European Union enlargement: A Euro Babel in waiting?<\/p>\n
By Joe L. Spartz<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Following the recently concluded European Union
\nsummit meeting in Helsinki, the official list of new member
\ncandidates, including Turkey, has now been extended to 13 which
\ncould ultimately increase EU member countries from 15 to 28.<\/p>\n
Subject to meeting strict EU admission conditions, a first
\nintake of new members over the next three to five years could
\ninclude Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Slovenia and
\nEstonia.<\/p>\n
A second batch of new member candidates with whom detailed
\nadmission conditions are to be negotiated starting next February
\nwould include Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Rumania,
\nMalta and Turkey.<\/p>\n
Sooner or later, other European countries such as Croatia,
\nBosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, and why not
\nKosovo, can be expected to seek admittance.<\/p>\n
Even after excluding other European countries such as Iceland,
\nNorway, Ukraine or Belarus, the European Union may ultimately
\ninclude some 35 countries, a feat which not even Napoleon could
\nhave conceived in his wildest dreams.<\/p>\n
While the proposed EU enlargement is hailed by political
\nleaders and eurocrats alike as a momentous milestone in the
\nhistory of Europe, its full impact and consequences still need to
\nbe fully understood by the citizens of the existing member states
\nand who, rather undemocratically, were not even consulted in the
\nfirst place.<\/p>\n
Translating a monumental political decision into acceptable
\nand workable realities will be a herculean task for which
\nexisting EU institutions are not prepared or are insufficiently
\nprepared and the proposed EU enlargement may very well contain
\nthe seeds of its own implosion or disintegration.<\/p>\n
Absorbing a dozen or so economically underdeveloped and
\nethnically diverse new members would be outright utopian and
\nrender the EU, already beset by \"subsidiarity\" related
\nexceptions, national veto rights, high unemployment, lack of
\nfiscal harmonization, a yet to be fully implemented euro currency
\nor a disastrous agricultural policy, virtually unmanageable.<\/p>\n
Astronomical agricultural and structural development subsidies
\nalone, not to mention an unprecedented influx of cheap labor
\nwould not only overtax the EU's resources but also place an
\nimpossible burden on its cumbersome, inefficient and often
\nwasteful bureaucratic and political institutions.<\/p>\n
One does not have to be a \"euroskeptic\" to seriously question
\nthe direction in which the EU is headed or whether this will be
\nthe end of a Europe as we know it.<\/p>\n
To start with, the free and unhindered movement of people
\nwithin an enlarged union will in all likelihood open the
\nfloodgates for untold millions, seeking employment or simply a
\nbetter life in existing member countries already beset by serious
\nunemployment problems.<\/p>\n
Countries such as France or Germany have so far not been able
\nto fully integrate existing ethnic minorities and a further
\ninflux beyond a certain limit will inevitable strengthen already
\nwell entrenched nationalistic feelings and xenophobic
\nresentments.<\/p>\n
Fears that an enlarged EU would dilute Europe's identity and
\ncohesiveness have already been voiced by no less than the
\npresident of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, and even
\nRomano Prodi, the commission's president, now concedes that there
\nis a need for public debate as to where the frontiers of Europe
\nshould lie.<\/p>\n
A case in point would be Turkey with less than 5 percent of
\nits territory situated in Europe and whose candidature was rather
\nreluctantly and following an earlier refusal accepted for
\nstrictly political reasons.<\/p>\n
An enlarged EU will definitely affect the daily lives of all
\ncitizens in the existing member countries and the sad fact
\nremains that neither national politicians nor unelected eurocrats
\nhave thought it necessary to seek their assent prior to
\ncommitting Europe's future.<\/p>\n
If the proposed EU enlargement, together with a realistic
\nassessment of its impact and related costs had been put to a
\nvote, a massive rejection could have been expected.<\/p>\n
A first obstacle to overcome by an enlarged EU would
\ndefinitely be the problem of communication amid a Babel of
\nlanguages.<\/p>\n
With an official 11 national languages already to cope with,
\nthe translation of mountains of documents or endless meetings and
\nsessions has already reached nightmarish proportions.<\/p>\n
With almost 2,000 full-time translators and interpreters as
\ncompared to only 400 or so for the entire 185 member United
\nNations, the European Union already maintains the largest
\ntranslation staff in the world.<\/p>\n
Including logistics and support staff, the EU's language
\nservice employs almost 4,000 people or more than 10 percent of
