EU Referendum

Showing posts with label enlargement. Show all posts

The news that Iceland's government has decided to apply for EU membership for the country has not been greeted with unalloyed joy and I am not talking just about the people of Iceland. The Commission, naturally enough, has welcomed the application. As far as they are concerned, any application, no matter who submits it and with what popular support or lack of it, is proof positive that the EU is a success.

However, there is trouble in Germany, as EUObserver reports.

Centre-right politicians from Germany's Christian Social Union (CSU) have spoken out against Iceland's bid to join the European Union.

"The EU cannot play saviour to Iceland's economic crisis," Markus Ferber, head of the CSU's members of the European parliament, told Suedduetsche newspaper [Süddeutsche Zeitung] over the weekend.

"We should discuss the structure of the EU before we discuss expanding it," said Alexander Dobrindt, General Secretary of the CSU, which is the smaller sister party to German chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union.

The newspaper reports that the manifesto for both parties for the 27 September general election will indirectly oppose further EU enlargement, with the exception of Croatia

Why any German politician should ignore the fact that Croatia will have to be subsidized quite heavily is something of a mystery but, presumably, the country they really do not want in the EU is Turkey.

The story is, naturally enough, reported in Iceland and in Ireland. Jamie Smyth writes in his European Diary in the Irish Times that there is a general disaffection with the whole idea of further enlargement. Given that, as some of us predicted about ten years or more ago, eastward enlargement has not been an unqualified success for anybody, this attitude is not surprising.

The old chestnut of the absolute necessity of sorting out whichever treaty is being held up for the sake of enlargement or, rather, these days, before we can speak of further enlargement comes up with the assumption, natural enough for Mr Smyth that the only thing that matters is the second Irish referendum. What of the German Constitutional Court's decision? In the long term that is likely to be much more dangerous for le grand projet than the referendum.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]It’s hard to tell how one should react to the various and variegated news from the Balkans. They could be treated as a big joke or as something created especially to try us all. Then again, many a European and world tragedy emerged from that difficult peninsula.

First things first. Serbia has signed a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the European Union. The 27 foreign ministers, who met today decided that Serbia, too, should be placed on the road to possible, if somewhat distant membership of the European Union.

Boris Tadic, the president interpreted the whole process somewhat differently in the statement issued yesterday afternoon:

Today, I am proud to announce that Serbia has finally signed the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU. The Agreement sends a clear message: Serbia's future lies in Europe.

The message delivered today by EU Foreign Ministers was clear and unambiguous - they want Serbia to take its rightful place among them as a full and equal partner. There can no longer be any doubt about our shared commitment to make Serbia an integral part of a stronger and bigger EU.

For the citizens of Serbia the agreement will give greater freedom of travel, closer economic integration and removal of trade barriers, and most importantly the prospect of more employment. By signing the agreement today, we have reconfirmed our commitment to further reform and progress and prevented a path of economic isolation.

It pleases us particularly as we have delivered on this promise to the citizens of Serbia, ahead of the elections.

Now it is up to all citizens of Serbia to think carefully about the real long-term interests of our country and choose accordingly.

Well, of course, the man is fighting an election and the outcome is not at all clear. But this has always been the theme of the post-Communist countries – we want to be part of Europe. Sadly, the EU, incapable of seeing relations with neighbouring countries except in terms of them joining or not joining, never offers alternative agreements that would also make the "newcomers" feel as if they were part of Europe.

The only common foreign policy the EU can agree on with regards to neighbours (the most important aspect of one's foreign policy) is that of an amoeba: endlessly changing shape.

Meanwhile, the aspirant countries see possible membership as a kind of an El Dorado or Shangri-La – it will sort out their problems and give them lots of money to develop economically. Sadly, the reality is very different and the Serbs (and the Croats, the Bosnians, the Albanians) will find out, if, indeed, the EU lasts long enough for them to become members of it.

There are one or two other problems. Firstly, what happens if Tadic’s party loses the election to the more nationalistic groups and the question of Kosovo raises its head again. There is no evidence that it has been solved. Secondly, what is Russia, Serbia’s best friend (though not necessarily in need) going to say about all this?

The Serbs may be happy but neither the Greeks nor the Macedonians are. We have followed this convoluted saga on the blog. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal carried an article by the Greek author and journalist, Takis Michas, which tried to explain the various problems that prevent the two countries from agreeing on any kind of a peaceful coexistence. They are not about to go to war but neither are they at peace.

It is about much more than just the name, the argument about which is something of a red herring. It is about that elusive Balkan entity – national identity, something that was supposed to disappear in the twenty-first century but, which, to the contrary, creates endless problems in countries, who spend a great deal of time re-writing and re-re-writing historic events and developments the better to define their identity.

Contrary to received wisdom, the dispute between Greece and Macedonia isn't over a mere name, but concerns competing national mythologies, symbols and histories. In other words, we have here all the usual Balkan issues over which people in this part of the world and elsewhere have butchered each other in the distant and not-so-distant past. No easy fix is possible, and a compromise over the name won't put to rest the basic conflict. Unless all the problems are addressed openly and honestly, mutual distrust will persist, ready to erupt again at the first opportunity – or once EU reconstruction funds dry up.

Had Athens and Skopje engaged in serious bilateral or multilateral talks during the past decade on all the points of contention, and not focused simply on the "name", perhaps they would not find themselves in their current, absurd predicament.

Then again, with EU reconstruction funds drying up, the two countries might be forced into some kind of accommodation with each other.

Turkey+rally.01[i-Turkey+rally.01]EUObserver reports on the basis of an interview in FT Deutschland that the Enlargement Commissar, Olli Rehn, has warned France that there could be no general debate about Turkey’s possible entry into the European Union.

President Sarkozy, well aware of French public opinion on the matter as well as of the new constitutional provision for a referendum, possibly hopes that if he remains intransigent on this issue, the people of France might ignore the fact that he is trying not to have a referendum on the treaty that is due to come out of the IGC.

To be fair, it is not entirely clear what Sarko envisages when he says that he wants a general debate in the EU about its final borders before December. A general debate between whom, exactly?

The idea is obviously not very popular with the powers that be, debates not being occasions they are particularly fond of. So Commissar Rehn waffled about the accession process being “an anchor for democracy and secularism”, whatever that might mean, and also about Turkey being the transit land for 15 per cent of the EU’s oil and gas.

