The so-called Big Bang Enlargement came of age on May 1, 2022. Eighteen years ago, 10 new countries joined the European Union, thus breathing new life into the Union while creating a new political dynamic.
Europe grew eastwards as Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia joined. It also extended southwards since Malta and Cyprus were part of the 2004 cohort.
However, this enlargement also included a shift westward – citizens from the new member states sought better opportunities beyond their borders and made full use of the EU’s freedom of movement. In the following years, another shift northward was to take place as several migrants sought to enter Europe in search of better conditions.
As part of the ‘class of 2004’, Malta should reflect on how it lives this European experience with the rest of this cohort.
Firstly – the context. The 2004 enlargement was a result of rapidly changing political scenarios in Europe. Fifteen years before this enlargement, such an outcome would have been unimaginable. The end of the Cold War led to a seismic change in the political make-up of Europe. The continent could, finally, breathe with its two lungs again. The disintegration of the Soviet Union also brought new opportunities to some of its former constituent republics.
However, this new spirit of openness also brought about some dramatic changes. The disintegration of the former Yugoslavia brought national emancipation but also violence and war. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia was an amicable divorce between two nations which, nonetheless, remained on very good terms.
The European Union had to confront these changes. On the one hand, it succeeded in engaging many of these countries in the process of European integration (though, perhaps, dealing with the nuances of this rather clumsily). But, on the other hand, it failed to assert itself as a credible regional actor, such as the case in ex-Yugoslavia. The lessons of this were not lost on Europe since it seems to be striving to avoid repeating this in Ukraine.
Secondly – the political changes were not simply occurring in European countries but also within European institutions themselves. In the 1990s, there was a process of broadening and deepening European integration. The ratification of the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice cemented this process. Thus, the new member states joined a Union that was evolving and changing.
We must ask whether the European experience has been internalised enough for citizens to make a success of it
Eighteen years removed from this event, what can we deduce about the European experience?
The narrative of Europe at a crossroads is interesting and compelling, though often somewhat misleading. By its very nature, the political environment is dynamic and requires evolution. More sobering attitudes replaced the selective optimism of the early 1990s.
The political milieu was shaped by a financial crisis rather than opportunities for further economic growth; war and tension rather than opportunities for peaceful coexistence; doubts about European integration rather than attempts to broaden or deepen the Union.
In this regard, the debate on Europe has often been poor and bland. In recent years, the polarisation of the Eurosceptic and Europhile camps has robbed the public of having a meaningful discussion about what EU membership means, where the EU should be heading and how this shared common home should evolve.
The Conference on the Future of Europe has failed to capture the imagination of citizens and its success will need to be evaluated. Such debates – much like the political realm itself – should be more dynamic and ongoing.
This points to the second issue about EU membership. We must ask whether the European experience has been internalised enough for citizens to make a success of it. Have domestic attitudes and national politics adapted to this new way of doing politics or have countries tried to export national attitudes to a transnational context?
I fear that many aspects, particularly those relating to the political culture founded on a respect for democratic norms and the rule of law, remain somewhat elusive.
However, in some other aspects, the ‘class of 2004’ has also managed to make the best of the European experience. This is best exemplified in the persona of Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament.
She first contested the 2004 European Parliament elections, gradually rising through the ranks to eventually lead an EU institution with quasi-unanimous support.
Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has primarily dominated her stint so far. Nevertheless, she has performed brilliantly, often setting the right tone for other institutions to follow suit.
As we advance, this is perhaps the most conducive attitude to appreciating the European experience: that of a confident Europeanism rooted in the sense of place.
This Europeanism should not ignore the concerns and the debates taking place.
Instead, it should engage with them to ensure that Europe evolves into a reality every citizen, rather than Eurocrats, can get behind.
As the Conference for the Future of Europe comes to its conclusion, the test of the institutions will be to make sure that it is both representative of the views in Europe and that its recommendations are implemented. The way the EU will evolve will also determine how the ‘class of 2004’ will interact with it.