EUROPE UNDER CHRIST

Introduction

In May of next year (2004) ten countries will join the existing European Union: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. This was the agreement at the Copenhagen EU summit at the end of last year: their accession is subject to referendum results (already positive in the case of Malta and Slovenia) and there is now some doubt about Cyprus. When the EEC was founded it was six - France, Germany, Italy and the group often called 'Benelux' - Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. This was only part of western Europe, and yet the new unit claimed the title of 'Europe'; there have been a number of enlargements since 1958. Tonight we will look a little at what this enlargement might mean, at the other enlargements in the last thirty years, and (very briefly) at countries further down the list.

The latest enlargement poses major challenges both for the Union as a whole and for Christians in the whole continent; greater than has been true with previous enlargements, for three reasons. First, the sheer number of new states, which will bring the EU from 15 to 25 states; second, most are from eastern Europe, so they will change for ever the ethos of the EU as a western and affluent European community; and third, in many of them the Catholic Church in particular enjoys an influence over public and political life which it has long since lost in the countries of the existing EU, strengthened in long years of sustained persecution. The Catholic community in Britain, moreover, is enriched by many people from these countries. So on any course about Christians and Europe this is something we need to look at in some detail, and we have touched on it in previous weeks; moreover in the last fifteen years or so there has been a big ideological dispute among existing EU states as to whether enlargement should precede any further integration, accompany such integration, or make such integration utterly impossible! We should bear in mind that these states are not being allowed to 'opt out' of certain things, as Britain, Sweden and Denmark have in relation to the euro - they will be accepting the whole package.

Another package most of them have or will accept is membership of NATO. I will not refer to this much tonight because I intend to look at the whole relationship between Europe and the Atlantic alliance in our concluding lecture next week. I think it is unfortunate that negotiations over the last decade about EU membership for most of these countries have been muddied by the NATO question - the two organisations need to be kept totally distinct. Many delays were caused by the need to reassure the Russian Federation that NATO enlargement was not a threat to its security; similarly the whole question of whether Turkey should be a candidate or accession state has been complicated by her membership of NATO and the present policies of the United States.

Last summer the Pope said this in a message to the congress Towards a European Constitution organised by the European Federation of Catholic Universities (20.6.2002):

'If a new European order is to be adequate for the promotion of the authentic common good, it must recognise and safeguard the values that constitute the most precious heritage of European humanism. Multiple are the cultural roots that have contributed to reinforce these values: from the spirit of Greece to that of Roman law and virtue; from the contribution of the Latin, Celtic, Germanic, Slav and Finno-Ugric peoples, to those of the Jewish culture and the Islamic world. These different factors found in the Judeo-Christian tradition the power that harmonised, consolidated and promoted them.'

A brief history of enlargement

Before we look at what is going to happen in 2004 we need to look back, since enlargement of the EEC/EC/EU has always given the community momentum, and slow progress over enlargement has often reflected stagnation. The 'six' in 1958 (historically made up, of course, of 2+3+1) never intended the remain only six, as is made clear in the text of the Treaty of Rome, but throughout the 1960s the repeated vetoes by President De Gaulle of applications to join by Britain threw the whole project into doubt.

This course of lectures is partly to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of Britain joining the EEC. As has often been the case, negotiations with Britain in particular (both the other countries were following in Britain's shadow because their main trading partner was Britain) were bound up with tensions between France and West Germany over greater monetary union: the French under President Pompidou were cautious about the whole idea and thought (correctly) that Britain in the EEC would support a cautious position. As you will no doubt recall the Heath government was enthusiastic about entry and the negotiations were completed very quickly, in more or less a year; entry severely divided the Labour party who renegotiated the terms (rather cosmetically) in 1974 and submitted them to a referendum in 1975. Both Denmark and Ireland voted enthusiastically to join, but a fourth country in the negotiations, Norway, voted no as it would do again in 1994: this is usually attributed to nationalism and the importance of their fish and oil industries. France actually had a referendum in 1972 on whether Britain and the other countries should be allowed, endorsed on a low turnout reflecting Pompidou's lack of popularity at that stage.

Prior to the military coup in Greece in 1967 there had been growing links between the EEC and Greece, but these were suspended under the rule of the 'colonels', but after their fall in 1974 the country applied for full membership. Interestingly, the European Commission was against it at this stage because it was such a deprived country economically, whereas the political leadership of the Council wanted to secure Greece's restored democracy as much as possible. Negotiations took place alongside Spain and Portugal but were concluded more swiftly. However, France was consistently worried about new Mediterranean, agricultural states joining: as we will see again, EC Commission President Roy Jenkins saw this expansion as helping to reform sluggish institutions and decision-making. Because the Greek negotiations were detached from the Iberian, Greece joined at the beginning of 1981. When we look at Cyprus later on I will make some observations about the relationship between Greek Orthodoxy and the ethos of European unity, but I discovered yesterday that there have been moves towards a thaw in relations, pioneered by Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and all Greece - a delegation from the Holy See went to Greece in February.

