Plenty of clever turns of phrase have been formulated to describe the significance of what was achieved in Copenhagen last Friday. I will take Hans-Gert Pöttering's words: "It's the beginning of a new epoch in the history of the European continent and the European Union". One doesn't get the impression that EU public opinion is particularly aware of the historic nature of the moment - other outcomes of the Summit captured greater attention, like the wording decided upon for Turkey (which I will be returning to at greater length). Public opinion's reserve, which sometimes seems to verge on indifference, definitely displays some wisdom. The real celebration will be on the day when accession becomes effective: not that one doubts it, but it is still necessary to ratify and hold referendums. Moreover, for public opinion, the essential part of reunifying western, central and eastern Europe has already been carried out; the Berlin Wall is just a memory, one of the nightmares of the past; spending a weekend in Prague, Budapest, Warsaw or Cracow is not really so very different from spending a weekend in Paris, London, Rome, Vienna, Amsterdam or Florence. I myself am aware that the reunification of Europe will not really be achieved until all the countries that want to have joined the EU, but I'm talking about public opinion here. What is more, aren't Norway and Switzerland fully European, while not being members of the EU?
Neither surprised nor shocked. Now, some specific considerations:
I am neither surprised nor shocked at the bitterness of the final rounds of negotiation. I would go as far as saying that it was a useful apprenticeship for the candidate countries in Community reality. Nobody forgot the ideal and highly political motivations behind the European project, but in daily affairs, politicians inevitably clash with reality and the demands of people's lives and the need to defend the specific interests of their country. A finance minister who is little concerned with a balanced budget would not make a good finance minister. It would be unfair to criticise the EU for losing sight of the big picture and bitterly defend specific agricultural or financial interests; it was the same for the other side. I followed the arguments of the Polish agricultural unions carefully and did not find any reference to great ideals, but rather a dogged and wholly understandable defence of the interest of Polish farmers. As long as the Commission is thereto defend (with the Council Presidency) the general European interest, the "Community Method" will work, and since the Berlin Summit the heads of government have often displayed their ability to make a synthesis.
A contribution surpassing GDP figures. Second consideration: the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make a huge contribution to the EU. The purely financial calculations are partly false since reality exists that cannot be measured in figures or GDP. I remember the response in Bratislava from a Slovak leader to my question about the advantages of his country when it joined the EU: "the first of Slovakia's riches is the qualify of its education system". The number of higher education graduates in some candidate countries is much high in terms of head of population than in several of the EU's current members. An impressive proportion of Europe's cultural heritage belongs to these countries and we all benefit from it.
Danish lessons. Third consideration: the admirable way the Danish President of the Council conducted the final round of negotiations provides us with precious lessons in how the enlarged EU could function, in which not all Member States will be involved in all aspects. Denmark is not in the eurozone and does not participate in defence policy (and does not chair the Council deliberations in these domains) or in some "Justice and Home Affairs" activities. This did not stop it achieving highly positive results. There is food for thought here in terms of how "differentiation" and "strengthened cooperation" will operate in the future.
And now for the Convention. Final consideration: since the decisions on enlargement are final decision, the work of the Convention has become even more fundamental. An enlarged EU could not work effectively, its cohesion would be jeopardised and its ambitions would have to be scaled back in the current institutional framework. Tony Blair said that with enlargement and with the future membership of Turkey the EU would change and the EU candidate countries had an idea of the European Union that is "close to the British idea". Was he simply planning to reassure public opinion back home? According to Jean-Clause Juncker, the new phase in the history of the EU that is beginning will be "much more difficult than some people imagine in this moment of enthusiasm". He is returning to the Convention to provide for the future.
(F.R.)