The last point is yet another attempt to conflate economic agreements with membership of the EU. Turkey can stay outside the European project and still continue to supply any amount of oil and gas. The two do not depend on each other.

The real worry for the Commission is that Turkey may decide that it does not want to join an organization that is so anxious not to have her. (Actually, Groucho Marx’s comment would be more appropriate but that may not be how Turkish politicians see the matter.) That, again, would not be a real problem except for the fact that the European Union, for all its talk of a common foreign policy, has no real idea of how to deal with countries on its borders, except to view them as potential members.

What everyone is particularly afraid of is the possibility of Turkey turning away from the West and of its proud claim of being the only secularist Muslim country and becoming more Islamist. It is hard to tell whether this fear is real. Certainly, the army, the guardian of the Kemalist heritage is on the qui vive as far as the ruling, supposedly Islamist, AK Party is concerned.

On the other hand, apart from the vexed question of Abdul Gül’s wife’s headscarf, there has been little sign of Islamist changes, one reason for that being the outgoing President’s determined blocking of any attempts to introduce them.

Turkey is coming up to a parliamentary election in July 22 and its results are anxiously watched inside and outside the country. On top of that there is the question of the proposed constitutional reform, which would make the presidency electable directly rather than by the parliament, the existing system, which allowed the opposition to block Mr Gül’s attempt to become president.

The government reacted by announcing a decision to hold a referendum on the reform with the opposition appealing to the constitutional court to quash the reform. The court has decided that the idea to hold a referendum was constitutionally acceptable. If the AK Party wins the parliamentary election, a reasonable expectation, the referendum is likely to be in late autumn.

COMMENT THREAD

Eugene+of+Savoy[i-Eugene+of+Savoy]It is entirely possible that some readers will show their displeasure at the fact that I have posted a picture of Eugene of Savoy at the start of a piece about Turkey, he being the general who defeated the Ottomans once or twice. This statue celebrates the Battle of Zenta of 1697 and stands above the Danube, in front of Buda castle. As he looks out, Prince Eugene commands a very fine view (though not as fine as the views in Yorkshire).

It was a short piece on American Thinker that led me to think of Prince Eugene. It seems that Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul was irritated by a farewell present to retiring (and not a moment too soon) President Chirac from Chancellor Merkel. It seems the antique beer mug was decorated by illustrations from a French victory over the Ottomans.

Thomas Lifson is rightly disdainful about the Turkish huffing and puffing:

Gull [sic] should understand that we are free to celebrate our victories. Americans celebrate our Revolutionary War from Britain with nary a peep from our Brit cousins. The French celebrate their victory at Austerlitz with a railway station, and Germany doesn't object. I have to wonder if Turkey might not celebrate a victory or two.

Very true, I thought, seething again at the thought of an inscription I read to a picture in the Royal Academy's "Turks" exhibition about the "glorious Szigetvár campaign" in Hungary in the sixteenth century. Glorious? It was a national tragedy, lightened merely by the heroism of the defenders, all but a handful of whom were killed.

And right again about Brits not minding too much about the Revolutionary War, not even when seriously misleading films such as "The Patriot" are produced. Though I cannot help thinking that German equanimity about the Battle of Austerlitz may have something to do with the fact that they were not much involved, it being the "Battle of the Three Emperors": Napoleon, Francis I of Austria (then still the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II) and Alexander I of Russia.

What rather puzzled me was the French victory over the Ottomans. I looked up the history of the Ottoman Empire in the eighteenth century and found several Russo-Turkish wars, which went this way and that (mostly that) and several defeats of the Ottomans by the Austrians under Prince Eugene of Savoy (hence the picture). Of course, some of the defeats were reversed and had to be repeated but, on the whole, events went this way.

Which French victory? Right at the bottom of the list, dear reader, is something I ought to have remembered (mea culpa): 1798 Battle of the Pyramids. Quite so, though, as it was swiftly followed by the Battle of Aboukir and the Siege of Acre, it may not be something the French care to dwell on too much, despite Napoleon's stirring words to his soldiers:

Soldiers, from the heights of these pyramids, forty centuries look down on us.

Still, the Germans could have produced a beer mug with l'empereur making that speech or fighting the mameluk army.

Looking up the original story I found, sadly, that it was all a storm in a tea-cup or beer mug.

The German government said Wednesday the commotion had sprung from a misunderstanding: The mug, manufactured around 1710 in Germany, was adorned with flower ornaments, not a pictorial depiction of a historic war victory.

I wonder which translator was responsible for that little effort and whether he or she is in the Bosphorus yet.

Meanwhile, beer mugs aside, something is stirring on the EU-Turkish front. The negotiations have been resumed with the opening of another chapter, number 20, to be precise, on enterprise and industrial policies, "after the German presidency held emergency talks between Spain, France and the European Commission (EC) on Monday". In fact, this is only the second chapter that has been opened in the negotiations with Turkey, so the ten year long timetable remains over-optimistic.

The question of whether Turkey could or should ever become part of the European Union is very wide, indeed, and starts with a very basic query for the EU: exactly how far does it intend to expand and what is the purpose of that expansion.

On other postings I have argued that the EU is a little like an amoeba (though less useful) in that it can exist only if it enlarges itself. If it is not negotiating the entry of new members it has to deal with all the internal contradictions of its structure as it exists. That would be an intolerable burden for the politicians and theoreticians of integration.

Aydın Dumanoğlu, the co-chairman of the Turkey-EU Joint Parliamentary Commission, expressed the view that the EU and Turkey needed each other, as "the EU needs Turkey as a global actor and Turkey needs the EU as a vision".

It is nice to hear somebody describing the EU as a vision after all these years. It is, however, a vision that has been somewhat tarnished, not least in the eyes of the Turkish people who see a great deal of hostility to themselves (and if their foreign minister goes around making dumb comments, they can expect no other) and in the eyes of the Turkish military, a very important participant, who do not seem to like the idea of having to make choices between European defence strategies and the American alliance.

However, there is one very good reason why the EU needs Turkey. With the Turks inside the tent the European army may well become a reality at last.

COMMENT THREAD

EU+-+flags+034[i-EU+-+flags+034]At midnight tonight, with the dawn of the New Year, Romania and Bulgaria join the European Union, bringing it to 27 members. But that means more than them joining a cosy little club. It means that Romanians and Bulgarians have the right to enter our country. They do not, as yet, have a right to work here – unless they are self-employed – but who is checking?

