Key EU Treaties, Enlargements, and Integration Debates
Lisbon Treaty Origins and Impact
The Convention on the Future of Europe was a body established by the European Council in December 2001 following the Laeken Declaration. Its purpose was to produce a draft constitution for the European Union for the Council to finalize and adopt. The Convention finished its work in July 2003 with the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was an unratified international treaty intended to create a consolidated constitution for the European Union (EU). It would have replaced the existing European Union treaties with a single text, given legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and expanded Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas previously decided by unanimity among member states.
This Treaty was signed in 2004 by representatives of the then 25 member states of the European Union. It was later ratified by 18 member states, including referendums endorsing it in Spain and Luxembourg. However, the rejection of the document by French and Dutch voters in May and June 2005 brought the ratification process to an end.
Following a period of reflection, the Treaty of Lisbon was created to replace the Constitutional Treaty. This contained many of the changes originally placed in the Constitutional Treaty but was formulated as amendments to the existing treaties (specifically, the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Rome). Signed in 2007, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009.
Lisbon Treaty: Enhancing EU Functioning
The Treaty of Lisbon is designed to make the EU more democratic, efficient, and transparent, thereby enabling it to tackle global challenges such as climate change, security, and sustainable development. The Treaty was ratified by all EU countries before entering into force.
To provide real examples of how the Treaty of Lisbon changed the EU, here are two practical illustrations:
Firstly, in many areas, such as consumer protection and the environment, the European Parliament now works together with the Council (representing national governments) to decide on the content of EU laws and officially adopt them. This process is called the “Ordinary legislative procedure.” With the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament gained a role in co-legislating with the Council in areas such as agriculture, energy policy, immigration, and EU funds.
Secondly, under the Lisbon Treaty, no country can have fewer than 6 or more than 96 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). The number of MEPs for each country is roughly proportional to its population (similar to the Commission’s allocation). Thus, the Treaty gives a more democratic and integrative role to the EU.
In conclusion, the Treaty of Lisbon aims to bridge the gap between citizens and EU institutions and enhance transparency for all. This treaty affected many areas, departments, and working methods of EU institutions, including the Central Bank, the Council of Ministers, the European Council, the Parliament, the Commission, and foreign relations and security. Today, it is one of the most important treaties in force.
European Defence Community Failure
René Pleven, French Premier and former Defence Minister, decided that given the global circumstances and an American call for the rearmament of West Germany, the emerging cooperative methods required the creation of European defence on a supranational basis. He proposed the creation of the European Defence Community (EDC) to form a European defence force. The principal goal was to provide an alternative framework for German rearmament within a controlled European structure, preventing isolation in case of conflict with the Soviet bloc. The plan was signed but never went into effect.
The plan proposed the creation of a European army, integrating Germany under NATO supervision and command, with the eventual involvement of German units placed under a single military and political European authority. This proposal created significant debate in France. Although accepted by most Western countries, the plan for an European Defence Community (EDC) was rejected by the French National Assembly in August 1954. The refusal of the French National Assembly to ratify the Treaty establishing the EDC automatically led to the abandonment of the plan for a European Political Community.
Aftermath of the EDC Rejection
France’s course of action met with considerable dismay in Western Europe and the United States. France, which had long championed the European cause, found itself seriously discredited by its refusal to ratify the EDC Treaty. There was intense disappointment, and a rapid response was required.
The failure of the EDC meant that an alternative way had to be found to integrate the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) into the Western security system. At a special conference convened in London in September 1954, attended by the Brussels Treaty powers, the United States, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Italy, it was decided to invite the latter two countries to join the Brussels Treaty. The conference’s conclusions were formalized by the Paris Agreements, signed in October of that year. These agreements amended the Brussels Treaty, created the Western European Union (WEU) as a new international organization, and provided for the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy to join.
The consequences, had this integration not happened, could have been severe for the process that led to the current EU. It might have meant a lack of strength and commitment, potentially leaving West Germany isolated or hindering the European Union’s development to its current state.
EU’s 2004 Eastern Enlargement
This enlargement represented the largest expansion of the European Union in terms of territory, number of states, and population, although less significant in terms of GDP. The enlargement involved the introduction to the EU of the following countries:
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Estonia
- Hungary
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- Malta
- Poland
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
Some of these were formerly part of the Soviet sphere of influence. This enlargement was followed in 2007 by Romania and Bulgaria, which could not join in 2004. Turkey has still not achieved membership.
Mentioning the Soviet past highlights a key point: EU history was shaped by the desire to end the division and continuous conflicts that had plagued Europe for centuries. While major conflicts stopped after 1945 (end of World War II), divisions persisted, notably the Cold War division between the Western (Capitalist) Bloc and the Eastern (Communist) Bloc. Over the following decades, the Communist Bloc weakened (culminating in the end of the Cold War in 1989). Countries formerly part of it or linked to it generally had lower economic weight and growth, which was marked during their transition to free-market democracies.
Negotiations for this huge challenge began in 1998 with the better-prepared countries and extended to the others in subsequent years. The duration was not fixed; countries progressing faster could join sooner. The countries advanced along the correct lines under EU supervision and support.
Challenges and Benefits of Enlargement
The European Council checked in 2002 that 10 of the 13 candidates were ready to join the EU. They were finally added in 2004, after being recognized as European States and adapting to the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, and fulfilling the economic and political requirements set out in the Copenhagen Criteria.
