, he stressed how parties otherwise at odds are working together on EU accession, making it a significant and rare element of consensus across Montenegrin society. Similarly, Zlatko Lagumdžija, leader of Social Democratic party in Bosnia and Herzegovina, articulated the ambition for his country to overcome its entrenched ethnic divisions on this same basis, to eventually build a civil society that enshrines and promotes the EU’s democratic values.

In contrast, Turkey stands as a stark example of both the success and failure of the EU as a vector for change. Turkish academic Dimitris Tsarouhas stressed how the progress made through the democratic reforms from 1999 (when it was granted official candidate status) to 2005 has since stagnated, with the prospect of regression now looming. According to Tsarouhas, this stasis stems from a pervading sense of disenchantment, as Turks feel that the country will never be accepted into the union, whatever their efforts. Consequently, the EU has become an irrelevance for them, vanishing from domestic political debate. European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Stefan Füle responded by arguing that while all candidate states should be treated with respect, they like the EU must work to gain and maintain it. He particularly criticised Turkey for claiming to ‘deserve’ too much and its consequent inflexibility.

Indeed, a major political concern regarding enlargement relates to meeting expectations of what it can bring and when. A realistic attitude must therefore be adopted: that it is not a simple quick fix but a long-term process for durable political, economic and social transformation. Furthermore, getting the timing right is absolutely imperative: when admitting a new member into a political super club, balance and a certain degree of symmetry is necessary. The eurozone is all too pertinent an example of how eagerness and misjudgement can lead to crisis.

With Euroscepticism flourishing across the continent, making the basic case for the EU at 27 demands increasing attention. Nonetheless, we should not as a consequence neglect the political argument for enlargement. Whereas it is easy to frame such arguments primarily in terms of the anticipated advantages (and then often economic ones) for candidate countries, we should highlight the wider implications for the union as a whole. Of course, enlargement is in our interest because it broadens and deepens the internal market and improves competitiveness. But, more than that, it is an ever more powerful means of consolidating democracy, stability and prosperity across Europe. As progressives, this is a political argument that we simply cannot ignore.

—————————————————————————————

Felicity Slater is a member of Progress and reported from the PES Convention in Brussels

—————————————————————————————

Photo: European parliament