Like Greece, Spain and Portugal emerged from periods of dictatorship (though much longer) in the mid 1970s. The negotiations were much more protracted and showed up divisions between the French (whose position in the agricultural market was threatened by their joining) and others, and fishing was a very serious and violent problem. Jacques Delors deserves credit for sorting out the problems in the end. What the community faced over the entry of three poorer, largely agricultural, Mediterranean countries was the need to challenge established interests and those who had done very well out of the EC to that point, in this case the French farmers.

Of course, although it was not a formal accession, in 1990 the reunification of Germany led to the GDR Länder being brought into the community.

Next we have what was called the 'Eftan' enlargement, because the next countries to join were members of the European Free Trade Area ('EFTA'), the first enlargement after the Maastricht treaty and the new structures and common citizenship which went with it. With the end of the Cold War political neutrality had ceased to be an impediment to membership (Ireland had been an exception in 1973). The negotiations were free of major problems, although two other countries which had been seeking membership, Norway (again) and Switzerland, did not join because of negative referendum results; the candidate countries had also already brought themselves into line with EU policies and economic life. Unlike the earlier expansion, these countries were both prosperous and had secure, long-standing and open democratic structures, and in the case of Scandinavia, a concern for the environment and Third World development. An EU official said, 'Northern Protestant uprightness will serve as a useful counterbalance to the more passionate political traditions of the (Catholic) Mediterranean countries' (F. Granell, 'The European Union's Enlargement Negotiations with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden' Journal of Common Market Studies 33 (1995), 134). Sweden has not joined the euro, but is expected to do so soon.

What we see from this are the ways in which the union has already changed, quite apart from structural changes such as majority voting in decision-making. This constant process of change and development has been tremendously important.

The accession states: Copenhagen, December 2002

Cyprus, historically a popular holiday destination for people from these islands, is actually now the most problematic case and there is genuine doubt whether the country will accede in May 2004. Since the summer of 1974 part of the north of the island has been a distinct entity for Turkish Cypriots (the 'Turkish Federated State of Cyprus', later the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'), condemned by the UN and not recognised as a country by any country except Turkey. The EU accession agreement is conditional on this entity's reintegration with the rest of the island, but last month UN sponsored negotiations broke down, apparently without any prospect of resumption in the near future. In the republic itself the population is overwhelmingly Greek-speaking and Orthodox - as you will know for some years the Head of State was an Archbishop. I suspect that in urban areas regular practice of the faith has declined, but the church still enjoys great influence. As in the case of Greece this raises interesting questions from a Roman Catholic standpoint, since at present popular Greek orthodox culture still contains very anti-Roman Catholic elements. Such a view would be suspicious of an EU thought to be dominated by Catholics, and was also suspicious of western interventions against the previous leaders of Serbia. These elements would also be associated with the nationalistic outlook, associated with the military junta in Greece which invaded Cyprus in 1974 and led to the setting up of the Turkish state. The EU is surely right to insist that the Greek and Turkish Cypriots sort out their differences before the island joins the union. Surveys suggest that the actual Turkish population in the enclave favour both reintegration with the rest of the island and EU membership, and that the problem is the intransigent Denktash leadership.

(ii) Czech republic

This is of course the western part of the former Czechoslovakia, being the ancient regions of Bohemia and Moravia, separate from Slovakia (but still joined in a customs union) since 1993. Being close to Germany and Austria it has found it relatively easy to change its economic culture since 1990 - it is heavily industrialised and also strong in agriculture and the production of timber. Prague is one of the most important cultural centres in Europe and no-one could ever say now, with Neville Chamberlain, that this country is a 'far off country of which we know little'. In spite of the Hussite movement and the Reformation the majority of the population is Roman Catholic (about 20% of the population in terms of practice) in 7 dioceses.

(iii) Estonia

This is not the case in Estonia, the first of the Baltic republics we shall consider - mostly Lutheran, with a Russian Orthodox minority associated with the Russians. The Roman Catholic community is very small in one non-territorial diocese. The Estonians are closely related to the Finns and the Hungarians. Like the other Baltic states Estonia was independent between the wars, and regained independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is probably economically stronger than the other Baltic states, and has stronger cultural links with the existing EU through proximity to Finland. As in Latvia the place of the 28% of the people of the country who are ethnically Russian has been an issue needing resolution since the regaining of independence.

