The EU's 'absorption capacity'
88. There is of course a tension between enlarging
Europe to include more members, and deepening the integration
of its existing members. To make Europe both wider and deeper
is a great challenge, a challenge which the Constitutional Treaty
was intended to meet. Charles Grant articulated this in evidence
to us:
There was an unwritten deal at the heart of the EU
for the last twenty years, which has been a bit more deepening
for a bit more widening. Successive waves of enlargement for the
last twenty years have been matched by successive waves of treaty-based
integration. If we are agreed, as perhaps we are in this room,
that treaty-based integration has stopped because there is not
going to be any big new treaty for a very long time, I am afraid
that means that enlargement scepticism grows, and there is a great
reluctance amongst political elites in Europe to enlarge. They
think that more enlargement without changing the institutions
significantly will lead to a looser, less effective, less efficient
European Union.[117]
Ruth Lea said that "it was always the British
strategy to widen, so they would not have deepening, but the truth
is that we have got both."[118]
89. We asked Mr Alexander about the EU's 'absorption
capacity', but he declined to suggest any limit on the Union's
expansion and was enthusiastic about the prospect of further enlargement,
although he underlined the need for the conditions of membership
to be fully met by candidate countries.[119]
Neither is the failure to adopt the Constitution seen as a bar
to further enlargement; the Foreign Secretary told us that "Enlargement
certainly can proceed without a constitutional change."[120]
90. Mrs Beckett, too, declined to place a limit on
the EU's potential membership, preferring to stress that "what
I do think is key is that the enlargement process is properly
and rigorously conducted. I think that is the key and that is
more likely to be a relevant factor in the pace of change or the
pace of enlargement than anything else."[121]
Charles Grant said that he was "rather pessimistic"
that further enlargement would take place after Croatia joins,
partly because France is committed to holding a referendum on
any future enlargement, which Mr Grant sees as symptomatic of
a wider European disenchantment.[122]
91. Some countries, notably Austria, which held the
presidency directly after the United Kingdom in the first half
of 2006, have been lukewarm or even hostile to further enlargement.
The United Kingdom Government however, has maintained its enthusiasm
for a widening of the EU. The FCO's memorandum to us in advance
of the June European Council stated,
We want to ensure the EU sticks to its existing commitments
on enlargement and to ensure that any changes to the EU's policy
do not rule out the possibility of future enlargements.[123]
At the Council, the United Kingdom, Sweden and other
member states successfully faced down an attempt by Austria, France
and Germany to define the term 'absorption capacity' and to include
it among the criteria for deciding whether to accept new candidate
states.[124] However,
the Council agreed to return to the issue in December, by when
the Commission will have prepared,
… a special report on all relevant aspects pertaining
to the Union's absorption capacity [which will] also cover the
issue of present and future perception of enlargement by citizens
and should take into account the need to explain the enlargement
process adequately to the public within the Union.[125]
92. However, the United Kingdom has not clarified
which countries might be in, and which might stay out in the longer
term. Although some of the countries in the Maghreb have talked
up their own chances of joining Europe—Morocco is no more
distant from Europe than is Asiatic Turkey—North Africa
is by definition not part of Europe. Are Ukraine, Moldova and
even Belarus, all of which are definitely part of geographical
Europe, potential members of the EU? We certainly heard views
that they should be when we visited European capitals last January.
But even if some of these countries were to satisfy the Copenhagen
criteria and to be accepted as candidate members of the EU, there
must be serious doubt concerning the EU's capacity to absorb them,
and their ability to adjust to membership given their economic
and social problems.
93. We agree
with the Foreign Secretary that what is key to the enlargement
debate is the rigorous application of the criteria for membership.
We conclude that it is this, rather than any abstruse debate about
'absorption capacity', which must determine the future shape and
scope of the EU. But we also conclude that popular opinion will
be an important factor in deciding future enlargements and that
this reinforces the need for a Union which engages the public.
89 
