The European Union has kept open a commitment to enlarge its membership at its summit in Brussels, even though the process is to be made more stringent for Turkey, Croatia and the countries in the western Balkans to which it currently applies.
This means it will be slower in future compared to the recent past. The acceding countries need more time to fully assume the obligations of membership. So does the EU to function and develop effectively. Above all, EU leaders need to convince their own electorates of the major benefits that have flowed from an expanding membership. Enlargement has helped overcome the division of Europe, stabilise the continent, inspire legal, economic and political reforms and enhanced the EU's international role. These are spelled out clearly in the summit's conclusions, but have yet to become more widely accepted.
It is a good outcome, if a minimal one. The enlargement issue could have been much more divisive and has been skilfully contained. It awaits further progress on the EU's constitutional treaty, which has been stalled in the run up to France's presidential election next summer. There will be an opportunity to restate the need for it when the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome is marked next March. After this there should be more political momentum to resolve it in 2008.
The outgoing Finnish EU presidency tried hard, but in vain, over the last six months to win agreement on more majority voting in the areas of judicial co-operation, the fight against crime and migration policy. Ireland was among the member states resisting this most strenuously. At this summit some progress was registered nonetheless. It was agreed to expand resources for dealing with migration from African states, to broaden political and diplomatic contacts with African and Mediterranean governments and to link these to development aid policies. These are useful, if limited initiatives.
There are strong declarations on Iran, the Middle East process and Lebanon, reflecting sharply increased tension there and their potential effect on Europe. These could make a real difference if followed up in a unitary fashion, especially when there is so little else being done about them in international politics. However, divisions among the EU member-states show up, for example on whether to engage with Syria, which France opposes because of its interference in Lebanon. The strong statement on the appalling situation in Darfur likewise requires a co-ordinated follow-up to make a difference.