(iv) Hungary

The Magyar people are related linguistically to the Finns and Estonians. Hungary was among the first post-communist states (the 'Visegrad three' with Poland and Czechoslovakia) to seek closer trade relationships with the EC. These early negotiations challenged many attitudes in the EC, since rejoicing at the new freedoms won in eastern Europe had to be accompanied by opening up western Europe to trade with central and eastern Europe. As Jacques Delors said in 1991 (after a demonstration of French farmers against opening up trade): 'You cannot shed tears of joy for the people of Eastern Europe one day and the next tell them that you will not buy their products.' This pithy statement sums up why we must enthusiastically back EU expansion if we really believe in freedom and democracy. Hungary's economy has developed well since 1989. About two-thirds of the population are Catholic; there are 13 dioceses and one for the eastern rite Catholics.

(v) Latvia

Latvia has a large non-Latvian population (nearly 37% Russian and Belarussian in 1998) and establishing their civil and cultural rights was a major issue in the years after independence was regained in 1991. As in Estonia, the largest Christian Church is Lutheran (55%), but the Catholic community is larger than in Estonia (20%), with two dioceses and an Archbishop in Riga. As with the other Baltic states, the main challenge economically has been the need to reduce trade dependence on Russia and the CIS states, and open up to the west.

(vi) Lithuania

The same would be true in the third Baltic state, Lithuania. Here there are no large minorities; there have also been close historical and cultural links with Poland. The majority of the population are Catholics (81%), as would also be true of the small Polish community (the present capital, Vilnius, was in Poland in the inter-war period); there are seven dioceses.

(vii) Malta

Malta really needs little introduction as a former British colony and recipient of the George Cross during the last war, and there are strong links between the Catholic community here and the people of Malta, which must have one of the highest levels of Catholic practice in the world. The political history of moves towards EU membership has been difficult, as the Labour party has been opposed and often in the past was more interested in developing links with Libya. In the recent referendum campaign, some opponents of EU membership suggested that joining the EU would bring liberal abortion laws to the island, but the bishops were broadly in favour of joining; of course, Malta will be the first independent Commonwealth country to join the EU and the eurozone.

(viii) Poland

Reactions to the prospect of EU expansion have been better covered in relation to Poland in the Catholic press, for obvious reasons; there are very close links with the Catholic community in this country. A recent article in the Universe (Jonathan Luxmoore, 23.2.03) drew attention to a reduction in enthusiasm among Poles, largely because of the ungenerous terms of the accession arrangements (which I will discuss below).

The leaders of the Church have backed joining and integration. The campaign has certainly excited great emotions, as Cardinal Glemp recently said: 'Entry to the EU is exciting emotions more than anything else, influencing our behaviour and even our prayer-life...we can't escape from Europe. So if we want to integrate with it, let's do so with our God, with our homeland - and, of course , with our honour.' Similarly the Archbishop of Lublin said recently, 'Although we won't be conducting pro-Europe agitation in our churches, we can't be indifferent to the continent's future. Fear of Europe is foreign to Christian spirituality. If St Peter had been afraid of Europe, Christianity would never have reached Nero's Rome or the corrupt world of Corinth.' In a statement about European integration a year ago the bishops pointed out that being in the EU would mean 'respecting the identity of other nations and involving the right of co-deciding about the shape of future Europe.' (21.3.02) When he was in his homeland last summer the Holy Father himself said that Poland 'should find its proper place in the structures of the European Community - not only without losing its identity, but enriching the continent and the world with its traditions.' We should note that the Polish government added a unilateral declaration to the accession treaty with the EU, at the request of the Church, stating that no EU documents 'will impede Poland from regulating matters of moral significance or concerning defence of human life.'

(ix) Slovakia

Slovakia is part of what used to be Czechoslovakia, separate since 1993, thought still in a customs union with the Czech republic, and less prosperous than its western neighbour. It had been a puppet state of the Germans during the war (and the Head of State was a priest). Catholics make up 66% of the population in 6 dioceses and 2 for eastern rite Catholics. The bishops have taken a lead in encouraging Slovakia to join in European integration. Last year they wrote 'The EU must be a community of values that are developed thanks to the solidarity of its members' and reiterated that none of us should be spectators in Europe.

(x) Slovenia

Slovenia was the first republic in Yugoslavia to break away and declare independence in 1989, and this was effected with remarkably little violence: it has always been more homogenous than other parts of the old federal state, and much more westernised, with links to Austria and (less so) Italy. It is prosperous and has just voted in its referendum to join the EU (and NATO). The Catholic population makes up about 70% of the total, in three dioceses.

Are the accession terms fair?

