Tweet
The outsiders
By Diplomatic Editor, Trevor Royle
Sunday Herald, UK
June 5 2005
When French "Non" voters claimed that they had rejected the
EU constitution because they did not want any more cheap Polish
plumbers or were alarmed about an influx of Turkish immigrants, they
were striking right at the heart of Europe's current problems. The
EU's motto might be "united in diversity", but first the French and
then the Dutch gave notice that they want nothing to do with further
enlargement and believe that Europe's borders are quite large enough
for the time being.
On the matter of Polish workers, they had probably succumbed to one
urban myth too many about industrious young plumbers exchanging Warsaw
for Versailles and creaming off the best jobs. Poland is half the
size of France and, as the EU's social affairs commissioner put it,
even if every plumber in Poland emigrated to France, they would still
be outnumbered.
More worrying is the antagonism aroused by the issue of Turkey's
membership. This is a country which is due to begin talks with the
EU this autumn, with a view to becoming a full member in 2015. But
it is also a country which former French president Valery Giscard
d'Estaing has described as having "a different culture, a different
approach, a different way of life". Its people also seemed to him
to be alien when compared to the rest of Europe: not only were their
"values incompatible with Europe's", they were mainly Islamic.
For many Western Europeans this might be a step too far. Although
Turkey would help to supply the young immigrant workers needed
by western Europe to fill menial jobs and to bolster its ageing
population, there are too many imponderables in considering Turkey
as a full member in the next round of enlargement.
First, there is the religious issue and it is instructive to consider
that Ukraine's application will be considered at the same time. Not
only is Ukraine Christian, it is demonstrably in Europe and would
logically extend the EU's boundaries eastwards, whereas Turkey drags
them to the south and towards the Middle East. Second, there is the
question of Turkish troops in Cyprus: these would have to be removed
as they breach the EU's concept of sovereignty. Finally, there is
growing clamour for Turkey to apologise for the infamous Armenian
massacres at the end of the first world war, just as Germany had to
acknowledge its role in instigating the Holocaust by apologising to
the Jewish people and paying them reparations.
While that latter condition might seem a touch existential, it
sums up the sense of otherness which many EU members hold about the
next stage of enlargement. Similar fears have been expressed about
Bulgaria and Romania, both of which have applied for membership of
the club, but these are occasioned more by financial than by cultural
or religious reasons. Just as last year's enlargement meant that the
richer countries had to foot the bill for the economic development
of the 10 new members, so too do many fear that another enlargement
might cripple the EU budget. With the euro in decline and with the
economies of France, Germany and Italy faltering, those who voted
No last week were also taking their purses into account. If further
expansion means more expenditure and higher taxation, why vote for
a measure which will hit their pockets?
There are, in fact, solid reasons for this seemingly relentless
broadening of the EU's interests. It satisfies the belief that in order
to grow in strength the organisation has to expand. It conforms to the
EU's current security strategy by insisting that the new members are
more likely to pay attention to the union's founding principles and
in so doing will make Europe a more stable place. It allows the EU to
counter US world hegemony, although this point exists in theory only,
and it provides a sense of continuity. Those committed to the EU also
enjoy pointing out that each earlier enlargement only strengthened it,
the accession of Britain in 1973 being a case in point.
As things stand, the EU is set to open negotiations with Ankara later
this year and the Turkish government insists that it is pushing ahead
with the internal reforms required to meet EU criteria. Part of their
diplomatic offensive is based on the fact that vital pipelines from
Iraq and the Caucasus run over their territory, and that EU membership
will bring stability to the Black Sea whose coastal littorals are
also shared by Bulgaria and Romania, the other EU applicants. As
Turkey also controls the Bosporus, the strategic gateway for the
Caucasus, the argument for EU enlargement into the region seems to
be entirely logical.
However, strategic considerations probably cut little ice with last
week's No voters. Their beef was much simpler: they had lost faith
in the system and were given the opportunity of recording their
opposition.
