Looking back at our first year of being member of the world’s most exclusive club
ON THE first anniversary of Cyprus’ entry into the European Union, it is apt to ask how it has affected our lives.
If one goes by what is reported in the mass media, membership of the EU has not brought the expected stability, security and prosperity. Unfortunately for Cyprus, this disillusionment is also mirrored in the perceptions of the other members about Cyprus.
There is certainly no other member country, old or new, for which its European partners started having misgivings from the date of its accession.
All this boils down to the referendum a year ago and the fact that so far EU membership has not succeeded significantly in altering the positions of any side within or outside Cyprus.
Apparently, even after the recent summit meeting between the EU and Turkey, where the EU demanded that Turkey normalises relations with all EU members and implements the protocol concerning their customs union before the scheduled start of accession negotiations on 3 October 2005, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs claimed that neither the agreed text of the meeting, nor the protocol would affect the position of his country.
Given the complexity and intractability of the Cyprus problem, I have always been of the opinion that the benefits of EU membership would be felt mostly in the liberalisation and improved functioning of the Cypriot economy.
Here things are getting better. Commendably, the government has stood its ground to reduce public deficit and debt. It is doubtful that it would have taken such a tough stance had Cyprus been outside the Union.
The successive bosses of Cyprus Airways, industrialists, hoteliers and farmers alike mutter about the loss of government protection and subsidies while the trade union bosses complain of too many foreign workers. I think their predicament is a good sign that the discipline imposed by membership and EU law is working.
What is disconcerting is that they see erosion of their privileges instead of opportunities. Pretty soon their complaints and negative message are bound to shape the perceptions of Cypriots and scepticism will settle in like it has in other member states.
To some extent Cypriots are justified to be a bit disappointed with EU membership. But this is because the EU is not what it used to be a year ago. The worlds’ most exclusive club has the world’s slowest growing economy. The stability and growth pact – the set of rules that aims to prevent member states from running excessive deficits – has collapsed. Recent proposals to reform it will only succeed to weaken it.
During the past year France has also been instrumental in scuppering a major initiative to open up the market for services in the EU. Services account for over 70 per cent of the European economy. Apparently public opinion in France is apprehensive about competition from workers from the new member states and the effects it will have on their cherished system of social protection.
This is despite the fact that, by all accounts, the predicted tsunami of Eastern European workers has yet to materialise. Because polls indicate that the French will reject the European constitution at the referendum of May 29, President Chirac did not dare support further liberalisation of services.
Indeed, the French referendum has complicated life in the EU. The talk in Brussels is how the rest of the EU should react to a possible negative vote in France. There is so much concern that even the Luxembourg Presidency has issued a statement suggesting that the other member states should proceed with their ratification process irrespective of the outcome in France. Most people believe that a no vote will practically kill off the constitution.
Two days after the French vote, there will be another referendum, this time in the Netherlands. Polls predict that there too, the outcome is likely to be negative. Surveys indicate that Dutch citizens too are concerned about issues of migration and integration of foreigners in their society. There is hardly any doubt that two successive rejections by two of the founding members of the Community will mean the end of the constitution and possibly the beginning of a period of paralysis of European institutions.
Another complicating factor is that just as the position of France on the services proposal has been influenced by fears of an influx of East European workers, the views of French citizens on the constitution seem to have been linked to the prospect of Turkish accession which is also seen as a threat. This link has also raised the question of whether a no vote may delay or even lead to an indefinite postponement of the launch of the accession negotiations with Turkey in October.
This brings us back to the impact of EU membership on the Cyprus problem and its prospects. So far it appears to have no impact on the positions of any side. But this stalemate is puzzling.
What gives leverage to the Cypriot government, in fact the only thing that gives it any leverage, is the desire of Turkey to enter the EU. If the climate in the EU turns decidedly against Turkish membership, how long will Turkey keep knocking on Europe’s door?
One year after becoming a member of the European Union, it is an opportune occasion for reflection. The government of Cyprus should ask itself what it will do if Turkey cannot join the same club and how a possible exclusion of Turkey may affect the prospects of a settlement of the Cyprus problem. Perhaps on the second anniversary of Cyprus’s EU membership, there will also be progress on the political front as well as the economic.
Lastly, I am happy to report that there is at least one Cypriot for whom EU membership has been an unequivocal boon. That person is Ms Lenia Samouel, the former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, who has just been appointed Deputy Director-General for Employment and Social Policy in the European Commission. Congratulations to her.
n Phedon Nicolaides is a Professor at European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht, The Netherlands. The author is also adviser to the EU’s Economic and Social Committee. The views expressed in this article are strictly his own
