The so-called "Big Bang" process, aptly named after Bulgarian President Petar Stoyanov put forth the idea to admit 12 countries at once at the World Economic Forum in Davos, has been rejected by the Irish, applauded by those seeking to avoid the friction streamlined integration would cause, and generally pitched back and forth in one of the more lively debates in recent political history.
Deliberation about how and when integration will happen can be heard from Sweden down through Cyprus; throw into the mix what the implications of enlargement mean for EU institutions, and Europe's expectations for representational balance become a lot more complicated.
Dana Viktorová, a PhD candidate at the University of Economics in Prague, considers how the EU's institutional framework may change with 12 new members.[ed]
A new vision for Europe
Is the European Union ready for 27 member countries? Since 1998-9, when integration talks began, EU hopefuls from 12 countries, 13 including Turkey, have placed their sights on 2004 as the year to mark the start of a new, united Europe.
Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia comprise the group most likely to gain entry into the EU in 2004/5, if their fast-track expectations hold true. Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Malta, Poland, and Slovenia are at the top of the list and considered most ready.
Poland's recent economic problems and the Czech Republic's policies towards minorities, namely Roma, have shown that even countries seemingly on the right path towards accession have more than a few hurdles to clear before they can take their seats in Brussels. Cyprus, despite passing many accession requirements, is under increased pressure for its handling of corruption problems, not to mention its relations with Turkey. Bulgaria and Romania are more realistically longshots at best.
Notwithstanding the economic and political situations that candidate countries continue to grapple with, in spite of their eagerness to be become part of the Union, the number of countries seeking entry will test the current governing process in the EU, and its general preparedness to take on new member states.
It becomes quickly apparent when considering the magnitude of enlarging the EU to 27 members that until substantial reform of the whole institutional framework occurs, integration cannot happen. The EU's functionaries—consisting of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament, to name but a few—will have to re-think the way they operate before welcoming any new colleagues on board. These institutions, with their special brand of negotiation and decision-making rules, must prepare now in order to be ready for the road that lies ahead.
An enlarged Commission
The process of enlargement calls into question many pragmatic concerns for the internal working procedures of the Commission, including the potential establishment of first-rate and second-rate commissioners. Such a situation might create a Commission hierarchy.
The Commission currently has 20 leaders. The largest countries—the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain—have two commissioners. If this allocation is maintained during the first round of enlargement, involving Poland, Hungary, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta; Poland would qualify for two commissioners and the others for one. That would establish a Commission of 28. And further enlargement, involving the rest of candidates, would set a Commission of 33, which is a big number for its tasks.
The Treaty of Nice supposes too that during the first round of enlargement of the EU, that each country would delegate just one commissioner. All at once there should be a changed proportion of weighted votes in the Council on behalf of those countries, which do not nominate a second commissioner.
After further enlargement of the Union, with an EU of 27 members, Article 231(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, must be altered accordingly. A number of members of the Commission should be lower than the number of member states. Even if there is further enlargement, the maximum number of commissioners must be retained.
How might the Council look?
According to Article 205 (ex Article 148) of the Amsterdam Treaty, each member state has rationed votes in relation to country size: ten for large countries, two for the smallest ones in the Council.
In the case of qualified majority voting, the weighted votes system is used. In this system, the large countries have more votes but not proportionally according to their population. Smaller countries have more votes than they should get according to their population. From the total number of votes (87), there are 62 needed to pass a proposal with a qualified majority; 26 constitute a blocking minority.
If the membership bar is raised to 27 and the current decision-making process is maintained, the same weighted votes system would be practiced, then the small countries would entirely dominate in the Council.
The reason for this imbalance is simple. The principles were originally structured for the integrated unit of six member states—three large and three small. But, it is not possible to copy such a system for an EU with 27 members, with large member states comprising the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy, the three middle-large member states of Spain, Poland, and Romania, and 20 small members rounding off the rest of the Union's membership.
Potential voting scenarios for what might occur in a situation where there are 27 members have been formed. If the votes in the Council were allocated according to the today's system, the advantage clearly goes to the small countries
According to this scenario, small countries voting together with one large country and two middle-large countries would create a blocking minority with a population involving just half of the whole EU. An association of Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia would count 11 votes in the Council representing 7.3 million of population whilst Germany's ten votes represent 80 million of people.