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/
By Diplomatic Editor, Trevor Royle
Sunday Herald, UK
June 5 2005
When French "Non" voters claimed that they had rejected the
EU constitution because they did not want any more cheap Polish
plumbers or were alarmed about an influx of Turkish immigrants, they
were striking right at the heart of Europe's current problems. The
EU's motto might be "united in diversity", but first the French and
then the Dutch gave notice that they want nothing to do with further
enlargement and believe that Europe's borders are quite large enough
for the time being.
On the matter of Polish workers, they had probably succumbed to one
urban myth too many about industrious young plumbers exchanging Warsaw
for Versailles and creaming off the best jobs. Poland is half the
size of France and, as the EU's social affairs commissioner put it,
even if every plumber in Poland emigrated to France, they would still
be outnumbered.
More worrying is the antagonism aroused by the issue of Turkey's
membership. This is a country which is due to begin talks with the
EU this autumn, with a view to becoming a full member in 2015. But
it is also a country which former French president Valery Giscard
d'Estaing has described as having "a different culture, a different
approach, a different way of life". Its people also seemed to him
to be alien when compared to the rest of Europe: not only were their
"values incompatible with Europe's", they were mainly Islamic.
For many Western Europeans this might be a step too far. Although
Turkey would help to supply the young immigrant workers needed
by western Europe to fill menial jobs and to bolster its ageing
population, there are too many imponderables in considering Turkey
as a full member in the next round of enlargement.
First, there is the religious issue and it is instructive to consider
that Ukraine's application will be considered at the same time. Not
only is Ukraine Christian, it is demonstrably in Europe and would
logically extend the EU's boundaries eastwards, whereas Turkey drags
them to the south and towards the Middle East. Second, there is the
question of Turkish troops in Cyprus: these would have to be removed
as they breach the EU's concept of sovereignty. Finally, there is
growing clamour for Turkey to apologise for the infamous Armenian
massacres at the end of the first world war, just as Germany had to
acknowledge its role in instigating the Holocaust by apologising to
the Jewish people and paying them reparations.
While that latter condition might seem a touch existential, it
sums up the sense of otherness which many EU members hold about the
next stage of enlargement. Similar fears have been expressed about
Bulgaria and Romania, both of which have applied for membership of
the club, but these are occasioned more by financial than by cultural
or religious reasons. Just as last year's enlargement meant that the
richer countries had to foot the bill for the economic development
of the 10 new members, so too do many fear that another enlargement
might cripple the EU budget. With the euro in decline and with the
economies of France, Germany and Italy faltering, those who voted
No last week were also taking their purses into account. If further
expansion means more expenditure and higher taxation, why vote for
a measure which will hit their pockets?
There are, in fact, solid reasons for this seemingly relentless
broadening of the EU's interests. It satisfies the belief that in order
to grow in strength the organisation has to expand. It conforms to the
EU's current security strategy by insisting that the new members are
more likely to pay attention to the union's founding principles and
in so doing will make Europe a more stable place. It allows the EU to
counter US world hegemony, although this point exists in theory only,
and it provides a sense of continuity. Those committed to the EU also
enjoy pointing out that each earlier enlargement only strengthened it,
the accession of Britain in 1973 being a case in point.
As things stand, the EU is set to open negotiations with Ankara later
this year and the Turkish government insists that it is pushing ahead
with the internal reforms required to meet EU criteria. Part of their
diplomatic offensive is based on the fact that vital pipelines from
Iraq and the Caucasus run over their territory, and that EU membership
will bring stability to the Black Sea whose coastal littorals are
also shared by Bulgaria and Romania, the other EU applicants. As
Turkey also controls the Bosporus, the strategic gateway for the
Caucasus, the argument for EU enlargement into the region seems to
be entirely logical.
However, strategic considerations probably cut little ice with last
week's No voters. Their beef was much simpler: they had lost faith
in the system and were given the opportunity of recording their
opposition.
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/