Posted by Hans Müller on February 27, 2022 at 14:41 p.m

I wrote this article on March 7th, 2012 in the course of my work as a working group leader for the history of the EUROPA-UNION Heilbronn.

The longing for lasting peace in Europe was a major driving force behind the European integration process. Jürgen Habermas wrote of the "pacification of warlike nations" (1) but mistrust and fear of an expanding Germany also drove this process forward: "Even if we had not yet found out how we could put the German Moloch in its place, we apparently had the will to do so,” Margaret Thatcher wrote about a meeting with Francois Mitterand in the run-up to German reunification (2). Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl asserted at the time that German reunification should not be at the expense of the European integration process, but should strengthen it (3).

The background and the main content of the Maastricht Treaty, which came into force on November 1.11.1993, XNUMX, were presented in the introduction to the previous chapter and will not be repeated here. Difficulties in a number of countries in ratifying the treaty that developed the European Community (EC) into the European Union (EU) were also described. With Maastricht, national rights and responsibilities were transferred to the Union, which went far beyond the previously jointly regulated field of the economy.

Gerhard Brunn describes the lines of development at that time: “In the 4s, the European Union had to assert itself in a world that was in full flux and in which the USA played the undisputed leading role in all areas. "Globalization" became the guiding concept of these years, in which the worldwide mobility of goods, services, capital and people intensified unceasingly" (XNUMX)
However, the EU, which had started with the promise that individual countries were less able to meet the challenges of the globalized world and that we therefore had to act together, had not kept this promise in the eyes of many people. Many were all too happy to adopt the image of the immobile bureaucracy in Brussels, and indeed the EU has repeatedly presented the image of divided countries and politicians who were more concerned with domestic moods and less European-minded. In the mid-5s, “the beautiful days of cordial understanding between France and Germany, between Mitterand and Kohl, came to an end. This also stalled the driving force behind further European development” (XNUMX).

But the developments in Europe and in the world did not wait until the EU had sorted itself out again. From 1958 to 1986, the Treaties of Rome - apart from minor changes - held. Within just one and a half decades, however, there were profound changes in Europe. Worth mentioning is the major enlargement process and the associated debates about the constitution of the Union. With the introduction of the common currency, the euro, the community was faced with enormous challenges. But it would be wrong to judge the European integration process of the XNUMXs exclusively negatively.

Today it has almost been forgotten and has become a matter of course in Europe that the “Schengen Agreement” agreed in 1985 eliminated identity checks between initially five countries. Brunn describes the "Schengen Agreement" as "a prime example of a successful integration strategy with which an avant-garde can win over the reluctant community as a whole for deeper integration through the convincing results of its isolated approach (6). Other countries joined later and with the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, “Schengen” became binding overall. The importance of open borders within the EU became apparent when Denmark reintroduced border controls in the summer of 2011 – justified with the fight against crime but actually for domestic political reasons. The fact that the new Danish government abolished the controls after the elections was welcomed not least in Germany.

Currently (as of March 2012) the Schengen Agreement applies in 26 European countries; including Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein, which do not belong to the EU. The admission of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area failed at the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on March 1.3.2012, 7 due to resistance from the Netherlands (XNUMX).