It does mean, though, that their governments become part of our government. Romania and Bulgaria will supply officials, high and low, to the EU commission, which makes decisions on how we in England are required to run our affairs. Their ministers join the Council of Ministers, which decides which laws are adopted, and their heads of government become members of the European Council – and decide on "European" political strategy. For that privilege, we also pay several more billions into the kitty.

The funny thing is, I do not ever remember being asked - not by my government or anyone else - if I wanted Romania and Bulgaria as part of my government, giving their officials the right to decide on the laws that affect me. And do I mind? Hell yes! I do mind, very much indeed.

Accordingly, I will not be welcoming the latest new members into the "club". I would sooner they and all the rest celebrated our departure from it. In the meantime, they can - as the song goes - stick their blue flags up their .....

COMMENT THREAD

Turkey+EU[i-Turkey+EU]As we approach the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the European Union (boy, is that going to be fun!), some people are turning their attention to Turkey. As it happens, Turkey's possible entry has been pushed even further into the future with the Commission part-freezing the negotiations, allegedly because of Turkey's refusal to deal with the question of Cyprus but, really, because the EU is getting cold feet about that country.

Though, as we have said before, if the EU wants its own army, it has to have Turkey in. Who else has enough well-trained, well-equipped soldiers? Poland and Turkey can form the backbone of the European defence force. There's a wonderful historic irony for you.

Yesterday evening I was in 18 Doughty Street, waiting for my turn. I was about to take part in a discussion about counterfactual history with several other contributors to "Prime Minister Portillo and Other Things that Never Happened" and "President Gore and Other Things that Never Happened". Well, since you ask, the two essays I had written were: "What if Lenin's train had never reached Petrograd" and "What if the Czechoslovak army had fought in 1938".

While waiting for our programme I listened to the discussion before it, mostly about newspaper stories, that involved the presenter and two others: Russell Walters of the Democracy Movement and Greg Clark MP (he of the Polly Toynbee idea).

What intrigued me was the efforts made by both discusants to demonstrate that taking in Turkey would be a good idea because it would prevent any further integration and would make the EU shallower. To be fair to the presenter, he did remind them of the same comments and promises being made before the East European countries came in and none of that had materialized. In fact, it is the East Europeans who have to adjust their hitherto reasonably successful economies to our own high-tax, high-regulation ones. And, as some of us predicted at the time, those adjustments are playing havoc with the economies there.

In fact, what we said at the time was that each enlargement was accompanied by greater integration as it was impossible to run ever more and ever more diverse member states together without centralizing more powers. The big one into Eastern Europe was used for huge steps forward with integration in the Treaties of Amsterdam and Nice and even bigger ones attempted with the Constitution for Europe.

All of this seems to have passed by a number of the commentators, who are known as eurosceptics. The truth is that it is not enough to be called a eurosceptic. One also has to have some knowledge on the subject.

So, next time somebody says that taking in more countries, particularly Turkey would result in a shallower European Union, here are a few questions to ask;

Does this mean that the leaders will call another IGC and change the treaties to restore a number of the existing EU competences to the member states? In particular, will they rescind the Social Chapter, a subject apparently dear to the Boy King's heart?

Does this mean that there will be a change to the treaties (through an IGC, which is the only way to do it) and vetoes will be reintroduced in a number of areas that are now legislated on according to qualified majority voting?

Does this mean that the ECJ decision in the Van Gend & Loos case of February 1963, which determined that European legislation is superior to national, something that has been written into the European Communities Act 1972?

Will there be a change to the treaties (through an IGC etc etc) and the Commission's role as the sole initiator of legislation within Pillar I will be changed?

I have an odd suspicion that the answer to all those questions will be firstly a blank stare, secondly a number of throat clearances and stammered nothings and, thirdly, a reluctant no. Well, in that case, how is the European Union going to become shallower?

COMMENT THREAD

double-click to enlarge[i-double-click to enlarge]If they can have "Kremlinology", then the word "Euology" must be just as valid.

And, as did Kremlinologists of old who could work out who was "in" and who was out of favour by the relative positioning of the politburo on the roof of Lenin's tomb during the annual Mayday parades, from the periodic "family photographs" of the member state leaders at European Councils, we can attempt to assess the "state of the union".

From this latest one, taken prior to the meeting in Brussels over the last two days (14-15 December), two things of great interest emerge. Firstly, you can see from the picture (double-click to enlarge) that the group is highly dysfunctional. These are the heads of state and governments of the 25 EU member states (plus their hangers-on) and this is their showcase to the world. It will be used widely as a publicity shot to accompany the news items about the meeting.

Blair%20cutaway[i-Blair%20cutaway]Yet, as you can see (especially in the enlargement), they cannot even be bothered to pay attention to the camera. Within the main group, there are a number of sub-groups each holding their own conversations, oblivious to the purpose of the gathering. This applies especially to our great leader (circled in the main photo with a cutaway right), who is one of those looking away from the lens.

EC%201997[i-EC%201997]But even more fascinating is Blair's positioning relative to the centre. In the heady days of 1997 when a newly-elected premier was determined to be at "the heart of Europe", this was reflected in the family photos of the European Council, this one in November 1997 where he is in the front row only a few places from the centre (circled) and very much the centre of attention.

EC%202002[i-EC%202002]By 2002, however, when the enthusiasm has waned and the British are gearing with the US for the incasion of Iraq, we can see this in his new positioning (circled) in the family photograph. No longer at the centre (where you will always find Jacques Chirac), you will find him on the second row, unsmiling, and being ignored by those around him. How apt it was that the slogan was "one Europe" when it was anything but.

EC%202005%20Dec[i-EC%202005%20Dec]In December 2005, it looks like Blair is back in favour, but the photograph is illusory. The UK is holding the rotating EU presidency so he is at the centre, representing the office, not his own country. And, if he is also at the centre of attention, this is the council at which he gives away billions of pounds in extra contributions.

EC%202006[i-EC%202006]His true sentiment, however, is best represented by his positioning this October, at the Sibelius Hall bash, in Lahti, Finland. Blair – with his cheesy grin - could not get much further away from the camera (and the centre) if he tried. Thus, 1997 to 2006 becomes a journey of ten years that tells its own tale.

But there are two other things to emerge from the Council. The first is the vacuity of the communiqué. Nothing new there, but this example is priceless:

The European Council expresses its concern about the negative impact of Iranian policies on stability and security in the Middle East. The European Council underlines that Iran needs to play a responsible role in the region. In particular, the European Council deplores Iran's failure to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council, and agrees that this could only have negative consequences for relations between the EU and Iran.

iranvote2006[i-iranvote2006]Now that really will get Armoured Dinner-jacket quaking in his sandals.

