Sir,

Joachim Bitterlich set six priorities where the EU should take an urgent action, but putting the digestion of the 2004 enlargement as the first priority seems a bit odd; it is a fact, and the EU cannot do much about it. Opening a debate on whether the new member states were really ready sounds like an attempt to stir up once again the anti-enlargement sentiments we’ve all heard so much of recently. Enlargement quite clearly got unfairly blamed for domestic problems in some of the older member states that it couldn’t possibly have caused. The reality is that those older member states look to the new members as inspiration for long delayed domestic reforms like labour markets or pensions. But that would demand a mental shift that political leaders in some of those member states are not ready to make.

 

The whole enlargement issue also relates to the last point that Joachim Bitterlich makes, concerning the borders of Europe. Just as there is no political finality for Europe, there does not need to be an enlargement finality. The EU’s greatest success has been that it is a dynamic process, so sealing its borders would send all the wrong signals to the neighbouring countries that see the Union as a source of inspiration.

 

Enlargement and deepening are in any case intimately linked, so the EU will have to review its own institutional arrangements before any further substantial enlargement if it is to maintain its efficiency. This mean that the failure of the constitutional treaty is a serious problem that could seriously hamper both deepening and enlargement, and that would be fatal for Europe. Having said that, the constitutional treaty is also something the EU can survive without; other ways that will permit the Union to function effectively can certainly be envisaged, as could a more modest treaty change until the EU is politically ripe for a genuine constitution.

 

I also agree that the EU should be re-thinking its role on the world stage. Europe is no longer a political dwarf, but much more remains to be done, especially in terms of better co-ordination of member states and EU institutions. To boost the CFSP we need to define “European” interests, especially towards the key players like the US, Russia, China and India. And that, it goes almost without saying, will be difficult until there is a stronger role for the EU institutions in CFSP, an EU Foreign Minister and an EU diplomatic service.

 

It is equally important that Europe should set new priorities, such as a common energy policy. But at the same time it should also be pausing to fundamentally re-think some of its current policies: how can Europe pretend to be sincere about development aid to third world countries without re-thinking its farm subsidies? How can it become the most competitive world economy when almost half of the EU budget is spent on agriculture? And how can it develop altogether new policies when even such basic ones as the internal market are under attack? These are the issues that EU policymakers should start addressing immediately.