\nits entire personnel and it is anybody's guess by how much this
\nwould further increase by the addition of new member countries.<\/p>\n
Unless a single language such as English can be adopted as the
\nsole lingua franca, a Babel of languages may ultimately turn out
\nto be the grain of sand that brought an enlarged EU engine to a
\nstandstill.<\/p>\n
Another major problem would be the implementation of a
\nworkable decision-making process and in which the national
\ninterests of dissenting countries would be sufficiently
\nconsidered.<\/p>\n
As evidenced by Britain's recent rejection of a 20 percent tax
\non savings and investment, key EU legislation can be easily
\nderailed by any one country using its national veto right.<\/p>\n
Veto rights were originally intended to safeguard and protect
\neach member country's vested national interests.<\/p>\n
These, however, would need to be abolished and replaced by a
\nsimplified majority voting system if policy decisions by an
\nenlarged EU membership were to be made possible but which as a
\nresult may cause unwanted legislation to be imposed on minority
\nvoting member countries.<\/p>\n
Other consequences of an enlarged EU in terms of political,
\neconomic, social and financial costs, not to mention difficult to
\nreconcile ethnic and cultural differences, still remain to be
\nassessed and explained in detail by European politicians to their
\nrespective electorates.<\/p>\n
In order to qualify for EU membership and to meet EU's strict
\nadmittance criteria, significant and often painful reforms have
\nbeen undertaken by new member candidates.<\/p>\n
Irrespective of reforms achieved, however, huge gaps in terms
\nof economic infrastructure and development or standards of living
\nand income levels will persist.<\/p>\n
Economic restructuring and development costs necessary to give
\nnewcomers at least a fighting chance against unbridled
\ncompetition from developed western member countries will be
\nastronomical and a significant portion of funds required would
\nhave to be provided by already heavily strained EU development
\nbudgets.<\/p>\n
If the German reunification experience is anything to go by, a
\nfar-reaching and painful dismantlement of inefficient industries
\nand business entities will be unavoidable with increased
\nunemployment and hardships for years to come.<\/p>\n
Another important question is how a future enlarged EU is to
\nbe managed.<\/p>\n
To start with, the size of the existing European Parliament
\nwould have to be adjusted in order to accommodate new members and
\nnational voting rights would have to be brought into line with
\nexisting realities.<\/p>\n
Germany's voting rights for instance are only five times those
\nof Luxembourg and significantly reduced voting rights would need
\nto be imposed on smaller member countries.<\/p>\n
Over the years, EU institutions and bureaucracies have churned
\nout countless rules, regulations or guidelines which in many
\ninstances would not be applicable or implementable in new member
\ncountries.<\/p>\n
EU bureaucracies have often been ridiculed in the past for
\ninane regulations such as the standardization of tomatoes and
\ncucumbers or common norms for lawn mowers, but the fact remains
\nthat an in-depth clearing and weeding out of the EU legislative
\njungle should be a priority.<\/p>\n
Managing an enlarged EU with a population of up to half a
\nbillion people will be a formidable task which existing
\ninstitutions and bureaucracies cannot be expected to cope with
\nwithout a complete top-to-bottom overhaul and reorganization.<\/p>\n
Bureaucratic euromonsters, feeding on itself or institutions
\nriddled with political appointees and entrenched eurocrats would
\nneed to be reassessed in accordance with basic management
\ncriteria applicable to business corporations such as competence
\nand professionalism and reorganized as necessary from ground up.<\/p>\n
By opening EU admission gates to large numbers of economically
\nbackward and ethnically diverse countries, not all candidates can
\nbe expected to make the grade and an indefinite delaying or
\nrefusal of admission could possibly lead to political instability
\nand other problems in the countries concerned.<\/p>\n
Countries who do make the grade, however, cannot expect
\nmiracles overnight or to ignore sacrifices to be made.<\/p>\n
A gradual admission system in which full EU membership would
\nbe granted in stages only may have been a more realistic
\nalternative for all parties concerned or avoided some of the
\nindigestion following the EU political expansion bulimia.<\/p>\n
Last but not least, an EU enlargement with far-reaching and
\nstill to be assessed consequences should be decided by the people
\nconcerned and not over their heads by politicians who may no
\nlonger be around when the curtain finally comes down.<\/p>\n
The writer is a business consultant based in Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/european-union-enlargement-a-euro-babel-in-waiting-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }