European Integration: Sharing of Experiences

3. GRAND DESIGNS

Grand Designs 113 113 3 GRAND DESIGNS DEEPENING OF THE INTEGRATION VERSUS ENLARGEMENT One of the most fascinating “either — or” questions in the history of the European Union has been the dispute, sometimes almost of a theological character, of whether to deepen the integration, saying No to enlargements, or open the door for new members, with the accompanying slowing down of the integration as a risk. As always the solution proved to be a compromise. Take in the applicants and maintain the pace of the integration as far as possible. The issue came to the forefront for the first, but far from the last time, when then President Charles de Gaulle of France in January 1963 said No to the United Kingdom. The accession negotiations actually went very well, as five (all except France) of the original member states were prepared to grant concessions to Britain. France felt, however, that these concessions would change the fundamental structure and the balance between costs and benefits for member states achieved during the establishment of the European Union and the preceding negotiations from 1955 to 1958. The story goes that at a talk in 1944 between Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle as leader of the Free French, Churchill allegedly said that every time Britain had to choose between the overseas world (the United States and the Commonwealth) and Europe, it would choose the overseas world. This may 03 Euro Integration Ch 3 4/8/08, 9:20 AM 113 114 European Integration explain why de Gaulle harboured strong suspicion about the British motives for wanting to join the European integration.1 In this round, deepening of the integration won over enlargement. The decision to reject fundamental changes was taken by France. The other five more or less grudgingly acquiesced. It can be said, and a good many observers have said so, that France did not defend the basic structure of the European Union, but its own economic interests flowing from the Common Agricultural Policy. This is correct. In this context, however, it must not be overlooked that the benefits accruing to France from the Common Agricultural Policy were part of the political deal and cost-benefit distribution among member states negotiated prior to the signature of the Treaty of Rome. It had therefore become part of the fundamental system, and if the British demands had been complied with, they might have changed the fundamental structure and thereby also the distribution of cost-benefits. In 1969 the situation was reversed. At the summit in The Hague, France acquiesced with British entry. Negotiations were successfully concluded in the course of 1971. The main reason was that the European Union had been firmly established. The transitional period for putting the common policies in place had expired, so no main risk of reversing gears loomed on the horizon. The British had also learned from the earlier negotiations that it was not a good idea to ask for fundamental changes and the key answer to “do you want to join the EU as it is” was an almost unconditional Yes. The history of the integration shows quite clearly that as enlargement started to include the weaker countries, the understanding grew that a strong and vibrant European Union with the economic power to shoulder the burden was a necessary condition for successful enlargement.This first became clear when Spain and Portugal joined in 1986, followed by the enlargement with Central and Eastern European countries on the agenda in the course of the 1990s. This understanding served a double purpose. It helped in offering terms suitable to the acceding countries’ economic performance, thereby alleviating the burden and boosting advantages in the first years of their membership, while at the same time prodding the European Union to adopt policies that make it capable of shouldering the task. The European Union as it looks today is more fully integrated than before the first enlargement with the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark in 1973. Not only are the then existing common policies more firmly rooted, but they have been supplemented by a whole new string of common policies and common programmes. The protagonists of enlarging admitted that further integration was necessary. The protagonist of deepening the integration went along with enlarging, but monitored meticulously to ensure the deepening actually took place. 03 Euro Integration Ch 3 4/8/08, 9:20 AM 114 Grand Designs 115 INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH...