Ein Notruf für die Erweiterung

Ein EU-Projekt, welches sowohl erfolgreich als auch für Europa unabdingbar ist, sollte nicht über Bord geworfen werden, so Transitions Online.

May began with celebrations in the EU’s eastern half, and ended with deep deflation on the EU’s western front. In Central Europe and the Baltic states, the first year of EU membership was seen by the political elite and most of their populations as a success; in the west, it seemed to have added an unexpected combustibility to underlying uncertainties about Europe’s future. 

Much now depends on how this contrast is interpreted. The EU’s problems seem to be wide-ranging, fundamental, and far from simple, with uncertainties about most everything – about Europe’s political leaders, Europe’s direction (toward a free market, a multi-speed Europe, or a federal Europe), the constraints imposed and changes required by the EU (by, for instance, the euro and by budget requirements), the size of the EU (further enlargement), and its cultural unity (symbolized by Turkey). 

The danger, already very apparent in the French referendum in particular, is that the east’s happiness and the west’s malaise will be interpreted as a sign that the problems within the EU can be simplified to the notion of a New Europe versus an Old Europe, of an Anglo-Saxon Europe versus a European social model – and that the conclusion will therefore be that Europe was mistaken to enlarge. 

The great EU project is…

That simplification needs an antidote. One message is that, if some voters want a smaller Europe tailor-made to national interests and others want a looser Europe, the only way to avoid a permanent rip is to seek a new and looser arrangement. It would be better to formalize the loosening than to see it undermined (as Germany and France have done with the Stability Pact) or to pursue agendas with no prospect of success (such as taxes and a French-style social model). 

The danger for Europe – and for the countries in its eastern half, still in need of solidarity as they strive to continue their post-1989 recovery – is how to loosen ties without unraveling the EU. 

That danger seems large since the range of arguments that prompted the Dutch and the French to vote “no” seemed to suggest that they want the EU – as well as its constitution – to be sent back to the drawing board for some major redesign.

Still, going back to the drawing board offers Europe’s leaders an opportunity to focus on the EU’s founding principles, its goals, and to focus on successes. Those suggest that there is one EU project that is vital and successful but also in danger of being jettisoned.

To read the full text of the article, visit the Transitions Online website.