Extra heavy in the EU

On 1 May, the EU will have ten new member states. They are – from north to south – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Malta and the Greek-speaking part of Cyprus.

As the EU grows from 15 to 25 member countries, there will automatically be more people in all the EU's many meeting rooms. The European Commission grows from 20 to 30, the Council of Ministers from 15 to 25, the European Parliament from 636 to 732.

More blue, less red-green

The increase is probably of least importance for the work of the European Parliament. But the political composition can change in the direction of more blue, less green, red and pink.

There are few clear left parties that will enter the European Parliament from Eastern Europe, probably only two, the Communist parties in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Both carry on such a dogmatic legacy that it may be doubtful to call them left-wing parties.

The big exception on the left is Akel, SV's sister party in Cyprus, which became the largest party in the last election with 35 percent of the vote.

Market-savvy Social Democrats

The Social Democratic parties are, with a few exceptions (Poland and Hungary) generally weaker than in the West, and they all stand for a neoliberal transformation of society. Most of them are transformed communist parties that have renounced their past by embracing the market economy as warmly as their competitors on the far right, if the term "right" makes any sense at all when comparing neoliberal parties.

Moreover, the two Social Democratic parties at the heart of the Polish government are at risk of being wiped out by the European Parliament elections on June 13. And the green parties will have trouble getting over the threshold of the European Parliament.

Extremely neo-liberal

Most right-wing parties in Eastern Europe are to the "right" of their sister parties in the West in the sense that they can pursue neoliberal policies in society without having to deal with effective counterforces or social safety nets.

For example, it will take a long time to build a trade union movement that can take up the fight against such uncivilized capitalism as that which prevails in Eastern Europe today. And the old welfare schemes have been demolished both for ideological reasons, to pave the way for the new market competition – and because they could not be financed when production life collapsed during the transition to a market economy after 1989.

Social and organic baking tongue

The same change away from red and green will take place in the EU Commission and in the EU Council of Ministers, but to a greater extent because the new states count heavier there than in the EU Parliament.

The EU Commission takes the initiative for new laws and regulations, directs the work of the expert groups, prepares the legal texts, is responsible for implementing EU decisions and monitors compliance with the regulations in all member states.

The European Commission is increasing from 20 to 30 members – and eight of them will come from the new member states of Eastern and Central Europe. It will strengthen the neoliberal currents of thought that have long characterized the European Commission, and they will hold back on the initiative for a more demanding environmental policy and rules for working life that cost society and business money. In short: the EU is becoming extra heavy in areas where the EU has long been heavy enough.

Third party of the Council of Ministers

The Council of Ministers increases from 15 to 25. This is where the ministers from the EU states meet to make decisions on behalf of the EU, and the enlargement means that 8 of the 25, ie almost a third, will represent governments in Central and Eastern Europe.

Ideologically, they will stand for a policy that puts market solutions above everything else. But they will also have strong financial reasons to hold back on everything that costs money on their own government accounts. Costly environmental regulations or expensive reforms in working life will be tempting. On the contrary, they will advocate for weakening environmental requirements that inflict large expenses on their own businesses – and for more "flexible" conditions in working life so that their only competitive advantage, the cheap labor force, has a greater impact.

With the United States as a neighbor

In terms of foreign policy, most governments in Central and Eastern Europe are closer to Washington than Berlin and Paris. This will weaken the possibilities for the EU to act as a counterweight to the United States in matters of war and peace around the world.

There is also no reason to believe that the new ministers in the Council of Ministers will mitigate the EU's role as a brutal driver for a more group-controlled world economy under the auspices of the WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. There, the United States and the European Union stand side by side, sometimes with the United States as the worst against the third world, but at least as often with the EU as the worst.

And for the most natural reasons, most ministers from Central and Eastern Europe would rather use EU money for domestic purposes than for aid abroad.

Harder to control

An EU with 25 member states will be more difficult to govern than one with 15. The game of power to reach decisions in cases where national interests turn against each other will be more complicated and more confusing. It becomes far more tempting for "someone to talk to each other" before the meetings – whether it is meetings in the EU Commission, the Council of Ministers or in other EU bodies.

Then it will not be random who talks most with whom. It is already provoking small and medium-sized EU countries that government representatives from the largest EU countries are increasingly meeting to clarify positions and clear compromises before they meet all the others in the formal EU contexts. And that Germany is always there when the three or four biggest meet.

A basic choice of road

The EU faces a fundamental choice in relation to such governance problems.

• n Either drive the EU project further towards increased supranationality and increased central power to keep national conflicts of interest in check,
• or break this trend against what the EU Treaties have called "an ever closer union" by dismantling supranationality and bringing authority back to the Member States in areas where national freedom of action is most challenged.

In short: either strong centralization or targeted decentralization.

The middle ground – the only possible?

The EU will probably not be able to take this path rationally. If the governance problems were to be overcome, such a centralization in the direction of a European central state would probably be needed that it could not be politically anchored in any EU country. And a decentralization that would relieve the decision-making system so that it would, would be contrary to everything the EU has developed to date.

So perhaps the EU is doomed to the middle ground: to tumble back and forth in a game of power in which large EU countries are constantly fighting battles that the small member states must adapt to as best they can.

Two themes create particularly great excitement, one in the west and one in the east:

• n Should it be free for people from the east to look for work in today's EU countries?
• n And will there be free access from the west to buy real estate in today's applicant country?

(day of victory) F: Day SNy TimeNew Time 2004New Time 16-04-østutvidelsen.doc