While we will all welcome the enlargement it seems to me that we should be critical of some of the ways in which this is being done - particularly a lack of generosity which is at odds with Catholic teaching. In order to placate interests in western Europe, there will be a seven-year moratorium on access from eastern Europeans to the labour market in the EU, and it will be ten years before farmers in the east will enjoy the same subsidies. While obviously integration has to be handled gradually, these measures have a niggardly air to them; the same is true of recent reports that the Chancellor here, Gordon Brown, wants the aid to poorer regions drastically reduced; in spite of this the European Commission claims that it has been criticised for 'over-generosity'. There may be good reasons for this, such as the current weakness in the German economy, but Catholics will feel very critical of these provisions for the same reason as Delors was in the remark I quoted above: solidarity demands generosity. It is important that when we explain EU enlargement to fellow Catholics we demonstrate that the opportunity for solidarity and generosity in this expansion is something good and virtuous, grounded in the original values underpinning moves towards integration in the 1950s. So the churches will continue to press for a more generous approach.

Future candidate and accession states

As far as I know Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia are involved in accession negotiations which should lead to their joining the EU in 2007. These lands are certainly poorer than those joining next year. Turkey has not yet been accepted as a candidate, and there are many problems surrounding the application: is it part of Europe? What is its record over democracy and human rights? Would its relations with Greece or Cyprus ever allow it to join? What I do think is clear from Catholic teaching (as in the quotation from the Pope in the introduction to this talk) is that Turkey's Muslim heritage should on no account be a reason for not admitting her, and we must not ally ourselves with those who would oppose it on these grounds. Sooner or later Bosnia and Albania, which have a largely Muslim culture, will want to join and no-one would deny that those countries are European; moreover Spain has a rich Moslem past and many EU countries now have large Muslim populations. I would have thought that joining the EU at some stage would weaken extremist elements in Turkey, not strengthen them; I was told after the recent parish pilgrimage that Turkey was more secularised than Britain (and that is saying something!).

Conclusion: what the bishops have said

Following the Copenhagen summit in December the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) published a statement Hope, Trust and Solidarity welcoming the accession states (6 December 2002: available on the commission's website www.comece.org) - most significantly, they pointed out that "this is not the 'enlargement' but the 'Europeanisation' of the European Union":

'The Catholic Church is and has always been supportive of the efforts of outstanding political leaders and citizens to bring lasting peace and well-being to our continent through a "community of solidarity" based on economic and political integration.'

Therefore making the union bigger will promote fundamental values - 'solidarity, mutual respect and friendship between peoples'. So it is clear that Catholics must favour the enlargement, which is why it was so appalling that so many Catholics in Ireland, going against the advice of their bishops, voted negatively in the first referendum there on enlargement two years ago. They see enlargement as

'a source of hope, an opportunity for renewal of the union and its original mission to promote freedom, justice, peace and prosperity both within and without its own borders.'

In other words, it will aid exactly what we have been looking for on this course - a renewal of the core original vision of the '40s and '50s, lost by so much bickering and cynicism in recent years. This is what will make the EU a model to others, as we saw over the euro in relation to the teachings of John Paul II in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987), so it can be

' ...a sign of hope to other regions of the world seeking to build on this model of peaceful integration, notably in Africa and Latin America.'

Solidarity on the part of all countries will be required when the new states join - there needs to be further reform to EU institutions (particularly the Common Agricultural Policy), and although the new state may not see the benefits of EU membership straightaway, they will have access to aid programmes as members. The bishops' commission calls on the accession states to be fully involved in the discussions about a new EU constitution, and they remind the new states that being in the EU is not simply about receiving but about giving to the poorest, as the EU is the world's biggest donor of humanitarian and development aid. They urge the EU to fulfil its commitment to devote 0.7% of its GDP to official development aid.

'We call on the enlarged European Union to serve the global common good by applying the same commitment to just trade, sustainable development and solidarity with the poorest regions of the world as they have within the European Union.'

The bishops warn that enlargement should not lead to new divisions in Europe between the larger EU and states who are still waiting to join such as Bulgaria and Romania already in accession negotiations, and Turkey and countries in SE Europe recognised as candidate or potential candidate nations.

So we have seen this evening some of the reasons why the enlargement of the EU is important for Christians in the whole of Europe because of what we believe about Europe. The influence of committed Catholics should be increased through the accession, and the ways in which the EU will changed should be in line with Christian teaching and enable us to overcome a lot of popular prejudice which still exists in this country against eastern Europeans. But we have a job to do: many English people, even Catholics, are woefully ignorant about many of the countries we have been considering. However, we should look to the accession of the new members in 2004 with hope and confidence.