19.05.2006 - 09:20 CET By Peter Sainley Berry EUOBSERVER / DEBATE
It is said that when Trotsky arrived in Russia for the Revolution he observed the crowds milling about in all their anarchic zeal and exclaimed, "Is this the rabble from which we have to build Socialism?" Trotsky, of course, was not the first leader to be disappointed by the munchkins. He and his fellow travellers thought they were superior, and much good it did them. Sadly, it didn't do the munchkins much good either. In Romania and Bulgaria they are still picking up the pieces today.
Though it pains me to say it I find that European Union leaders are fast falling into this category of folk who see the world as they wish it were, rather than as it actually is. Many would say that the EU has been doing this for the last fifty years, perpetuating conspiracy and falsehood under the guise of enslaving our freedom loving folk. Such people are to be found in abundance commenting on Mrs Wallstrom's weblog, which she still strives valiantly to maintain in the face of much discomfiting drivel. Even so there can occasionally be a grain of truth in even the wildest case.
Though it pains me to say it I find that European Union leaders are fast falling into this category of folk who see the world as they wish it were, rather than as it actually is. Many would say that the EU has been doing this for the last fifty years, perpetuating conspiracy and falsehood under the guise of enslaving our freedom loving folk. Such people are to be found in abundance commenting on Mrs Wallstrom's weblog, which she still strives valiantly to maintain in the face of much discomfiting drivel. Even so there can occasionally be a grain of truth in even the wildest case.
Mrs Wallstrom is the communications commissioner and she is broadly in charge of telling us what the EU is trying to do. As we are still in that time of penance and official mourning for the lost constitutional referenda, she is also in charge of listening to us reflecting on what we think the EU should be about. She presented her preliminary conclusions this week.
Enlargement concerns
Prime among citizens' concerns, she said, was unemployment; but second - and you might argue first among those issues over which the EU had full control - was enlargement. Citizens are questioning the scope and pace of future accessions, apparently.
Well, well! This is hardly new. Indeed worries about the effects of enlargement both present and prospective have been chalked up in big red letters and surrounded by warning triangles for some considerable time.
With the Commission in reflective mode you might think therefore that the response to the red enlargement triangles would be to say: "Europeans, we have understood you, let us pause a while to gather our thoughts."
Instead we have the commission president, Mr Barroso, announcing in his Europe Day address "we must recognise some very real public concern [about enlargement] and show that Europe is not enlarging by default.'
This is dishonesty masking as honesty. For neither the commission nor the council recognises 'some very real public concern' in the sense of responding to it with respect, or even with debate. Mrs Wallstrom, for example, suggests they only need 'explain why enlargement is necessary.'
As if there was some implication that enlargement were a caprice, some personal whim of the commission.
A Europe of 35 states
A Europe of 35 states
In any case no one can explain why enlargement is necessary - though one can argue why it might be desirable.
But then one can also plead the reverse - that unless enlargement is built on a stable, democratic and institutional foundation there is a danger that the Union will become unmanageable and simply collapse under its own weight, thereby losing many of the advantages already gained including the capacity to assist with the development of those very states that are now so eager to join.
Enlargement cannot be proved necessary 'QED'. We are not in the realm of mathematics; this is politics and the debate has to be political: messy and democratic, not absolute and technocratic.
And what are we to make of the second half of Mr Barroso's sentence: 'that Europe is not enlarging by default.'
This is a very curious phrase in view of events. Of course Europe is not enlarging by default when despite reservations among individuals in both commission and council, enlargement policy has been pursued in the past year with almost greater assiduity than in any other.
From EU25 we are now contemplating, in the medium term, a Europe of 35 states.
This is not happening by default, but by active policy pursued - one is tempted to say railroaded - by a commission and council supposed to be listening to, and reflecting upon, citizens' concerns.
Enlargement by default
Just this week there was an opportunity for the Commission to have indicated that it had listened, had understood these concerns.
Having, in a triumph of hope over expectation, signed accession treaties with Romania and Bulgaria before necessary reforms were concluded, it was now time to report on whether these states be allowed to join the EU in eight months time or twenty.
Had these states done enough to paper over the yawning cracks that separated the reality of their public administrations from the EU benchmark?
The commission's reports pull no punches. They have been widely rehearsed in the European press. They make grim reading. One might reasonably expect that it would take a state in such condition five or even ten years to demonstrate that the necessary fundamental improvements had not only been enacted but were having an affect on the ground.
No final decision has been taken. That will be for the European Council in the autumn after yet another report, but even the Bulgarians - who have the greatest improvements to make - believe that they will be nodded through, fast-track, on 1 January 2007.
To that extent the next enlargement will happen by default, not with a bang but with a whimper. A whimper from the citizens that their legitimate concerns have been brushed aside by leaders who profess to be listening but whose actions pay them scant regard.
Here was a chance to take one step towards healing the growing schism between EU leaders and EU citizens.
To bow briefly in the direction of the munchkins and to ask the Romanians and the Bulgarians to accept the nature of our democratic overhead to which they profess also to adhere.
As it is I fear that the dubiously ready nature of this accession will only make this schism worse. It will also make the chances of securing a new institutional treaty before the end of Mr Barroso's term in 2009 less likely and the chances of ratifying it more remote.
The author is editor of EuropeWorld
