Expand without collapsing, opening up to new entrants without paralysis, welcoming very poor countries without throwing down the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the solidarity of cohesion funds, ensuring that the EU acts quickly without falling into federalism, guaranteeing that everyone respects the rule of law, the keystone of European political unity… These are all questions that the Twenty-Seven intend to resolve before including – but when? – Ukraine, Moldova, the Balkan countries and perhaps, in the longer term, Georgia.
Will the people of Europe be consulted? Definitely not! We would be too afraid that they would refuse. Especially since Turkey’s membership, although it is at a standstill, has still not been officially and definitively ruled out, due to lack of consensus between the Twenty-Seven. What to start with ? As always, by report. France and Germany, in this case Secretary of State Laurence Boone and his counterpart Anna Lürhmann, have mandated a committee of twelve independent experts to deliver their thoughts.
The said report was submitted a few days ago and discussed on Tuesday September 19 during the General Affairs Council in Brussels between the Ministers of European Affairs. Laurence Boone and his colleague have clarified on several occasions that this report only engages the experts. Paris and Berlin are leaving the door open for negotiations with the twenty-five other partners and, at this stage, are not closing any options.
The Franco-German relationship is not the only initiative. A group of experts representing the three Baltic states, Poland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland also worked on their side and produced a document in July. Lithuania has expressed a unique position: it wants to expand first and, possibly, reform institutions later. Which is undoubtedly the best way to lead to total paralysis.
Finally, we should not neglect the report by Jean-Louis Bourlanges, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is of excellent conceptual quality. So, the Lépine competition is launched! Jean-Louis Bourlanges and the Twelve Report converge on one point: the rule of law, and what it implies, must be at the center of the enlargement process. It is the political compass of the European Union.
We do not adhere to a market that sells carrots and turnips, cars and machine tools, we adhere to a political space where public freedoms, the separation of powers, the independence of justice, free elections and not faked, tolerance and respect for minorities are foundational and non-negotiable. It is the keystone of mutual trust and loyal cooperation and, ultimately, the identity of this ill-defined political entity.
Naturally, the candidates will have to subscribe to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, recognize the primacy of Community law, otherwise the whole edifice will collapse. To upgrade, they will have to develop a multi-year plan for the development of freedoms, rigorously controlled by an “independent body”.
This kind of political accession treaty will imply, on the part of the candidate states, diplomatic and military solidarity. This first step would open the right to its States to participate in the European Council of Heads of State and Government but without the right to vote.
From this political agreement the second stage would then begin: an “administrative acculturation” and a progressive adherence to various common policies depending on what is possible and judicious. The financial contribution of the acceding States would be negotiated with each one based on the benefits they can expect.
In this intermediate phase, it is a sort of targeted, proportional à la carte Europe, which would not completely upset the distribution of European funds and the fragile balances. Finally, at the end of this path, full membership would arrive: voting rights, access to all European institutions (CJEU, Court of Auditors, Parliament, Council, etc.).
It is precisely at this stage that the report of the twelve provides other answers. He suggests not touching the maximum threshold of 751 MEPs in the European Parliament, which involves recalculating the weightings between the different states. The “Cambridge formula”, used in the report, makes it possible to avoid crushing small states which would therefore be overweighted.
Today, around 80% of Council decisions are taken by qualified majority. What to do with the rule of unanimity which still prevails in eight areas: the revision of the treaties, foreign and security policy, the accession of a new member, taxation, the European budget, the creation of “own resources » (taxes for the European budget), certain areas of judicial and police cooperation, the creation of new rights for European citizens, the harmonization of social security and social protection? In the event of unanimity, abstention does not prevent the decision.
The rapporteurs Olivier Costa and Daniela Schwarzer and their ten colleagues are cautious. Qualified majority votes should only be used as a last resort, notably in the areas of foreign policy, defence, taxation and the European budget where consensus is highly desirable.
However, they propose in particular to extend the qualified majority to the enlargement procedure in stages (while maintaining unanimity on the final vote). Ditto with regard to sanctions for breaking the rule of law, the Council should be able to decide by a four-fifths majority.
To make it more acceptable, the majority rules should be modified. Today, it requires the approval of 55% of member states representing 65% of the European population. The authors of the report propose the following ratio: 60% of member states representing 60% of the population.
Concerning the appointment of the Commission presidency, the rapporteurs invite the European Parliament and the Council to find an interinstitutional agreement before the European elections are held. Three scenarios would arise: if the new Parliament clearly and broadly supports a candidate, the Council would have to bow, unless the applicant was clearly incompetent or of questionable morality.
Second scenario: Parliament is divided between various candidates who all claim the title. The Council should then propose to one of them to find a majority in Parliament. And if none succeeds, the Council should begin a dialogue with the main European political parties in order to agree on another personality.
Last scenario: the situation is confused within the newly elected European Parliament. The Council takes control and determines which political family and which candidate should run for the presidency of the Commission. In any case, Parliament must confirm it by a majority vote.
Regardless, in truth, of the various techniques proposed, the discussion between the Twenty-Seven will inevitably result in different schemes, the result of political compromises where the balance of power and that of chance are intimately mixed. Jean-Louis Bourlanges calls for lessons to be learned from the history of enlargements. A history with two “unequally innovative” periods, marked by the caesura of the fall of the Iron Curtain.
The first enlargements of the CEC are virtuous because, he says, each time, we combine three series of transformation: a territorial extension with the accession of new members; the introduction of a new policy, whether or not associated with the attribution by treaty of new powers to the EEC; the adoption of institutional and budgetary rules adapted to these new policies.
We understand better, then, the progress of Europe since the 1980s. When the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark joined, the EEC launched the liberalization of the economic community which led to the large internal market with the Act unique. “British liberalism and French interventionism then gave birth to a large-scale liberalization-harmonization policy, bringing in its wake two major institutional transformations,” writes Jean-Louis Bourlanges. The systematic use of qualified majority voting for the adoption of hundreds of harmonization directives demanded by the French in return for the liberalization of the internal market. »
When Spain, Portugal and Greece joined the EEC, it was also the birth of the cohesion policy for the economic catch-up of these poorer countries. The European Parliament, at the same time, gains the power to adjust the budget – without modifying it.
Problem: after the breakup of the Soviet Union, subsequent enlargements broke with this logic of deepening. Sweden, Austria and Finland were brought in without taking into account that they constitute neutral states, a status incompatible with a common foreign policy. No institutional arrangements were made to absorb the shock of the accessions of 2004 and 2007 (10 new states). This historical reminder gives food for thought and asks the right questions: a Europe of 36 states must not only rethink its functioning, but also offer new policies adapted to the challenges of our time.
