Peace

Human Rights

Economic Justice

What is QCEA?

Structure & Staff

Contact Us

Take Action

Subscriptions and Membership

Donate

Study Tours

Internships

Around Europe

Briefing Papers

Occasional Papers and other publications

Ordering Printed Copies

History

Meeting Rooms Available

• Now the Celebrations are over – Reflecting on Enlargement

• European Elections – What Happened and Why ?

These were the words of the Revd Jean-Arnold de Clermont, President of the Conference of European Churches in his address during an ecumenical service to celebrate the enlargement of the European Union in 2004. The service was jointly organised by 17 organisations representing a broad spectrum of Christian Churches and groups and QCEA was among them. It seemed to us important to celebrate this most extensive of all EU enlargements with reflection and thanks but also by restating our commitment to a Europe of peace.

The European Union started out as a peace project; and as such, it has been successful. The breakdown of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in the early 90s opened up the opportunity and the challenge of broadening the European Union eastwards, some would call it enlargement, others, reunification. Whichever way it is seen, 1 May 2004 was celebrated with singing, dancing, fireworks and bridge crossings in many places in Europe where until not so long ago barbed wire fence, watch towers and mined no-mans-land were more common.

Here in Brussels, the weekend had a sense of festival with food fairs, cultural events and street parties as well as open house in all the major EU institutions. There was a real sense of cultural diversity and community.

We visited the European Parliament to watch the festivities and were amazed at the crowds of ordinary people speaking all manner of languages queuing for hours to get in – not an everyday sight. When we tried to get into the headquarters of the Council of the European Union, the queues were so long that we gave up.

But what of the challenges that now face the enlarged Union. It has gained 10 countries and another 75 million people. Understandably and rightly they have high expectations. They have worked hard for over a decade to get to this point. The promise of membership has driven reform of the economy – often painfully, the political structures and processes and the development of human rights.

However, this is the largest ever enlargement of the EU and it comes at a time when money is tight. Unlike the enlargements that saw the accession of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece, now the resources for extending the substantial farm subsidies or regional development aid to the new Member States are limited. For fear of unlimited and extensive immigration, citizens of the 10 new Member States still have restrictions on their freedom to settle in other Member States for a transitional period which can last for up to 7 years.

We must not forget, though, that most of the 10 new Member States have a much lower standard of living than the other 15. Arguably, they need the freedoms and benefits of free movement of labour more than those who enjoy it already. The infrastructure in these countries needs serious investment. Agriculture needs to be developed to ensure that those working the land have a living wage. This is a challenge for the richer part of the European Union to be open to fairness across all its Member States. The media which hype up our fears about unlimited immigration, reduction in wage standards because of an influx of cheap labour and the cost of helping the new Member States develop their economies are both misleading and playing to our lowest instincts. Let us not be sucked into this trend.

And what of the effect of this enlargement on people and countries the world over? Will this enlargement with its understandable pressure on resources inside the EU lead to fewer resources being available for those countries outside the EU who are so much poorer than any of the old or new Member States? Will the EU continue to restrict trade with third countries to shield its Members’ economies at the cost of the survival of people elsewhere?

The development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy has been difficult with only 15 Member States. It is not going to get easier with another 10 Member States part of the discussion and having to consider the political implications of such decisions at a domestic level. The emphasis on militarization is likely to be greater now with several of the new Member States also enthusiastic new members of NATO. The effort to develop a credible peacebuilding alternative within the EU will become harder as a result.

Finally, there is the challenge of integration between the people of the enlarged Union. Many of us have little knowledge of the culture of other EU Member States (whether the old 15 or the new 10) but without that knowledge the reality of a European Union of diversity won’t wash. We will have to make that effort and find joy in doing so.

Martina Weitsch and Liz Scurfield

Return to contents

June 10 to 13 the sixth time direct elections for the European Parliament (EP) were held and the first time that Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the recently joined 10 new Member States were voting in these elections.

The turnout was extremely disappointing. This had been declining since the first of these elections in 1979 (when turnout was around 67%). In the previous elections in 1999 the turnout had reached a mere 50%. But this time, even that was impossible to achieve.

Countries in bold italics – Founder Member States;

Countries in italics – joined 1 May 2004

The results also show a general trend toward the political right and towards parties who are anti-EU or EU sceptic in some way.