For the second thing - we see very little publicity. Even China Daily is struggling and most of the western media simply ignore the event or give it token coverage. Only the Germans are vaguely interested, but that is because it is their girl next.

So does the once great vision of a united Europe slide into unreality. This lot can't even unite long enough for someone to take a proper photograph of them.

COMMENT THREAD

Polish%20flag[i-Polish%20flag]It seems that EU enlargement is not only costing us a fortune, creating enormous difficulties with the mass migration of populations, but also causing huge problems in the enlargement countries themselves.

The Times has the story – after a fashion. But, if you want real detail on Poland, read a blog.

Behind all the political instability in Poland, however, is a vital question - will the commitment to send an extra 1000 troops to Afghanistan survive the turmoil? And, if it doesn't, who else is going to step in as the situation deteriorates?

COMMENT THREAD

barroso_ok_afp220[i-barroso_ok_afp220]EU commission president José Manuel Barroso's has called for "sweeping reforms" before any EU enlargement, declaring that, "I think it would be unwise to bring in more member states apart from Romania and Bulgaria, which will be joining us soon, before we have solved the institutional question."

The phrase, "institutional question" is, of course, Euro-code for the EU constitution, made clear by Barroso’s further statement when he dismissed the idea of small treaty changes, insisting any further enlargement "is the time to take a decision on the constitutional treaty."

Speaking in Berlin, it seems that the commission president has in mind, amongst other things, "more coherence in external relations" – another Euro-code, this one meaning an EU foreign minister.

One wonders though whether Barroso has thought this through – or whether he is being disingenuous. Given that the French rejection of the EU constitution was certainly linked to enlargement, and was to some extent a proxy vote against Turkish membership. Overtly to link the need for a new constitution with further enlargement, therefore, has to be a certain way of ensuring that any attempts to agree a new treaty are rejected.

COMMENT THREAD

Spring is in the air[i-Spring is in the air]Apparently, the joys of spring had a Euro-flavour this year. According to the Spring Eurobarometer, as the sap started rising and the birds started tweeting and the lambs started gambolling… you get the picture … that was the time when we learned to stop worrying and started to love the EU.

Well, that's not quite the picture but commissioner Wallström definitely has a spring in her step as the early results show "an important increase in the support for EU membership among citizens, as well as in the image of the EU." The downside, however, is that "enlargement suffers from weaker support among the public opinion."

According to the survey, the three main indicators covering the general attitude towards the European Union show an unambiguous positive development in the public opinion. Compared to the last survey in the autumn 2005, support for EU membership have increased by 5 points (55 vs. 50 percent), image of the EU by 6 points (50 vs. 44 percent) and perceived benefits of the membership by 2 points (54 vs. 52 percent). In parallel, negative opinions on these three indicators have been decreasing, in particular for the image of the EU (15 vs. 20 percent).

Nevertheless, Finland - currently holder of the EU presidency - still ranks as the lowest in the support league, with a mere 39 percent in favour of EU membership, while the UK is not far behind with 42 percent. Whatever the raving Europhiles might say, therefore – and whatever the Boy King thinks is "cool" – the majority of people in this country do not support our membership of the EU. Furthermore, in only 34 percent of British people does the EU conjure up a favourable image while only 31 percent "tend to trust" the Union as a whole.

One more fly in the ointment is that support generally for the concept of a constitution for the EU has slightly decreased since the last survey in the autumn 2005 (61 percent, -2), coming back to the level reached in spring 2005. Some twenty-two percent of citizens are opposed to the concept of a European constitution and 17 percent do not know. With 62 percent of positive opinions, France is just above the EU average and with 59 percent, the Netherlands are just below.

However, reflecting just how pitifully little "Europeans" actually know about the EU, the Eurobarometer shows that they are "rather satisfied with the way democracy works in the European Union". Satisfaction rate reaches 50 percent (48 percent in the EU 15 and 59 percent in the new Member States, +1 compared to the last survey) while dissatisfaction is at 34 percent (-1). These, it appears, are the most positive scores achieved for this question in the last ten years.

Full details of the survey can be seen here.

COMMENT THREAD

The Court of Auditors in Luxembourg[i-The Court of Auditors in Luxembourg]

Another month another report from the Court of Auditors, this time about the EU funds going to the members of the next wave of probable EU enlargement: Romania and Bulgaria.

Our readers will recall that the Commission hummed and haed about those two countries and decided that their legal, fiscal and political structures were not precisely of the transparency and honesty that the EU allegedly requires.

We have no idea what the Romanian and Bulgarian governments think about transparency and honesty in the legal, fiscal and political structures of the EU but we do know what the Court of Auditors thinks about transparency and honesty in the projects funded by the PHARE Programme.

As EUObserver sums up:

“Phare funds are channelled by the European Commission to candidate states in order to prepare their administrations for accession, as well as to boost economic competitiveness.But a large part of the cash ends up in a black hole, the court found in an audit, which covers projects initiated from 2000-2004, involving €511 million of Phare cash for Bulgaria and €1.4 billion for Romania.

"At the time of the audit for over half of the investment projects audited the assets were not, or were only partially, being used for the intended purpose," said Mr Engwirda."Outputs and results lagged considerably behind schedule, sometimes by up to two years," he added.

The court said in a statement that it "criticises" the commission for its "overall management of investment projects."”

I wouldn’t call lagging behind schedule in various projects by up to two years particularly unusual or catastrophic. Have these people not heard of Wembley Stadium?

Do they not know that most projects in Communist and post-Communist countries, if funded and supervised by the state in any shape or form, tend to lag by considerably more than that?

There are some entertaining details, also quoted by EUObserver. Some of them, to do with the jeeps favoured by the Bulgarian border patrol will particularly interest my colleague:

“The report lists a number of non-functioning, half-finished and in some cases apparently useless investments, with Mr Engwirda himself highlighting a €3.1 million bridge linking Romania and Moldova completed in December 2004 with no access road on the Moldovan side.

The Moldovan road has meanwhile been finalised, commission officials noted.

The Bulgarian public prosecutor's office was granted a €1.8 million computer system, but 37 work stations were not used but put in a store room instead, while Bulgarian border police are seemingly not very keen to use EU-funded four wheel-drive jeeps."

