As EU leaders prepare to welcome 10 new members, Denis Stauntonreports from Brussels on the trend towards closer integration'Lower labour costs in the candidate countries could see some jobs moving eastwards but this has been under way for more than a decade and it is nlikely to escalate significantly'
AS European Union leaders prepare to meet in Copenhagen tomorrow, many will be polishing their soundbites to welcome the accession of 10 new member-states. They will speak of healing the wound that has run through Europe for half a century and of laying to rest the ghosts of Yalta.
For many, the rhetoric will reflect genuine satisfaction at the impending expansion of the EU, the biggest since its foundation. But some harbour private doubts about the enterprise, not only because of its cost but because they fear that it could put at risk the entire process of European integration.
Such doubts have accompanied each enlargement of the European Union and a similar anxiety prompted Charles de Gaulle, as French president, to veto Britain's membership of the Common Market in 1967.
"The Common Market is a sort of prodigy. To introduce into it now new and massive elements, into the midst of those that have been fit together with such difficulty, would obviously be to jeopardize the whole and the details and to raise the problem of an entirely different undertaking," he said. For those who fear the impact of enlargement on the EU, the relative poverty and the shallowness of democratic traditions in some candidate countries represents a threat to the EU's cohesiveness.
Similar fears about Spain, Portugal and Greece have proved to be groundless, despite the fact that the decision to admit Greece was taken against the advice of the European Commission. The economic impact of enlargement on current EU member-states will be limited, not least because only 4 per cent of EU exports go to the candidate countries. The candidate countries, on the other hand, direct 70 per cent of their exports to the EU. Lower labour costs in the candidate countries could see some jobs moving eastwards but this process has been under way for more than a decade and it is unlikely to escalate significantly.
There is compelling evidence, too, that fears of a mass influx of poor easterners into western Europe will prove to be unfounded - like similar fears after Spain and Portugal joined.
Gen de Gaulle's opposition to Britain's entry owed much to London's close links with the United States, which he saw as a threat to the development of an independent European foreign and security policy. Many of the formerly communist countries due to join the EU in 2004 share Britain's attachment to Washington. Indeed, some of them once regarded joining NATO as a more important foreign policy goal than EU membership.
There are signs, however, that many of the candidate countries are becoming less attached to the US as they move closer to EU membership. Some are already members of NATO, an organisation that many strategic analysts believe to have a limited future. More importantly, it is becoming clear to the candidates that, while NATO membership makes little difference to the internal life of any country, joining the EU can transform a society, politically as well as economically.
EU membership imposes political conditions and creates democratic safeguards because the penalty for breaching civil rights standards is so high. As Ireland's experience shows, being part of the EU can help societies to become more open, tolerant and liberal.
If fears about the impact of enlargement are likely to prove groundless, so too may be the hopes of some of enlargement's champions. It is no secret, for example, that Britain's enthusiastic support for the candidate countries owes much to the fact that, as countries that have recently escaped from Soviet oppression, many of them are unusually attached to national sovereignty.
Reluctant to exchange one form of foreign domination for another, they could be relied on to resist any attempt to propel the process of integration forward too quickly. The candidates were also seen as natural allies of countries such as Britain and Ireland that favour a more economically liberal Europe. Many of the candidates embraced centre-right economic policies in the early 1990s, introducing low taxes and cutting back on the welfare state.
Most conservative governments have fallen in eastern Europe, however, often to be replaced by reformed communists. The pace of economic reform has become more measured and there are few Thatcherites now to be found in candidate country governments.
Most candidate countries remain deeply attached to the nation state as the only political entity that has ever provided them with a respite from tyranny. Small countries benefit from a strong central authority - the Commission - because it is obliged to consider the interests of each member-state equally. For almost all the smaller member-states of the present 15, this means favouring closer integration and a more federal Europe.
If the candidate countries follow suit, the next enlargement of the EU will lead ultimately - like all previous expansions - to a closer, more integrated Union.