The applicant countries, of course, are being asked to jump through neo-liberal hoops if they are to get into the EU. They will have to meet strict criteria in relation to the privatisation and deregulation of their economies in order to harmonise their economies with EU averages before they can join. They are currently undertaking radical restructuring of their economies in order to comply with this. The impact of enlargement on the EU itself is important as well. The arrival of the applicants will not just change the size of the EU, it will change its social character as well. Today the EU has 62m people below the poverty line, but this will escalate dramatically with enlargement. The richest new applicant, Slovenia, has a standard of living roughly in line with Portugal - the poorest of the existing members. David Piachuard (Guardian December 1st 2001) makes the point:
"At present about 17% of the EU's population is poor, ranging from 9.4% in Denmark to 33.3% in Portugal... Among the candidates in the likely first round of enlargement the average [poverty level] is 69% and among the second-round countries 83%. Full enlargement would almost double the proportion of people living in poverty from 17% to 30% and that poverty would be heavily concentrated - 55% - in the 10 candidate countries"
EU membership will not drag the peoples of the East out of poverty. More likely their plight will be structured into the expanded EC, with the people of the East providing a cheap labour zone. Nor will they have much chance of tapping into the EU's cohesion fund (currently directed at poor member states) or the regional fund (currently directed at poor regions). Before they get in, these funds are likely be put beyond their reach. This could effect the existing member states (Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland) and regions (including Wales) which currently drawing from them as well. The common agricultural policy (the biggest single EU spending) will also be changed to the disadvantage of the new applicants.
Then there is the issue of the free movement of people within the EU under Schengen after enlargement. The rich countries are unlikely to open their borders to the poor people of the east. Some are already talking about being 'swamped' after enlargement. The external boundaries of Fortress Europe are likely to remain where they are - between the poor countries of the East and the rich countries of the West. This may be justified by some kind of 'transitional' arrangement.
EU has been developing into a two-tier Europe, those inside the Euro-zone and those
outside it. This has been formalised at Nice with the decision that any eight countries (minimum) can go ahead as an 'inner core'
'. But enlargement creates another tier; the poor countries of the East.
Following Nice the year 2001 saw an important escalation of struggle and demon• stration around EU summits and world events taking place in Europe, and police repression increased. At the Gothenburg summit in June police used live ammunition against the demonstration and wounded a one of them. Then at the massive protests at the G8 meeting in Genoa in July - called (allegedly) to discuss poverty, and the environment amongst other things - a demonstrator was shot dead. In December 2001 a European summit was held in Laeken in Belgium, which against saw very big demonstrations, first by the trade unions and then by the anti-capitalist left. A convention was established at Laeken to negotiate the text of a constitution for the EU, which will codify all of these developments (simplifying the current treaties as it is called) which will be discussed at the super-summit in 2004. It will be a constitution designed for enlargement and will enshrine the essence of Nice, which was the domination of the biggest and most powerful member states.
The Convention has been meeting since February, chaired by Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former right-wing French President, and the report will go the Council of Ministers in the spring of 2003. Jack Straw has recently stirred up the Tory right by announcing that Britain has switched its position and is now in favour of such a constitution.