EU enlargement - good for applicants?

shotamoose

In all the discussion on the Nice Treaty, it seems to have been assumed that 'everyone wants enlargement'. And its true enough that the governments of the applicant countries want to join up. But lots of countries wanted to join the WTO too - doesn't automatically make it a wholly good idea.

So I'm wondering if people think joining the proposed enlarged EU will actually benefit the people in these countries? I'm not saying it definitely won't, but I can see costs involved.

For one thing, the EU has meant significant 'structural adjustment' for relatively socialist countries like France, involving "reform" of the labour market, changes to social security, lower taxes for the well-off and a smaller public sector. And structural adjustment programmes have tended to have significantly negative consequences for countries in the Third World. So how will countries like Romania and Poland react?

Second, the changes to EU decision-making proposed in the Nice Treaty have been interpreted by some as meaning that new entrants would be 'second-class citizens' in the Commission and Council of Ministers. This could lead to them having to accept EU decisions which are against their national interest.

So what does anyone else think?

dahamsta

So I'm wondering if people think joining the proposed enlarged EU will actually benefit the people in these countries?

You mean "these countries us" or "these countries them" shotamoose?

Second, the changes to EU decision-making proposed in the Nice Treaty have been interpreted by some as meaning that new entrants would be 'second-class citizens' in the Commission and Council of Ministers. This could lead to them having to accept EU decisions which are against their national interest.

That's kind of already the case though, isn't it, and recent efforts by the EU tried to make this even worse[1]. I don't think we'll ever get over this tbh, even with proportional representation. Powerful countries like the UK, Germany and France will always try to push their way by hook or by crook. It's kind of up to the people to push back.

adam

[1] Including the Nice Treaty as far as I can remeber. Didn't a part of it affect voting rights, which would leave us (Ireland) with even less power?

Chaos-Engine

The vast majority of the ppl of Ireland are in favour of enlargement. Even the ppl that voted "NO to Nice"(myself included)..
The Nice treaty has serious consicuences on Ireland and the other perpherial states with in the EU. Rotating Commissionerships... The number of commissioners is to remain at 20 while there could be up to 27 members in the EU by 2005.... I voted NO because Ireland should have a voice. The commission was created in effect to protect the interests of all the EU countries on an equal ground and provent the dominence by the larger countries. This isn't happening. Britain, German, France and Italy all have 2 commissioners. The commission is not about PR. thats what the parliment is for. The ppl of ireland are being decieved and the wool is being pulled over their eyes.
They were told NICE was about Neutrality. It isn't. It is about who has the power....

DadaKopf

This is a very important point. Setting aside the issue of our own government's misinterpretation of why we voted 'no', the most resonant danger is indicated by the EU's reaction to it. They generally ignored it and carried on regardless.

In any text book I've read, it's always been described that the EU has been an organisation run by the 'elite' of Europe and this isn't meant simply as a synonym for something like 'elected representatives'. In spite of these elites' best intentions at the outset, the EU has certainly unfolded as a loose economic ideology around which a certain political bureaucracy has been constructed to suit and carry out the ends of this elite. Inevitably, this degree of practical (enforced?) unilateralism is squeezing out any range of diverse political/economic outlooks that exist within the EU. But then there's the creeping reality that economic harmonisation is necessary for a common market which, to be fair, has done wonders for our standard of living. But inequality, poverty, stricken health services etc still exist and the ability for member states to adopt strategies particular to their own circumstances is becoming more difficult due to EU'ism. There's no such thing as 'one size fits all' when it comes to this kind of thing.

For one thing, the EU has meant significant 'structural adjustment' for relatively socialist countries like France, involving "reform" of the labour market, changes to social security, lower taxes for the well-off and a smaller public sector. And structural adjustment programmes have tended to have significantly negative consequences for countries in the Third World. So how will countries like Romania and Poland react?

To be honest, I know very little about their economic conditions but any significant change in economic, management and trading structures will have serious consequences socially - and they are always incendiary. No doubt, the EU already have numerous strategies to minimise disruption. My biggest concern, and it goes against my multiculturalist convictions, is Turkey's entry to the EU. Yeah, sure, from a European's point of view, a more compatible and stable Turkey will make things better for us but is she really compatible with the EU? Surely Turkey would be better off focusing on their own sphere of influence? If structural adjustment is to go ahead in Turkey, I just can't imagine how it would unfold.

Second, the changes to EU decision-making proposed in the Nice Treaty have been interpreted by some as meaning that new entrants would be 'second-class citizens' in the Commission and Council of Ministers. This could lead to them having to accept EU decisions which are against their national interest.

I'm not so sure about this. Where in the Nice Treaty did it suggest this?

Overall, I'm very confused. I've always assumed that the EU was a social project, designed to prevent war and create social stability through economics, the common market. In reality, it's entirely economic and social concerns are actually see as irritating hurdles. The most blatant example I can think of in proving this is Turkey's possible entry to the EU. Not only is it outside Europe, and not only is it culturally divergent but its purpose is clearly for economic and military expansion into the middle-east. Or maybe it's got something to do with the Eurovision.

If this is the case, and the EU is only concerned with economic issues at the highest level, subordinating social issues, serious problems are ahead when people become more and more familiar with the tactics used to steamroll over them. Serious problems first for the general public and then for the Eu diplomats.

Oops, I think I've totally missed the point.