The British accession drama

On March 25.3.1957, 1.1.1958, the representatives of six European states signed a treaty at a ceremony in the Palace of the Conservators in Rome, which was to go down in European history as the "Roman Treaties". On January 15st, 1973, the European Economic Community (EEC) became a reality. It was not until 1981 years later, in 1986, that Great Britain – along with Denmark and Ireland – joined the “Community of Six”; Greece joined in 1956 and Spain and Portugal in 1958. Superficially, one might think that the enlargement of the Community is the least complicated part of the European integration process. The complicated history of relations between Great Britain and the EEC shows that this is not the case. Britain brought with it its history as a former world power, though in decline since the end of World War II, but still with close and special ties to members of the Commonwealth. But the economic power of Great Britain was also concerned not to be excluded from the continent by the common external tariffs of the EEC. But there were not only economic aspects; the question was also what – beyond the economic aspects – should become of this young EEC. The ideas in London revolved around the concept of a “great free trade zone” that was supposed to be purely an economic organisation. London presented a corresponding concept in November 3.5.1960; negotiations on this did not begin until a year later, after the ratification of the Treaties of Rome. French President Charles de Gaulle – today one would perhaps call him a Eurosceptic – used the British proposals in his own way: on the one hand, as an advocate of a Europe of sovereign fatherlands, he fought against further European integration; on the other hand, in 8 he ended further negotiations between the EEC and Great Britain about the “large free trade area”. De Gaulle feared that Great Britain would play a strong leading role in such a construction. The result was that seven countries - parallel to the EEC - founded a small European free trade area; The agreement of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) came into force on May XNUMX, XNUMX. For various reasons, the EFTA states opposed the restriction of their economic sovereignty. “Britain played the role of giant among dwarfs in this group; London also intended to use the EFTA trump card to improve its negotiating position with the EEC. EFTA could not serve as a trump card in the years that followed. The EEC did not take them seriously" (XNUMX)

The expectations of the industrial country Great Britain were not fulfilled. The economic interests of the EFTA states were too different. In July 1961, London applied for EEC membership, which was blocked by de Gaulle in January 1963. In May 1967, the British submitted another application – half a year later the “Non” de Gaulle came again. Only after his resignation in 1969 did the accession negotiations progress. "But when Great Britain, Denmark and Ireland were finally admitted in 1973, they could no longer influence the structures of the European Community - contrary to what British politicians had hoped" (9). The community now had nine members. Great Britain became a member of the EEC via the EFTA detour and 18 years after withdrawing from the Messina consultations (1955). It is still doubtful whether the country and its population had arrived in Europe. The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (term of office 1979 – 1990) gave an example of this British distance in a speech at the College of Europe in Bruges on September 8.9.1988th, 1969: The European community is not an end in itself. "The basic idea is rather that this Europe must be based on cooperation between sovereign and independent states." With that, Thatcher had followed in the footsteps of Charles de Gaulle, but he had already left the European stage with his resignation in 1215. On the other hand, Thatcher complained about her country's historic involvement on the continent: Europe was by no means created by the "Roman Treaties", but was much older. Since the Magna Carta of 10, Great Britain has written more European history than any other nation (XNUMX). This retrospective view of history was not only a burden for the European integration process in the Thatcher era.

Back to democratic Europe – the southern expansion

“The European Union could not focus solely on the problems of its deepening. She also had to answer the countries knocking on her door” (11). Jacques Delors wrote this with a view to the EFTA states of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Ireland and Liechtenstein, which to a certain extent were associated with Great Britain's accession to the EEC
had become homeless. But he could have made this statement with a view to Greece, Spain and Portugal. All three countries had to endure a similar fate and all three freed themselves from their authoritarian regimes in the mid-12s. All three were far behind economically. The desire to join the EC was certainly based on economic interests, but - as Gerhard Brunn writes - "their desire to participate in European integration was primarily due to finding political stability within the framework of the EC (13). And this wish came true: “... not only the economic advances since the XNUMXs are amazing, but also the political ones. In all three countries, the democracies are now so firmly rooted that the return of a dictatorship or an authoritarian regime seems impossible in any of the three countries” (XNUMX).

Greece joined the EC on January 1.1.1981, 1.1.1986. Negotiations with Spain and Portugal dragged on for another five years and were even interrupted at times. It was always about agricultural issues; Fish, fruit, vegetables and olive oil were discussed. On January XNUMXst, XNUMX, the accession of Spain and Portugal was perfect.