The usual fleet of the [border police] is a Russian-built car, costing one third of the price of the car delivered under Phare and with cheaper spare parts," said the report.

A Romanian tourism development area was found to contain "an eyesore, an empty, degraded Olympic-size swimming pool," while a newly-built asylum centre was reported to have an occupancy rate of 7.6 percent.”

Of course, one could argue that the objectives of the PHARE Programme as somewhat skewed but that is not the purpose of the Report:

“15. The overall objective of the Phare programme is to help candidate countries prepare for EU-membership. This involves investments with the aim of strengthening:

(a) the regulatory infrastructure needed to ensure compliance with the acquis communautaire

(b) Economic and Social Cohesion (ESC) through measures similar to those supported in Member States through the Structural Funds, including addressing the effects of restructuring in important sectors of the economy.”

If we were really concerned with the welfare of those two countries (for selfish if no other reasons) we might start by asking ourselves whether “preparing” them for the entirely inappropriate and burdensome acquis communautaire is quite the right way of going about matters. But we are not concerned with anything as silly as that. We are convinced that there is only one way forward for the post-Communist countries in Europe and that is membership of the European Union.

Having decided thus and having allocated quite large amounts of money for the promotion of our ideas, we are faced with our old friend, unaccountability. Neither at the EU nor at the national end is there any kind of supervision of funds. Needless to say, the discipline of the market does not apply.

Every now and then the Court of Auditors produces a report, which, if not precisely ignored, is not taken seriously enough to be acted on.

The Commission does reply each time but each time somebody else is at fault.

“IV. Some of the investment projects audited were indeed not in place or operational at the date of the auditors’ missions. The principal causes of the delays and shortcomings in the implementation and completion of the respective projects were indeed the lack of the necessary administrative capacity of the national authorities on the one hand and on the other hand the delay in making available the required co-financing and other national resources.

However, efforts have been made in order to develop the level of the administrative capacity to ensure effective implementation and completion of the investment projects, within the time limits set in the programming documents.

Equally, continued efforts are being made in order to raise the awareness of all actors involved (national authorities, local authorities) that at the time of programming, further funds and human resources must be earmarked and made available to ensure the proper management and sustainability of the investment projects, after they are completed and put into operation.”

But not fiscal discipline or accountability for the money spent. Other problems are acknowledged but they have all been dealt with according to the Commission response.

“VII.
First indent - The implementation of Phare programmes has been affected by the weakness in the administrative capacity of Romania and Bulgaria in many areas, generating delays in the implementation of some projects. Nonetheless, the Commission would like to stress that since the programming year 2000, the administrative capacity of the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities has improved, although not to the extent desired, and in the framework of the multi-annual programme 2004-2006, specific attention has been given to this issue. In addition, a comprehensive overview of the Phare staff dedicated to the projects by Implementing Agencies has been required and presented to the Joint Monitoring Committees in 2005 and taken into account in the programme 2005. In 2006, a specific statement on administrative capacity has been required with each project fiche.

Second indent - Rules and practices regarding co-financing for Phare have been enhanced in the last years. Parallel co-financing has been discouraged in favour of joint co-financing and the reporting requirements for co-financing have been significantly improved as well.

Third indent - The catalytic effect of Phare money in activities led by international financial institutions has been assessed as far as possible. This also helps to avoid overlap with existing projects financed from sources other than Phare.”

Until the next report.

COMMENT THREAD

Cyprus - a divided island, blocking turkish accession[i-Cyprus - a divided island, blocking turkish accession]The fears arising from president Tassos Papadopoulos' victory in the Cyprus general election at the end of May seem to have been well founded.

At the time, observers were concerned that Papadopoulos could block Turkey’s accession negotiations and now, according to The Guardian, it looks like this might be happening. Reporting under the headline, "Cyprus vetoes Turkey's talks to gain EU entry", Brussels correspondent David Gow says that the talks are “headed for collapse at the first hurdle last night” after Cyprus “torpedoed a deal to kick-start the stalled negotiations.”

It appears that, after signing up for a late-night compromise on Thursday, designed to allow formal accession talks with Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, to go ahead on Monday, the republic of Cyprus unpicked the agreement on the least contentious issue of science and research - the first of 35 negotiating "chapters".

With new ministers in place, Cyprus is accused of acting "ultra-politically", while Ali Babacan, Turkey's chief negotiator, is warning that the country should expect delays in its attempt to join the EU, and talks on the second "chapter", education and culture, could also be postponed. However, Olli Rehn, the EU's enlargement commissioner, is saying that the talks are heading for a "train crash".

It is now up to the 25 foreign ministers of the member states to try to break the impasse in yet another meeting on Monday.

COMMENT THREAD

Dr Charles Tannock[i-Dr Charles Tannock]The odious but not unintelligent Charles Tannock MEP has a letter published in The Daily Telegraph today, which raises interesting questions in the wake of the Montenegrin vote for independence.

He points out that if countries in the western Balkans, such as Montenegro and Kosovo (also demanding sovereignty), not to mention future possible extension to tiny EEA states such as Iceland and Liechtenstein, join an enlarged EU under the current Nice formula, each with its own commissioner, minimum of six MEPs and disproportionate votes in the Council of Ministers, this will cause a serious political imbalance unfavourable to large member states such as Britain.

It is also clear, writes Dr Tannock, that a state the size of Montenegro (with a population of 620,000 people) will be severely administratively stretched to hold the six-month rotating presidency.

His conclusion, therefore, is that even if (he writes "once") the EU finally abandons the unlamented constitution, and given that the Nice Treaty is inoperable beyond 27 states (ie, after Romanian and Bulgarian accession), the EU will need to consider adopting a new, slimmed-down, consolidated treaty.

That is the point. Come what may, the member states (not the EU) are going to have to negotiate a new treaty, if they are going to continue with the core policy of enlargement. That means another intergovernmental conference, opening up the whole can of worms all over again. The crucial question for us will then be whether our then prime minister will feel it necessary (or be forced) to permit a referendum prior to ratification of any new treaty. The words, "rock" and "hard place" come to mind.

COMMENT THREAD

Queuing up to join - a Romanian city scene[i-Queuing up to join - a Romanian city scene]Noticeably lacking from any of the announcements on the forthcoming round on enlargement, to bring Romania and Bulgaria into the "European" fold, is any sense of the enthusiasm, much less euphoria, that accompanied the “big bang” of two years ago.