The results of the elections are still considered to be provisional. The official figures won’t be published until the middle of July. The distribution of seats between the different groups is still being reported with marginally different figures by different sources. Our figures are based on those published in the Herald Tribune on 15 June 2004.

To find out which of the parties in your country relates to which of these groups, please consult the EP website at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/groups/default.htm

Issues:

Apathy

Some of the low turnout is due to apathy, some due to Euro fatigue (especially in Central and Eastern Europe where they have had relatively recent referenda on membership). But apathy in large measure reflects a failure of politicians to get the message across to voters.

National not EU issues

There are no European parties; groups which are made up of disparate parties from Member States are often not in agreement on fundamental issues.

The election campaign in most countries – if there was a campaign at all – was fought on national issues.

No clear message and no clear leaders at a EU level

The main groups within the EP did have a manifesto; however, little of this filtered through to the electorate in the Member States. The only party/group that set out to fight the election on EU issues was the Green group.

The EU has accepted by Treaty to take account of the EP elections in their decision about who to appoint as the President of the European Commission. Not one party or group made any clear statements about their unequivocal preference on this subject. This could have been a real leadership issue for EU citizens to debate.

At present, the two largest groups in the EP are negotiating a deal relating to the sharing of the Presidency of the EP. Again, the position of the President of the EP could have been a leadership issue around which groups, parties and public might have debated and rallied.

Sanctioning of ruling national governments

For the majority of countries in the EU, - Germany, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Portugal, France, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK – the outcome of the election was essentially a message to their national governments. Citizens, who feel dissatisfied with their leadership at national level, and in the absence of any real message about EU issues, simply vote to teach their national leaders a lesson. It may be a useful lesson; it may even be a necessary lesson. But it undermines the democratic process at EU level. Many of the opposition parties in many of these countries were instrumental in focusing the election campaign on this national discontent.

Euro scepticism

In some countries, notably the UK, Sweden, Malta, Austria, and the Czech Republic, those parties who take a clear anti EU position have made significant gains. Denmark bucked this trend. Here, people apparently want to stop being ambivalent about their EU membership.

But in some respects this anti-EU position is also very attractive because it is a clear position and one which, at least in some countries, is relentlessly peddled by the press, often supported with 'fact’ which turns out not to be too factual.

The added concern is that at least some of these parties display a degree of racism and xenophobia which is particularly worrying in the context of Europe’s history.

Where does that leave the EU, the EP and EU citizens?

The gap between the European Institutions and EU citizens has widened. There is less awareness on the part of citizens of what the European Parliament is about and why it is important. Politicians and other EU decision-makers should learn from this election – the worst ever in the history of direct elections to the European Parliament – that they need to make real and effective efforts of communicating with citizens.

This much is certain: the EU, for good or bad, has a significant impact on the political, social, economic and international issues that affect all our daily lives. If the decision makers continue to fail to inform citizens of this in a clear and effective way, then that will leave the field wide open for those who would risk serious splits in the EU. Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? History will/would tell us. But what history has already told us is that EU citizens live together better and in peace in the European Union than without it. This does not mean that the EU is as good as it should or could be. Far from it! But to make Europe the peaceful continent we want, the peaceful continent that is able – from the ashes of its own history – to contribute to peace elsewhere, we must not walk away - we have to engage with the European Union we have now.

Martina Weitsch

Return to contents

We have this problem too. But we have been able to identify some sources of information which we rely on more than others and here I want to describe one such source of information. It is not specifically related to the European Union, to Europe or to European politics but covers many of the areas we are working on.

The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research is a networking organisation with associates all over the globe. It is based in Sweden and its website and news e-mails are in English and Swedish. Among its funders can be found organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

TFF has been going for nearly 20 years and does an impressive amount of work on subjects related to peace. This includes speaking at various events, producing research, maintaining a very informative website, providing a free e-mail service alerting subscribers to new issues and new work they have done.

The site includes Forums on a number of subjects which are for the concerned citizen browsing to find inspiration, the student, the journalist, the intellectual and the decision-maker. And for those who think there must be different ways to look at the world and prefer peace by peaceful means. They include subjects such as: Iraq, Burundi, EU militarization, nonviolence and others.

It is an invaluable source for research which takes you to the information you want, to the facts you are searching for. It aims to be a free and independent voice in a world where information is often not free and mostly not independent.

We encourage readers of Around Europe to look at the site, to subscribe to the free e-mails and to support this excellent source of information. The adress is: http://www.transnational.org

Return to contents

Back to the main Around Europe page