Serbia takes a step forward

The capture of Radovan Karadzic is a feather in the cap of the new Serbian government and a necessary step towards becoming an EU candidate country. Having been president for just a few weeks, Boris Tadic’s decision to go after Karadzic so quickly and efficiently was a bold one and is a clear statement of intent.

It is also an example of the leverage of the EU enlargement process, particularly to young democracies. As I have said before the prospect of joining the EU, and the various standards demanded to gain candidate status and then full membership, plays a key role in driving reform and building stability.

Of course, as Dennis MacShane points out in the Yorkshire Post, Serbia still has much to do. In the short term, it must still hunt down Ratko Mladic, and deliver him to justice in the Hague to face war crimes charges, but the long term obstable remains the issue of Kosovo. Despite many countries recognising Kosovo as an indepenent state, few in Serbia accept it should ever be separate from their country.

However, with a pro-European government in place, careful progress through sensitive diplomacy at least seems a possibility, an achievement in itself considering where the Balkans were at just over a decade ago.

Sarkozy must be careful to leave EU's options open

Nikolas Sarkozy's first speech in the European Parliament as President of the European Council was the closing highlight of the final Strasbourg session before the summer recess.

His speech was far more conciliatory than perhaps people had been expecting - especially in the light of his trenchant, and largely unjustified, criticisms of Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. In particular, he attempted to re-assure those who fear that the French presidency will pursue a more protectionist agenda by saying that while Europeans had a right to expect "protection" from the EU this should not mean "protectionism". He also rejected the argument used by some French and German voices following the Irish referendum that a "multi-speed" Europe should be pursued, describing this scenario as "a last resort".

It was also interesting to hear him refer to the need for European politicians to take into account the specificity of sport when framing EU law, commenting that, just as the culture sector has some derogations from internal market rules, so exceptions should also apply in sports policy.

More controversially, he stated that there could be no further enlargement of the EU without the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, on the grounds that an enlarged EU required new institutions.

Of course, it is true that one of the reasons for reforming the treaties is the constant enlargement of the EU, and it is highly desirable to streamline the institutions to avoid sclerosis. But simply announcing that there can be no further enlargement - even to Croatia, which is nearly ready - is treading on dangerous political territory. It effectively holds potential accession countries, hostage pending the EU resolving its institutional future, or at the very least postpones their accession to the long term.

But it is the prospect of EU membership that has provided a massive incentive to the Balkan countries of the former Yugoslavia and to Turkey to reform their political and judicial structures. In many ways, enlargement is one of the biggest successes of the EU. Paddy Ashdown famously described it as "undoubtedly one of the EU's most effective means of exercising soft power" to secure stability and reform among its neighbours. To throw away the prospect of medium-term accession to the EU would remove the biggest carrot of all in Europe's soft-power armoury.

It could also be counter-productive in securing reform. Opponents of the Lisbon Treaty might well seize on this position to say that blocking Lisbon would therefore block Turkish accession, which would be popular in some quarters. Even though Turkish accession is years away and anyway requires a separate unanimous decision and national ratification, it would not stop a populist campaign along the lines of "stop Lisbon to stop Turkey".

So, Sarkozy's position is shooting himself in the foot - twice over.

Those of us who support both the reforms contained in the Lisbon Treaty and the enlargement of the EU need to be clear that blocking the latter to achieve the former is a highly dangerous tactic. It also slams the door on one potential way out if Lisbon remains blocked, namely incorporating some of the institutional reforms into a country's accession treaty (which anyway has to address issues like the new country's votes in the council and seats in the European Parliament).

Closing down your options is not the right thing to do at the present time.

The recent enlargement of the European Union has seen a re-emergence of the debate on migration, and the effect on our economy. It's a highly emotive issue to many people, but I am pleased that, amidst the usual scaremongering by the right-wing press, there has been some sound reporting of the facts by the more responsible end of the British press.