North Extension - the rest of EFTA

Compared to the accession negotiations with Great Britain, the negotiations with the main part of the EFTA countries went relatively smoothly. In May 1992, the EC and the EFTA countries decided to create a European Economic Area (EEA) – to a certain extent as a precursor to accession. However, in December 1992, Switzerland left this forecourt of the European arena; in a referendum, the majority of the Confederates spoke out against joining the European Economic Area. There were also popular votes for the other EU accession candidates: the Austrians, the Finns and the Swedes voted for accession. On November 28.11.1994th, 14, the Norwegians refused to join the EC. Gerhard Brunn referred to a split in the country between "rich" and "poor". "The poor regions of the North and the groups at the bottom of the social ladder voted no, as did the young and often the women" (XNUMX). With a view to the European integration process, several phenomena are addressed that are also recognizable in other countries. What can be done to ensure that the European project does not appear primarily as a project of the elites in the respective countries? One day Norway will again apply for membership. It makes no sense today to speculate about how the negotiations will go when, for example, the oil reserves under the North Sea are exhausted. And what will become of Switzerland in the longer term?

On January 1.1.1995st, XNUMX Austria, Finland and Sweden became members of the European Union.

The great eastward enlargement of the EU

Why did communism collapse so suddenly in 1989? Tony Judt points to a special variant of the "domino theory": "As soon as the communist leadership fell in one country, its legitimacy in others was fatally weakened. Communism's credibility rested in part on its claim to embody the need to be the logical product of historical progress, a fact of political life, an inevitable fact of the modern landscape" (15).
The American political scientist Francis Fukuyama exclaimed in 1992 – based on a modern variant of Hegelian dialectics – in his now famous book “The End of History” (16). But the story went on – also in Europe.

The former Eastern bloc broke into many small pieces. During the 14s, four legacy states disappeared from the European map (the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the six western republics of the Soviet Union), while 17 others emerged or re-emerged (18). The current question was not only: Why? But above all: What should become of the small states that have emerged again? How important was the prospect of returning to Europe one day for their development? For many people there, the opposite of 'communism' was not 'capitalism' but 'Europe', that new entity of 'European community' based on consciously European values ​​with which Eastern Europeans could easily identify (XNUMX).

Former Commission President Jacques Delors takes a different view. He describes the tension between the regained sovereignty on the one hand and the prospects of integration into the Union very sensitively for the future EU members: "We should understand that the moment they escaped from communism, the need wanted to reaffirm their will to live together at national level and thus rediscover the dignity of their nation. At the same time, we invite you to share that sovereignty and cede a portion to the Union! We can confidently admit that this is not always easy” (19).

However, the circumstances and the initial situation differed from country to country: "The idea of ​​returning to Europe in some way was more likely to mobilize the feelings of the people in Czechoslovakia than in Romania, where the desire to overthrow a dictator and getting food on the table took precedence” (20).

At the EU summit on June 21/22.6.1993, 21 in Copenhagen, eastward enlargement was elevated to official community policy. The criteria that the accession candidates had to meet were defined: "As a prerequisite for membership, the accession candidate must have achieved institutional stability as a guarantee for a democratic order, for the protection of human rights and the respect and protection of minorities ..." ( XNUMX).
A somewhat flexible description was given of where to draw the lines for admitting new members to the community: "The Union's ability to admit new members while retaining the momentum of European integration is also an ... important consideration" (22 ).

Tony Judt writes that the enlargement process has momentum of its own, "despite all lingering fears on the part of many old member states and a widespread lack of enthusiasm expressed by the populations of these countries in opinion polls" (23). In other words, the enlargement of the Community and the deepening of European integration went more or less against broad public opinion. Europe was - and still is today - not sufficiently democratically rooted. This is the only way to explain why issues such as the costs of interpreters in the European Parliament or the official European languages ​​can become a source of public excitement.

Negotiations were held separately with each candidate country. The Commission staff responsible for this, headed by Commissioner Günter Verheugen, who was responsible for enlargement from 1999 to 2004, had an immense workload to do.

Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Malta and the Greek part of Cyprus were admitted to the EU on May 1.5.2004, 1.1.2007; on January 27st, 500 Bulgaria and Romania were added. Around XNUMX million people now live in the XNUMX EU countries.

Who is still on the waiting list

The following countries have received the official status of candidate countries:

Croatia: since 18.6.2004. In a referendum on January 22.1.2012, 60, over 24 percent of Croatians voted to join the EU (XNUMX).

Iceland: The official accession negotiations have been running since 27.7.2010 July 24 (XNUMX)

Turkey: Accession candidate since 11.12.1999; the accession negotiations have been running since October 3.10.2005, XNUMX.
The basis for this was the Ankara Agreement between Turkey and the EEC of September 12.9.1963, 25, which opened up the possibility for Turkey of later accession to the European Economic Area (XNUMX).
Turkey's EU membership is a highly controversial topic, both at the political level and among the general public in Europe. Roughly speaking, conservatives in particular are against Turkey's EU membership, while liberals and social democrats are more in favour. In Germany, however, politicians from the CDU have also spoken out in favor of Turkey joining the EU (26).

The following are currently listed as accession candidates without ongoing negotiations:

Macedonia: candidate country since 17.12.2005 (24).

Montenegro: candidate status since 17.12.2010 (24).

Serbia: candidate country since 1.3.2012/24/XNUMX (XNUMX).

Albania applied for EU membership on 28.4.2009 April 24 (XNUMX).

In addition, there are a number of possible future accession candidates and states that have not yet applied for EU membership. Further growth of the European Union is to be expected.

Bibliography

(1) Habermas, Jürgen: "On the Constitution of Europe"; Edition Suhrkamp (2011), p. 10
(2) Thatcher, Margaret; quoted in Judt, Tony "History of Europe from 1945 to the
Presence"; Buchergilde Gutenberg (2005), p. 734
(3) May, Manfred: "European History"; Buchergilde Gutenberg (2007), p. 194
(4) Brunn, Gerhard: "European Unification from 1945 to the Present"; Philip Reclam
Stuttgart (2002), p. 280
(5) Brunn, Gerhard, loc.cit. p. 281
(6) Brunn, Gerhard, op.cit. p., 285
(7) Sueddeutsche.de, February 1.2.12, XNUMX: “Serbia receives EU candidate status”
(8) Brunn, Gerhard, loc.cit. p. 136
(9) Judt, Tony: "History of Europe from 1945 to the Present"; Book Guild Gutenberg
(2005), p. 344
(10) Delors, Jacques: "Memoirs of a European" Parthos Verlag Berlin (2004), p. 399
(11) Delors, Jacques, loc.cit. p. 425
(12) Brunn, Gerhard, loc.cit. p. 245
(13) Brunn, Gerhard, loc.cit. p. 250
(14) Brunn, Gerhard, loc.cit. p. 288
(15) Judt, Tony, loc.cit. p. 722
(16) Wikipedia: “Francis Fukuyama”, as of 12.2.12/XNUMX/XNUMX
(17) Judt, Tony, loc.cit. p. 731
(18) Judt, Tony, loc.cit. p. 725
(19) Delors, Jacques, loc.cit. p. 511
(20) Judt, Tony, loc.cit. p. 726
(21) Brunn, Gerhard, loc.cit. p. 404
(22) Brunn, Gerhard, loc.cit. p. 404/405
(23) Judt, Tony, loc.cit. p. 835
(24) Wikipedia: “Candidate countries for the European Union”; Status 5.3.12
(25) Wikipedia: “EEC-Turkey Association Agreement”; Status 8.12.11 and
"Candidates for accession to the European Union", loc
(26) Polenz, Ruprecht: "Better for both – Turkey belongs in the EU",
Edition Körber Foundation Hamburg, (2010)