Thus, on the day that the commission was supposed to give the "all clear" to these two new entrants, in anticipation of their joining the EU on 1 January 2007, The Times and other sources tell us that the decision is to be deferred for six months.

Depending on whether both countries can then satisfy the commission that they have dealt more effectively with corruption and organised crime, the entry date may then be deferred until 2008.

For Romania, there are also a number of technical shortcomings, such as the lack of EU-compatible computer systems for tax collection, poor food hygiene standards and a failure to set up agencies for paying regional and farm aid,

However, even if there is a delay, there is no sense that the 22 million people of Romania and the further eight of Bulgaria are regarding accession as anything other than inevitable. And despite the huge disparities of income, the massive unemployment and the other problems, which are bound to create further strains in an already stretched EU, neither is there any sense that the current 25 member states are anything but resigned to the entry of two more members.

Effectively, this represents the latest step in the failure of the EU to develop a coherent policy towards its near neighbours and its lack of any ideas on how to assist the former Communist countries, short of absorbing them into the Union.

There is no question, though, that the appetite for further enlargement is now fading. Although, potentially, Bosnia and Serbia could be brought in, and the negotiations are proceeding with Turkey – with the Ukraine and outside possibility – the momentum has gone out of the process.

With the full implications – and effects – of the last round of enlargement yet to be fully felt, there is already a fear that bringing Romania, in particular, into the EU, will be especially troublesome, not least with predictions of at least another 300,000 migrants on the move.

Even then, France, Germany and the Netherlands have yet to ratify the accession treaties for the two applicant countries and there is an outside chance that any one of them will draw back from giving their final approval, although this may be unlikely in the longer term.

Whatever else, though, the delay confirms that the EU's days of unbridled expansion are coming to a close. It has become the reluctant empire.

COMMENT THREAD

UKIP leader, Roger Knapman (right), discussing enlargement with one of his members[i-UKIP leader, Roger Knapman (right), discussing enlargement with one of his members]"Anti-migrant party leader hires Poles" says The Sunday Times this morning, fingering Roger Knapman, MEP and leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

He has imported cheap east European labourers to renovate his West Country mansion, operating though his son, who runs a company that specialises in bringing foreign labour to Britain.

Over the past 11 months, says The Times, the Poles have been working 10 hours a day, six days a week, while living dormitory-style in Knapman’s attic. His son’s company claims east Europeans are up to 50 percent cheaper than their British counterparts.

Knapman, whose party was the only British group in the European parliament to vote against allowing east European states, including Poland, into the EU, boasted to an undercover reporter he could help supply Polish labourers to do similar work for British customers. He said using cheap foreigners is much better since “they work so much harder”.

The disclosure will surprise supporters of UKIP, which has warned that enlarging the EU to incorporate east European states would lead to a "flood of migrants" that would be "bad for Britain".

Its 2005 manifesto said the rate of immigration had to be stemmed because "the numbers of those permitted to enter legally has been rising sharply as a result of both the eastern expansion of the EU and deliberate government policy. The Labour government's untenable excuse is that we need large numbers of immigrant workers".

In public, Knapman, a former Tory MP, claims to take pride in supporting British business and boasts of owning two Rover cars. However, last week he told an undercover reporter that for the past 11 months he had been using a team of Polish workers to restore his grade II listed home in the west Devon village of Coryton. For much of that time he has had three or four workers, who have been provided with an old television, sleeping in his attic.

"They have a very good work ethic and work so much harder than anyone over here," he said. "You know they are not going to go off to another job as they are there specifically for you... Many workers here just aren’t skilled enough to do the work involved in renovating an old property. These men work 10 hours a day, six days a week and then we give them Sunday off. It's a 60-hour week, but they want to do it."

Knapman said he could help arrange teams of east Europeans to carry out building work through the firm run by his son William. "He will bring over some Polish workers according to what you need and they won't let you down," he said.

William Knapman runs Billdar, a Polish-registered company that sources east Europeans for jobs in Britain. The workers, whom he described as "like an army of ants", are paid about £50 a day — about half of the cost of a British builder.

William Knapman told an undercover reporter he used mostly Polish workers but also some Slovaks, Latvians and Swedes and quoted £4,000 for two men working for six weeks, from which the company takes an unspecified fee. "I think it's anywhere between 20 and 50 percent cheaper (than using British workers) doing it this way," he said. "The important thing is we’re not talking Monday to Friday, nine to five, with a tea break. They work 8am-6pm six days a week."

Roger Knapman said he would be employing the men, who have refurbished much of his property, for a further three months. When challenged yesterday, Knapman said there was "no contradiction! between what he was doing and the objectives of his party. On UKIP’s opposition to letting Poland join the EU, he said: “That is talking about political union, that is not talking about people working.”

When it was pointed out to him that they could freely work here because of the political union, he said: "I don't see that is relevant at all. We have three people who come here, they are very nice people and when they finish they go home."

Perhaps Knapman had better have a word with his fellow MEP, Godfrey Bloom. On his website, he declares:

With EU enlargement, workers in Eastern European countries have been given the right to work in Britain. When Britain recruits skilled workers from abroad, it causes a "brain drain" effect. Poorer countries still emerging from the spectre of the old Communist bloc cannot afford to lose their key workers. But with the opportunity to work in richer European countries, we are effectively exploiting the Eastern European countries.

And who is this "we", paleface?

COMMENT THREAD

Andrzej Lepper[i-Andrzej Lepper]

One of the fascinating aspects of the political situation in Poland (if that is not too strong an expression) has been the absence of a government since September. There has been a Prime Minister, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, and a Defence Minister, Radek Sikorski, who is given to many pronouncements, including suggestions of a “better” constitution for Europe.

This happy state of affairs (the absence of government not Mr Sikorski’s pronouncements) has come to an end temporarily with the leading party, Law and Justice, signing a coalition agreement with Andrzej Lepper’s Self-Defence Party and the Catholic League of Polish Families.

The latter two parties are usually described as being eurosceptic and anti-reform and Mr Lepper’s appointment as Deputy Prime Minister in charge of agriculture is “causing concern in Brussels”.

Much more to the point, it is causing concern in Poland. For one thing, the new government is still 13 seats short of a parliamentary majority, which means that it is likely to collapse within a few months. For another, something like 70 per cent of the country’s population oppose the formation of the coalition.