Two reports I especially wanted to highlight:

The Independent:

"The feared flood of workers from Bulgaria and Romania failed to materialise at Heathrow airport yesterday as citizens of the European Union’s two newest member states appeared to prefer to stay at home. Flights arriving at terminal one from Bucharest yesterday carried visitors from the Indian sub continent and crestfallen representatives of certain newspapers who had been sent to the Romanian capital to chronicle the expected influx, only to find no takers. As one photographer for a red-top newspaper put it: “Complete waste of time. No one wanted to fly. We even offered to help with the fare”.

Of course, this did not deter the red tops who went ahead and printed stories of mass migration anyway.

The second was a speech, reported in the Times, given by leading economist David Blanchflower, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2532521,00.html). Professor Blanchflower highlights how migrant workers have not generally taken jobs from British people, have helped keep the economy stable and that there is no evidence to support suggestions that Eastern European workers are keeping wages artificially low.

Of course, many people will have a view of whether immigration is a good thing or otherwise, and they’re entitled to it, but when one of London’s most respected economists, presenting facts and figures, disagrees with the views of a red top journalist, I know who I think is more credible!

May I wish readers a Happy New Year!

Today, 1 January, Romania and Bulgaria become full members of the EU, and Slovenia switches to the euro as its national currency. All of the twelve countries who have joined over the last two years (ten from Eastern Europe and two Commonwealth mediterranean countries) intend to join the euro over the next five or six years.

What will 2007 have in store for Europe?

First, a celebration of 50 years since the EEC Treaty was signed in 1957. To mark the occasion, the 27 Heads of government of EU countries intend to issue a declaration on the achievements and purpose of the EU. I hope this emphasises the dynamic nature of the EU, which has evolved over time from the Coal & Steel Community of 1951 (the real first step, the EEC only coming five years later) to the Union we know today through successive treaties, each one agreed by every member state, while it has also grown from six to 27 members through successive enlargements.

Then, more mundane tasks, like developing policies on climate change, cooperation against transnational crime, energy policy, the WTO trade negotiations and so on.

Finally, a return to the issue of the constitutional treaty, which has now been ratified by 18 Member States, but rejected by two. Agreement will be sought in June about what to do about this text, with a large majority wanting to salvage as many as possible of the reforms it contains, but awre that any new text needs the agreement of all 27 countries.

All this will take place under German presidency of the Council of Ministers during the first half of the year and Portuguese presidency in the second half. No easy task, as the "Presidency" has no extra powers, merely the task of chairing one of the institutions and trying to broker fair compromises among 27 governments - some of which (not least the UK and France) will have new leaders.

It seems as though the negotiations with Turkey on its application to join the EU may not suffer the feared "train crash" after all, following Turkey's offer to open one port and one airport to traffic from Cyprus.

Under the Ankara protocol defining the conditions for Turkey's accession, Turkey must have open trade arrangements with the EU's new members, which it had refused to do as regards Cyprus, as part of its position regarding the still unresolved division of that country. Its change of position could mark a turning point.

All this will provide food for thought when EU foreign ministers discuss the matter on Monday - especially when we consider that just a week ago, the Commission recommended freezing eight of the thirty-five chapters in the accession negotiations.

There are a multitude of reasons why Turkey can play an immensely positive role in tackling many strategic challenges that Europe faces: insecure energy supplies; seemingly intractable problems in the middle east; rising extremism trying to drive Muslims and non-Muslims apart; increasing global competition from Asia; the desire for Europe to play a more active role beyond its borders; and both at those borders and within them, the need to tackle drugs, organised crime and illegal migration.

If the summit of EU heads of state on 14-15 December fails to get Turkey's accession talks back on track, there will be a danger that, at some point in 2007, Turkey will turn its back on the prospect of EU membership. To misquote Groucho Marx, they will not want to belong to a club where too few people want to have them as members.

Tory MEP Charles Tannock made an astute point in his recent letter to the Telegraph about the problems continued enlargement (to include Croatia and other Balkan states) of the European Union will have.

It is of course to the benefit of the EU that enlargement continues but Tannock points out that the current Treaty of Nice ensures each new Member State is given a Commissioner, a minimum of six MEPs and a certain amount of votes in the Council of Ministers.