This challenge aimed for peace, stability, and prosperity on the continent, but it’s important to note the cost-benefit relationship. To preserve the achievements of the EU’s first 40 years, the EU insisted on candidates liberalizing their economic and agricultural sectors, reforming justice and police systems, fighting corruption, applying new rules on food safety, and combating all types of crime (drugs, mafia, fraud). The EU also emphasized respect for minorities and environmental protection.
As a main conclusion, this enlargement, the biggest in terms of people and countries, has given the EU a large area of freedom, stability, and peace, cultural diversity, and an enormous open market. The supervision and financial assistance provided to these countries by the EU through programs like PHARE (French for ‘lighthouse’), ISPA, and Sapard resulted in a successful step for the EU.
However, this entailed a huge economic impact for the EU, so several instruments (Phare, ISPA, and Sapard) were created to help the candidates. During the years before and the initial years of accession, these instruments helped them and continue to do so, although these countries now also utilize instruments that less developed member states like Spain also use.
Some benefits achieved include a larger zone of peace and stability in Europe than ever before and greatly stimulated economic growth and trade. Also, from an EU perspective, many people now have rights and a quality of life they didn’t have before, which everyone deserves.
Despite fears and potential dangers this act might have brought, the European Union continues on its path, providing its citizens with a secure and prosperous life that is not easily achieved or even imagined in many parts of the world.
Iberian Enlargement (Spain & Portugal)
This editorial cartoon by Walter Hanel, a German cartoonist, published in February 1984, offers an ironic picture of the accession process of Spain and Portugal to the European Communities. The cartoon depicts the postures of France, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by their heads of state/government.
In the picture, from left to right, we see Felipe González (Spanish Prime Minister) with a representative of Portugal, both fishing. This represents them waiting to enter the ‘House of Europe’, depicted as being in a somewhat dilapidated state. At the entrance stands French President François Mitterrand, while his Foreign Minister observes discreetly. Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister) checks events from the top of a tower.
The cartoon illustrates the process of accession to the European Community by Spain and Portugal, which took place in 1985 and entered into force on 1 January 1986. The Treaty arranged the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EC and amended earlier treaties of the European Communities. As such, it is an integral part of the constitutional basis of the European Union.
Spain and Portugal were in a situation where, after decades of relative isolation under authoritarian regimes, successful democratic transitions paved the way for full membership in the European Community. For the countries involved, there was no dispute that the Iberian countries belonged to Europe, not just geographically but also in traditions, culture, religion, and intellectual values. Moreover, both countries had historically contributed to the Christian Western conceptions of mankind and society dominant in Europe. Without Portugal and Spain, the European identity would be incomplete. Their entry into the European Community reaffirmed that fact and enabled both countries to recover their own cultural identity.
Impact of Iberian Accession
This Iberian enlargement strengthened Europe’s strategic position in the Mediterranean and South America and led to the further development of a European system of cohesion and solidarity. Spain and Portugal offered a new geopolitical dimension to the Union and signified closer relations with regions neighbouring the EC.
A preceding move in this process was Spain’s accession to NATO in 1982, following a long national debate but agreed upon under the leadership of Felipe González (PSOE).
This analysis identifies basic changes in the economies and societies of Portugal and Spain resulting from European integration.
This complex process leads to these main conclusions:
First, EU membership brings challenges and opportunities. Spain and Portugal have benefited enormously from EU membership, although they also had to implement reforms in sectors like Spanish agriculture.
Second, success is not automatic, and there are no guarantees, explaining the reservations depicted among other European leaders in the cartoon. Currently, Spain and Portugal are recovering from a severe crisis; without EU membership, their situation would undoubtedly be much worse. Even though the cost incurred by the EU to help these countries has been considerable, the benefits of their membership are greater.
Third and finally, EU membership means exploiting benefits in many fields. Countries like Spain, which have largely used European funds wisely, are attracting foreign investment.
EU Deepening vs. Widening Debate
This debate has been part of the EU throughout its history. However, in my opinion, it is not strictly about deepening *or* widening. For the general terms and objectives of the EU, one concept doesn’t work correctly without the other. It is about acting in a balanced way to ensure a prosperous future for the Union.
Deepening the integration process is understood as the gradual integration of EU institutions to enhance policy effectiveness. This has been a general tendency throughout the EU’s history as its overall objectives have evolved. Widening consists of “opening the doors” to new members. The general tendency has been balanced, resulting in the strong Union the EU is today.
Let’s clarify the debate with examples.
“Deepening” concerns member countries, for instance, when making policies on borders for the EU as a whole, which sometimes conflicts with a country’s specific interests. A difficult case involves Spain’s response to migration waves in Ceuta and Melilla (Spanish cities in North Africa). Spain’s actions towards migrants attempting to reach the EU might be viewed critically by the EU, yet Spain acts according to its perceived needs. Here, deepening (a common EU migration policy) can conflict with national policy, illustrating the debate.
Examples and Conclusion on Integration
Another perspective is that during economic crises, some proposed long-term stability solutions might relate to widening (perhaps strengthening the single market or the bloc’s overall economic weight through expansion). Furthermore, widening can be seen as a strategy to counter the global trend of power shifting from West to East. This shift is crucial for the geostrategic and economic order, as the diminishing influence of the EU and the US changes global norms. For the EU, this implies that the era of being dominant in setting rules and institutions to ensure its economic welfare might be ending. To maintain its economic influence, the EU may need a new approach. This is why “widening” can be understood as relevant and necessary in certain contexts, while in others, “deepening” might be the priority.
So, my conclusion is that this debate is evolving because the issue is not choosing one over the other. It is about choosing the correct policy approach for the specific purpose and acting accordingly to achieve the best outcome for the Union.