On 1 January 2005, Article 205 (2) and (4) of the Treaty establishing the EC will be changed. If the Council needs to make a decision by a qualified majority voting, the votes of member states should be re-weighed. The total number of votes in the Council will be 237. A qualified majority required to pass a proposal would be 170 votes. If 12 new members join the EU, the weighted votes system will not change. A qualified majority required to pass a proposal would then constitute 258 votes.
So far, the re-weighing of votes has been the most important change considered. The aim was to adjust the particularity of the current decision-making system. After all, the basic principle has been preserved. Three large countries and one small country would be able to block any majority.
For the first time, there would be a chance for each member state to protest against a decision of the Council, which does not represent at least 62 percent of population of the EU.
Of course, it is not possible to establish a decision-making system that would be completely proportional to the population size of each member state. But, if the small countries maintained broad disproportion with weighted votes and into the EU new countries came, that broad disproportion would increase even more.
Extension of qualified majority voting
As the process of enlargement progresses, it will become increasingly difficult to achieve unanimous decisions. The extension of qualified majority voting could simplify the decision-making process. Qualified majority voting is a standard for a major part of European legislation. It should be closely considered whether qualified majority voting ought to be extended on behalf of efficient decision-making while enlarging the EU.
Currently, there are 73 articles and sub-articles in the main treaties that require unanimous voting. Obviously, there still would be some areas which require unanimous voting as part of the modification of the treaties and enlargement of the EU, but, it should be considered whether unanimous voting is a potential barrier for further and deeper integration.
The member countries and the European Parliament agree that the extension of qualified majority voting is essential, if the EU wants to operate efficiently with 20 or 30 members. But such extension can be a challenge for sovereign states. The unanimous voting system cannot be abolished, because it is an aspect of equality.
The presidency and the Parliament
The system of the presidency in the Council requires a revision too. Today's half-a-year rotation procedure would be very difficult to manage in an EU with 27 members. Each state would reach a presidency once in 13.5 years. Such a system has other handicaps for efficient work of the Council, because the period of the presidency is too short. There are possible solutions. For example, increasing the presidential term to one or two years.
It is necessary to reallocate the number of seats in the Parliament in context of the enlargement; otherwise the Parliament would become ungovernable and ineffective. The aim is to model the Parliament in a similar manner as the House of Commons in UK or to the Bundestag in Germany. In the Amsterdam Treaty some changes were made to the structure, functions and competencies of the Parliament, intending to create suitable conditions for the enlargement of the EU.
The Parliament presently has 626 members who are directly elected by member states. The number of the seats is determined according to the size of the country and is more favorable for small countries. A number of the representatives from each country are resolutely set in the Article 190 (2) of the Amsterdam Treaty.
European politicians have observed a danger, which the Parliament will face. If today's quotas for members were applied, the Parliament would expand to more than 1000 seats.
Is the EU ready?
Current EU leaders so often ask member hopefuls to prove their readiness to join, but the question of whether the EU is ready for new members is equally important. Enlargement must not weaken the EU. The EU has to be prepared for a large number of member states and must succeed in achieving common European goals. In contrast to the last enlargement processes, the new enlargement would cut down operational ability and manageability of the EU. The EU takes interest in its enlarging, but this effort is threatened by incomplete institutional reform.
|
Extension of the current system would lead to its collapse. This system is not open to heterogeneity of economic development and different (political) interests among member states and candidates. The political system of today's EU cannot imbibe such diversity in an enlarged Europe.
In 2005, the institutional reform should be finished and we can examine whether it brought required effects or not. This also will be a year when the EU is able to accept new members. The EU ought to establish such a system that does not require quota changes whenever new members are going to join. If the EU intends to operate effectively, efficiently, and with accountability, it must have the institutions that will mirror its intentions.
Dana Viktorová, 17 December 2001
Also of interest:
- Cartoons from Romania
Leonte Nastase and Anton Dragos - Oliver Craske: Why the EU should make enlargement its top and only priority
Moving on:
- Browse through the CER eBookstore for electronic books
- Buy English-language books on CEE through CER
- Return to CER front page