Barring detail, he is right. As the EU grows it will become politically weighted to the smaller countries, who will have a disproportionate amount of power in relation to the size of their populations and economies.

Unfortunately Mr Tannock’s solution – a population-based veto – is simply not workable. To bring it in would require each nation’s agreement and it is extremely unlikely the smaller Member States would agree to large ones having a veto but not them.

The “unlamented constitution” Mr Tannock wants abandoned, would attenuate this problem by changing the weighting of votes to make each country’s vote proportional to its population. With this fairer system, it would also increase the use of majority voting in general, limiting the veto to subjects that are really sensitive for Member States.

This is another example of an issue that will not simply disappear with the non-ratification of the constitutional treaty. Good that an opponent of the treaty is beginning to recognise one of the costs of not having it! constitutionwhere the constitution addresses issues

Accession to the European Union should not be a mere formality.

If any country could join irrespective of whether they meet basic standards as regards democracy, the rule of law, the functioning of the state, of their economy, and so on, we could quickly find ourselves on a downward slope into chaos.

It is absolutely right, therefore, that the European Parliament has today reaffirmed that Bulgaria and Romania must meet tough targets before they can join in 2007.

If the Parliament had given their respective applications a straight "No", there would have been no incentive for them to reform. If we'd have offered them a "Yes" without imposing any conditions, there would still be no incentive to improve. These conditions are varied, but amongst the most important is to root out the corruption which has plagued their judicial systems for too long.

If these improvements are made then I have no doubt that they will play an important role in the democratic processes of the EU.

Making a success of the enlargement of the European Union helps ensure stability, security and continued economic prosperity for our continent, but without the "tough love" enforced on candidate countries, we will never truly drive out low standards of human rights, law enforcement or corruption. EU enlargement can help drive these reforms, and also, when completed, give us the scale to compete economically with the USA, China and India.

It is rewarding to see that the enlargement of the European Union is already paying dividends for new member states as well as our own country.

Two years since eight east European countries, and Malta and Cyprus, joined the EU the European Commission has released a report which details the economic benefits expansion has brought.

Britain’s decision to open its labour market to these new states was met with predictable tabloid scare stories promising waves of immigration but of course this has not been the case.

Instead we, along with Ireland and Sweden – the only other countries to lift labour restrictions – have reaped the benefits and have enjoyed a far stronger employment record than the countries yet to welcome workers from the east.

Many of the workers that have arrived in this country have been equipped with the skills to fill roles in which we have a shortage, an increase in tradesmen such as plumbers has proved particularly popular.

Encouraged by the success of the past two years Greece, Finland, Portugal and Spain have followed in our footsteps and will now drop their restrictions on workers from the east.

Germany, France, Italy and Austria remain reluctant to open up their labour markets but the commission’s report will hopefully begin convincing them of the positive aspects of doing so.

It was also pleasing to see that an EU success story was reported in our press. The Financial Times’ leader was particularly glowing in its coverage of the commission’s report while the Times stressed the importance of all EU nations accepting workers from the new member states.

When we welcomed 10 new European countries into the EU last year, there was much debate among the EU ‘old 15’ over whether they should open up their labour markets to workers from the new member states. Under EU rules, all citizens are free to live and work in any European country, but several governments agreed temporary restrictions, fearing that labour markets would not be able to cope with the influx of new workers.

These genuine – although misguided – concerns were, of course, compounded by the xenophobic press in the UK. A series of “rancid hate campaigns” (in the words of Denis McShane) culminated in the Daily Express screaming, “The Roma gypsies of Eastern Europe are heading to Britain to leech on us. We do not want them here”. One newspaper even invented a story about every plane from eastern Europe being full of migrants ready to steal our jobs — a claim that was later revealed to be an abject lie, and the paper in question was forced to issue an apology.