The boorish, thuggish, backward looking, anti-semitic Mr Lepper is one of the reasons why Poland reluctantly voted for membership of the European Union.

Politics in Eastern Europe divides along faultlines that are different from those in Western Europe. The question that faces the electorate, whether overtly or covertly, is whether the country is to become part of the modern world, look outwards, take its rightful position as a European nation. The other side of the debate is obscurantism, nasty, often anti-semitic nationalism, economic backwardness and a feared exclusion from the developed world.

It is unfortunate from the point of view of the eurosceptic cause that in most of the post-Communist countries the opposition to EU membership was propounded either by unreconstructed communists or virulent nationalists, both members of the latter political group.

In the end, the referendums were all won but the turn-out was low in most countries, the sort of result you would expect in the circumstances.

Now, terrifyingly for the Poles, one of those politicians has acquired a high position in the government, though probably not for long. The most likely outcome of that will be that the Poles who have had growing doubts about the EU will cling to it for dear life as they perceive rule by the likes of Andrzej Lepper to be the alternative.

In the meantime, Radek Sikorski, who, one assumes, will remain Defence Minister, has been complaining with some justification that once again Poland is being disregarded by Russia and Germany in their agreements.

Speaking at a conference in Brussels Mr Sikorski attacked the planned gas pipeline between Russia and Poland that will allow Russia to cut off energy supplies to Belarus and, by implication, Poland without hurting Western Europe.

“The $5bn (£2.7bn) pipeline, agreed in September 2005, will connect Babayevo in Russia to Greifswald in Germany.

The 1,200km (744 mile) pipeline is now under construction and will deliver Russian gas to Germany - and eventually to other Western European nations - by 2010.”

Naturally enough, in that case, the West European countries would not go to the assistance of the East Europeans who might be losing out.

The threat to Belarus must be there in case there is a change in government. As Aleksander Lukashenka is President Putin’s closest ally and supporter, there seems no particular reason for cutting off their gas.

Poland is another matter, of course. Defence Minister Sikorski became quite heated in his analysis and compared the building of the pipeline to the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, whose secret clauses gave Stalin the Baltic States and divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.

This sort of behaviour, said Mr Sikorski (no relation to the general), called into question the whole concept of a common foreign policy. Well, yes, one could put it that way. One assumes the Defence Minister was ironic but with politicians you can never tell.

COMMENT THREAD

Migrant workers on a British farm[i-Migrant workers on a British farm]Today, two years ago, the EU fifteen became twenty-five – adding ten more states to the evil empire, eight of them former satellites of the USSR.

In the spirit of friendship and solidarity, the bulk of the existing member states had already decided to refuse to open their jobs markets to the new entrants, the exception being Britain, Ireland and Sweden.

Now, to celebrate the anniversary of "Accession Day", the Independent reports on a survey which tells us that employers prefer workers from new EU states to "lazy" Britons.

As if we didn't already know, the paper informs us that migrant workers from the new states are filling jobs that indigenous UK workers are not prepared to do, but for much lower wages.

This is according to "new research" by the Europhile Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which claims that three quarters of the employers it interviewed said they believed enlargement had been good for business.

Its full survey, of 1,000 migrants and employers, found that employers used highly qualified migrant workers for low-skilled and low-waged work, especially in the building, hospitality and agricultural sectors. The employers found migrant workers “reliable” compared with UK workers, some of whom were described as "lazy".

The reason given is that migrant workers were prepared to tolerate low-skilled work and poor conditions because the pay was significantly better than the wages in their own countries. "Sometimes they put up with negative aspects of their jobs in order to learn English or because conditions were only temporary," the Foundation said, while some employers admitted to “bending the rules” on employment law.

Needless to say, the TUC is unhappy. Its spokesman said: "This survey confirms that migrants workers are exploited in a number of sectors. Unions need to step up their recruitment and government must do more to enforce legal standards."

Furthermore, not a few British workers are unhappy. My colleague in Somerset reports that two of the largest factories in his district are now employing exclusively Polish workforces, while a third factory – newly built only five years ago – is being demolished after the operation moved to Poland.

Although Finland, Spain and Portugal, and also Greece are now to lift restrictions, with the British experience in mind, France, Germany and Austria are among countries keeping them in place.

COMMENT THREAD

Anders%20Fogh[i-Anders%20Fogh]Last Friday the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, made a speech at the Copenhagen University, which was billed as “A Europe of Results”. As readers of this blog know, we are admirers of the Danish Prime Minister for his firm stand on such issues as freedom of speech and the war against terrorism. We were delighted when he won another election last year. But really – a Europe of results! Sigh.

While he talked a bit about the need to go forward in a more sensible way than that dictated by the Constitution, he seems to have concentrated on the problem of the next wave of enlargement.

“We need to consider EU's ability to absorb new members much more critically. This relates to EU's ability to make decisions, create common policies and popular support for the EU project.”

One is not quite sure whether the implication there is that it is the new members that lack popular support for the project or the old ones. What this apparently sensible analysis does not take into account is the need for the European Union to keep expanding in order to survive. There are never any alternative ways of dealing with neighbouring countries. And, of course, there are ever fewer neighbouring countries to deal with.

Mr Rasmussen has come up with a solution of a kind for the remaining states (mostly in the Balkans) that are hoping to get into the EU. At least their leaders want the countries to get in.

“Rasmussen suggested that prospective countries such as Albania, Bosnia, the Ukraine and Belarus could join the common economic market and achieve a degree of political influence.”

He then outlined what he called his vision:

“I envision us moving toward a more pan-European economic area. An area with free trade and economic cooperation between the EU and its neighbouring countries.”

That being so, why cannot the EU in general become “an area with free trade and economic co-operation” and, while we are at it, expand that to include some other countries in the world as well.

The speech was clearly aimed at the very many Danes that are having serious doubts about the whole project. As Søren Espersen, Danish People’s Party’s foreign affairs spokesman said:

“This sounds extremely exciting, and it sounds as if the prime minister is headed in a direction where the EU will be more edible for Danes.” [I expect the word he was looking for was palatable.]

There is a slight problem with this vision. In the past countries were told that they would not be able to have political influence unless they joined and accepted the entire acquis communautaire. Will there not be a certain amount of resentment if that situation changes for some?

