How Far will the EU Expand?

Mar. 2, 2009

"Wider or deeper?" So goes the continual debate on EU enlargement. While a "wider EU" includes controversial applicants such as Turkey, a "deeper EU" is often described to feature an elected President of Europe, Foreign Minister, and unified defence structure.

So how wide and deep will the EU go? Well, here is one prediction.

Of all member-states, the UK is the greatest proponent of a wider EU. In fact, the Anglo-American alliance is the primary backer of Turkey's bid to join the union. Doing so would achieve two objectives: (1) reward Turkey for its NATO-orientation, and (2) prevent further political integration of the continent. To expand on the second (and most important point) a union-wide vote for the election of an EU President will never be accepted by the rest of Europe with a large (and rapidly growing) electorate of Turkish Muslims. Think of it this way, what would happen to the stability of the US if Mexico was admitted into their union?

On the "deeper side" of the debate, we find all of other member-states, with the possible exception of the Czech Republic. Luckily for them, their argument will win the day because the UK won't stay in the EU for much longer.

Its way out of the scope of this article to hammer out all of the reasons why the UK is a second-class citizen in the EU. The island-nation is really more of an observer than a participant in Europe. Let's make note of the fact that the UK is the only member-state to receive a reimbursement on its EU fees, and is neither apart of the Schengen border-control free area (which includes even some non-EU states), nor the monetary union, nor the Charter of Rights.

Now, let's consider the furious British opposition to the Lisbon Treaty, and the effect of its probable ratification. First, a huge majority of the UK public is against Lisbon, for anybody in doubt, just take a look at the recent demonstration held across the UK against the use of foreign (read: Eastern European) workers. Second, acknowledge that the only reason why the government managed to squeak the treaty through parliament if the first place was because the document was pronounced dead following its defeat by the Irish. Third, the opposition Conservative Party has vowed to revisit Lisbon by holding a referendum should they win the next election, which most polling indicates they will - easily. Forth, the remaining three Lisbon holdouts - the Czech Republic, Poland, and Germany - will almost certainly ratify the treaty should it pass an Irish referendum.

Now that all the players are setup, all we need is a trigger incident. How about this: Ireland is slated to hold a second referendum on Lisbon by October of this year. In the face of a global recession, polling in January indicated that a majority of the Irish (55% to 37%) are now in favour of Lisbon. And so the dominoes fall one by one: the Irish pass Lisbon; Poland, the Czech Republic, and Germany ratify; the treaty comes into effect; bolstered by an outraged British public the Conservatives come to power in the UK and hold a referendum on Lisbon (and in a sense the UK being apart of the EU); referendum is defeated in a landslide; realizing the country cannot participate in the EU without passing the treaty, the UK withdraws from the EU.

How will the UK survive outside the EU? Well I can think of a few ideas. But for now, let's focus on what a victory for the "wider side" shall mean for the future direction of the union.

For one, Turkey's days of entertaining membership will be gone. Over the next fifteen years, the Balkan nations will slowly be absorbed one by one. Iceland will join sooner rather than later in order to save a complete meltdown of its currency. Norway will eventually choose to reunite with its Scandinavian siblings. Switzerland, already part of the free-trade area and Schengen agreement will acknowledge that the continent has finally caught up to its own level of maturity and ascend to its rightful place at the heart of Europe.

While new nations are joining the EU, older member-states will be joining the monetary union, just as they are bound to do so under their accession agreements. In time, the Euro will truly be the single currency of the European continent.

Following Lisbon, and the subsequent creation of an appointed EU President, it becomes only a matter of time before public pressure forces the democratization of Europe's most powerful political position - leading to an elected President of Europe.

I think this much we can all agree on. It may take 20, 30, or even 50 years, but the aforementioned scenario is almost inevitable given the long-tern trend towards greater human organization. I think it's the next part where you'll find the most disagreement.

In this scenario, the war over Europe, which has characterized the continent for almost a century, being waged by the flank powers of Russia and Anglo-America, comes to an end at long last, won by neither side, but the rise of the center. What happens to the flanks that are now faced with a politically and economically united battleground, which can no longer be carved up into eastern and western spheres of influence?

Considering the western flank, it's my belief that the UK will ultimately recognize that its future lies in the forging of an Anglo-American Union, formalizing the alliance which has ruled the world for nearly 200 years. With so much talk surrounding the rise of China and India and the eclipsing of the American superpower, the populations of the Anglo-nations may be in a more amicable mood to pool their sovereignty in an effort to retain their influence in the world.

When we turn our attention to Russia however, things get a little trickier. Even if Russia gobbled up Belarus and Ukraine (or just the Russian eastern half) it wouldn't come close to regaining its Cold-War superpower status. In a world of continental-unions, Russia has a relatively small and declining population. Thus, if Russia is to pursue the life of a nation-state forever, it will have to eventually accept a diminished stature, just as the US would.

Therefore, I think we should consider the possibility that Russia, along with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine will complete the expansion of the European Union. Does it sound ridiculous, the idea of a continental-union spanning across the Eurasian landmass all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Then tell it to the original thirteen colonies that dreamt of a union extending from sea to shining sea.

Furthermore, the complete expansion of the EU may be closer than you think. Let's recall that the EU is using the Stabilization and Association Process to methodically integrate the Balkans into the union. The process is based on talks with countries that have expressed interest in accession. The EU typically concludes Association Agreements in exchange for political and economic concessions. The remaining six Balkan nations enveloped by the union are to various degrees on their way to eventual membership.

Could such a process be used to integrate Eastern Europe and the Southern Caucasus into the EU? Well guess what? The process has already begun. In March of 2006, the EU introduced an "Eastern Partnership" which includes the six aforementioned members of Eurasia. The purpose of the partnership is to offer the states Association Agreements based on their individual progress on making strong political commitments. The EU also plans on stepping up assistance to its eastern neighbours from €450 million in 2008 to €785 million in 2013.

In my opinion, this is a clear a signal as any that the long-term objective of the EU is to stabilize it's eastern flank, and incorporate it into a federation spanning the northern portion of the Eurasian landmass.

The world should prepare itself for this eventuality and expedite the integration process. I'm looking at you South America, Africa, and South Asia.