In the end, three countries — Britain, Ireland and Sweden — decided not to impose restrictions on migrant workers. This was a brave move, and according to a new report out this week, it has paid off. Not only have we patently not been flooded by migrant workers, but the European Commission’s investigation into the economic effects of workers from the new member states concluded the following:

Countries that have opened their labour markets fully are ‘upbeat’ about it

Migration flows have had a ‘positive effect’ on Europe’s economy

The flow of workers has not been big enough to swamp labour markets

The barriers erected by most of the older EU states have not kept workers out

Restrictions may lead to more ‘undeclared work’ by migrants

The new workers fill gaps in labour markets, particularly in construction and catering

In the light of this new evidence, the Tories hurriedly performed a sharp U-turn and condemned the “protectionist” instincts of countries like Germany and Austria – even though, nine months ago, they were urging Tony Blair to adopt those very same instincts.

Two visits to Parliament this week provoked some thoughts: the Archbishop of Canterbury and representatives of ethnic minority senior citizens.

The Archbishop, Dr Rowan Williams, was making his first ever visit to the European institutions in general and Parliament in particular. He told MEPs that he saw a great moral purpose to the EU, namely the vision of reconciliation, understanding and peace that lay behind Schuman’s initiative in starting it all off, but felt that the moral purpose had been neglected as Member States had focused more on pragmatic cooperation. The recent enlargement to eastern Europe, however, brought the moral argument back to the fore.

If I understood him correctly, Dr Williams said that European society was a result of centuries of dialogue, discussion and argument between Christianity and the variety of societies that had existed and developed over the ages, and between the Church(es) and political authorities. This had resulted in the argumentative democracies we now enjoy. The interactive pluralism that has developed is fundamental to our shared Europeanism, and the different strands of this argument influenced each other. For instance, the secular/human rights/enlightenment culture had only emerged thanks to the Christian notion that all souls were equal, which, over time, had helped undermine the acceptance of slavery and infanticide.

But Europe is not exclusively Christian, and Dr Williams emphasised that it should not be claimed that the definition of Europe is linked to Christianity. He supported Turkish accession to the EU, provided it meets the conditions, including respect for its minorities (which includes religious minorities). He added that minorities, in current member countries too, must be given space to express themselves in the public sphere. Is that what's been lacking in France?

Meanwhile, the ethnic minority elders, whom I had the privilege of addressing and welcoming to Parliament, came from Leeds (with help from the City Council), Gothenburg, Gent, Bucharest and Dortmund. They had been meeting to compare their situations and the particular problems that many elderly people from ethnic minorities face in terms of isolation, language difficulties and particular illnesses. Their work involved two of the most important challenges facing all European countries over the next decades: ageing population and integration of ethnic minorities. Even when no common European legislation is involved and the issue is largely one for national policy-makers to deal with, the EU can still provide a framework for learning from each other, comparing best practice and contrasting successes and failures.

The group was also a reminder that the EU’s moto of “Unity with diversity” refers not just to the diversity between countries, but the even greater diversity within countries too.

Much of the debate in Strasbourg this week centres on Turkey's application to join the EU and the envisaged start of negotiations on 3rd October, which Parliament gives a somewhat lukewarm approval.

My own views can be seen in the new, super-accessible record of debate on Parliament's website (eat your heart out, Hansard!):

"I fully support the opening of accession negotiations with Turkey this autumn. They will no doubt be long and difficult, but if agreement can be reached and if Turkey meets all the necessary conditions regarding the functioning of democracy and respect for human rights including the rights of minorities then there is no reason of principle why it should not be entitled to join the European Union.

"I reject the arguments of those who object to Turkey’s membership on the ground that Turkey is not 'European'. That argument was settled years ago when we accepted Turkey’s membership of the Council of Europe. Opponents of Turkey’s membership try to equate 'European' with 'Christian'. Yet Islam has played a part in Europe’s history and culture for centuries. In any case, the motto of the European Union is 'unity with diversity'. We are not trying to harmonise cultures but to find ways of working together whilst keeping our various identities. By reaching out to Turkey we underline that the EU is not based on an exclusive European identity, but of an inclusive one."