COMMENT THREAD

Happier days: September 2001, with staff at the Ryton celebrating the half-millionth 206 to be built in Britain. Manufacturing director, Christopher Gauthier, said ,'we are well placed to continue with our stunning success.'[i-Happier days: September 2001, with staff at the Ryton celebrating the half-millionth 206 to be built in Britain. Manufacturing director, Christopher Gauthier, said ,'we are well placed to continue with our stunning success.']It was only just over a year ago that Peugeot pledged that its plant in Ryton, near Coventry, would play "a key role in the company's manufacturing strategy". It would, said company officials, "become the main European production site for the car for several years to come".

Yesterday, however, union officials were called to a meeting with the firm's chief executive, Jean Martin Folz, where it was disclosed that a detailed study had been carried out at the start of 2006, the results of which showed the Ryton plant to have high production and logistical costs. This meant, said Folz, that the group was unable to justify the investment needed for the production of future vehicles.

Despite the government having offered £14.4 million towards the cost of developing the plant in order for it to deal with more than one model, and having also provided funds towards collaborative R&D projects involving Peugeot, the plant is to close next year with the loss of the 2,300 jobs of those directly employed. Many others, who rely on the plant, will fall by the wayside.

The production of a new model, it seems, it to go to Slovakia, where wages are said to be one fifth of those paid to British workers, but the key political question being asked is why the British factory, rather than one of the French plants, is being closed down.

Derek Simpson, general secretary of the union Amicus declares that, "it is inconceivable that workers on this scale would be laid off on this scale." Somewhat illogically, he then argues that "weak labour laws are allowing British workers to be sacrificed at the expense of a flexible labour market", unconscious of the fact that the jobs are being exported to a country where labour laws are even weaker.

Ryton - one of the most efficient plants in Europe - but it still had to go - to protect French jobs?[i-Ryton - one of the most efficient plants in Europe - but it still had to go - to protect French jobs?]But it took the economics correspondent of the BBC to point out that this is what happens if you allow foreign – and especially European – ownership of key manufacturing enterprises. Given an unfavourable economic wind, it will always be the plants on the periphery that go first.

This may be an inevitable part of the general process of globalisation – and, in the short-term – is a direct consequence of EU enlargement, for which we are paying so dearly – but the closure has broader implications.

With BAE Systems pulling out of Airbus, what confidence can we have that assurances made about the continued employment of British workers will be honoured? And while the withdrawal of Airbus manufacturing would have profound economic implications, this is only the half of it.

If, as is rumoured, BAE Systems are planning to pull out of missile-maker MBDA, the prospect of strategic defence manufacturing facilities being withdrawn from Britain must surely be on the cards, and any assurances to the contrary must be about as believable as those given to Ryton workers by the Peugeot management last year.

Since we have already seen BAE Systems dismantle Royal Ordnance factories and transfer production offshore, we have no guarantees that what is happening at Ryton will not also happen to the rump of our British-based defence production.

Pledges, as we are finding, are one thing – guarantees are another. And when the last remnant of defence production moves offshore and they switch off the lights in the very last British factory, what will we do then?

COMMENT THREAD

Turkey%20EU.2[i-Turkey%20EU.2]After the euphoria of late last year under the British presidency, we don’t here that much about Turkey’s accession talks these days. However, in the International Herald Tribune today, we have a comment from Sinan Ulgen, chairman of the Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies in Istanbul, who has some interesting observations.

There is, says Ulgen, a dangerous frustration is creeping in and the mood in Turkey has begun to sour. The initial jubilance has been replaced with alarm, and even anger, as scepticism about admitting a relatively poor, Muslim country into the EU has spread across the continent.

Acknowledging the obvious, that admitting Turkey was never going to be easy, Ulgen goes on to say that European public opinion toward Turkey can best be described as lukewarm. But, he says, EU leaders should not deprive Turkey of the promise of full membership that it has aspired to for decades.

Nevertheless, he claims, this is what is happening. The terms for opening negotiations with Turkey were riddled with unprecedented conditions and, even if the talks were successful, there was to be restriction on the free movement of Turkish labour into the EU - breaching one of the hallmarks of the EU's vaunted single market.

There have also been mentioned "special arrangements for agriculture and regional aid" and the argument that Turkey should be granted a "privileged partnership" that falls short of membership has failed to subside.

What particularly concerns Ulgen, though, is the measure was taken by France in amended its constitution in April 2005 to allow for a national referendum on all future attempts by the EU to expand. This, he calls "draconian" and he now expects it to be replicated by other member states, allowing European publics to directly vet future countries that want to join the EU.

And, as if that was not bad enough, Austria, has been pressing to insert tough political conditions on criteria Turkey must satisfy in fields that are normally not heavily scrutinised for membership, such as education and culture.

The last straw is the EU’s failure to deliver on its promise to alleviate the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots after they voted "yes" in a referendum on reunifying the divided island in April 2004, yet the EU is now insisting that Turkey lift its embargo on Greek Cypriot ships.

This sequence of events, Ulmet feels, is already denting domestic support for the EU in Turkey, with a growing swathe of Turkish public opinion questioning whether Turkey should become a full member.

According to a recent poll by TNS-PIAR, support for EU membership in Turkey has dropped 13 percent, from 72 to 58 percent, since last year - an all- time low and a significant decline in a country where the EU has been unquestioningly embraced by the political establishment for decades. Ulmert continues:

The risk is that an anti-EU backlash in Turkey could halt vital political reforms such as better rights for women and minorities that have been driven by the carrot of EU membership. The EU was able to exert maximum influence and bolster domestic reforms in Turkey by offering an impressive menu of benefits crowned by the ultimate reward of full accession. But recent developments are undermining the credibility of this reward.

Even if accession is officially on the table, Turks increasingly perceive the deterioration in the likelihood of achieving it. No credible political leader can realistically be expected to espouse a seemingly losing cause. As a result, a serious national reappraisal of seeking full membership cannot be ruled out.

Should that happen, political volatility in a larger region already beset by major instabilites would increase. It would then be up to historians to try to understand the causes which led the normally slow moving EU pendulum to swing from one end to the other in a matter of months.

For our part, we have said that, to get a true measure of which way the wind is blowing, watch the real power in the land – the military. And, from initial enthusiasm, reflected in signals that major procurement decisions could be directed towards European companies, Turkey is hedging its bets, widening out its purchasing spread and investing in domestic production.

Now, it seems, the population at large is beginning to fall out love with the idea of joining the EU – with who knows what consequence. For the EU, however, which boasts of enlargement as being its most successful foreign policy, it looks like another failure is on the cards.

COMMENT THREAD