This House believes the EU should engage in further enlargement

It is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours.  Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements.

European Union expansion is not a moral process. No one in Europe is trying to claim some kind of ‘civilising mission’. The remaining countries that are outside the European Union cannot be said to be countries that the members of the European Union had abandoned to Russian rule in the same way that could be said of Poland from 1945. Instead these were either within Yugoslavia which largely escaped Soviet control or were already within the borders of the USSR before World War II.

The sheer fact that a country is on the European Continent is not enough for a country to be admitted. Neither is it true that EU countries have a duty to give membership in order to help. The EU is already involved in aid, reconstruction and development programs all over Europe and should not have further obligations.

Expansion means extending a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in western Europe for nearly half a century. This was the original purpose of the European project. The European Union started out as the European Coal and Steel Community which shared these important strategic resources that were necessary to fight a war. It was argued that this integration is the only way to keep France and Germany, enemies that had fought three wars in the previous eighty years, from attacking each other. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, the most recent two wars; World War I and World War II expanded to include the whole of Europe and much of the rest of the world. The European Union also means that there is no concern that there will be conflict. This both allows members of the European Union to spend less on defence – only the UK, France and Greece meet NATO’s 2% of GDP target[1]and frees up European forces for Peacekeeping missions such as those in the in the western Balkans in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, but also further afield, for example 3700 troops were deployed as an EU force in Chad in 2008-9.[2]

[1] Defence Dateline Group, ‘As Europe Wakes to Defence Spending Shortfall, NATO Risks Losing US Investment’, Defenceiq.com, 14 March 2011, http://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/articles/as-nato-wakes-to-defence-spending-shortfall-intern/

[2] Eufocus, ‘The EU and Peacekeeping: Promoting Security, Stability, and Democratic Values’, Stacy Hope ed., November 2008, http://www.eurunion.org/News/eunewsletters/EUFocus/2008/EUFocus-Peacekeeping-Nov08.pdf

While membership in the European Union might contribute to peace, economic cooperation and good diplomatic relations being a member is neither the cause such stability nor is it sufficient on its own. There are countries outside the European Union that are stable states – such as Norway and there are countries within the EU where membership is no longer creating stability and possibly even undermining it such as in Greece where being dictated to by other member states is one cause behind the anti-government riots in the country.

Once both the EU is ready/willing to expand and the countries have fulfilled the criteria for joining, membership can be extended, but it should not be considered to be a quick fix to create international stability.

The current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP.[1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros.[2]

Admitting new members is also necessary over the long term in order to counter the aging that is occurring in Europe. Every member of the European Union has an aging population and a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Encouraging economic growth in countries that are old and getting older is difficult because they are less inclined to take risks and be innovative.[3] This means that Europe needs more young workers; these can be gained either through immigration from the rest of the world or through admitting more vibrant economies into the European Union. Turkey is a good example of the kind of country the EU needs to allow to join; its economy is growing rapidly, even faster than China’s in the first half of 2011,[4] and the median age of the population is still only 25.[5]

[1] ‘Good to know about EU Enlargement’, European Commission – Directorate General for Enlargement, March 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/publication/screen_mythfacts_a5_en.pdf

[2] David Lidington, ‘European Union Enlargement: Tulips, Trade and Growth’, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 9 March 2011, http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=562922482

[3] Megan McArdle, ‘Europe’s Real Crisis’, the Atlantic, April 2012,  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/europe-8217-s-real-crisis/8915/

[4] Ergin Hava, ‘Robust private sector fives Turkey fastest H1 growth worldwide’, Todays Zaman, 12 September 2011, http://www.todayszaman.com/news-256556-robust-private-sector-gives-turkey-fastest-h1-growth-worldwide.html

[5] Euromonitor International, ‘Turkey’s Population Young and Rapidly Expanding’, 24 January 2012, http://blog.euromonitor.com/2012/01/turkeys-population-young-and-rapidly-expanding.html

That there were immense trade increases during the period when the new member states were joining does not necessarily show causality or that these same increases would not have been created without EU membership. Development and economic integration is something that will occur regardless of whether applicant countries join the European Union or not.  There would likely have been a similar growth in trade if these states had joined the network of free trade agreements such as the European Economic Area instead of full membership of the European Union.

The 0.3% of GDP figure for the financial transfers from the old to new member states the proposition gives may be accurate but 0.3% of GDP per year is not insignificant. Germany paying 0.3% of its GDP would still be almost 7.5 billion Euros. It is also questionable whether further expansion would be as beneficial as the most recent expansions as the new members would be getting progressively poorer and poorer compared to current members. Macedonia’s GDP per capita for example is less than 10% of the 15 pre enlargement member states. They are therefore going to benefit current member states through trade less while costing more. 

The prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatizations, human rights) that are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the first wave of eastern European states to join the European Union was impressive and membership was their deserved reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to those states that are still hoping to join in the future, these states are likely to be unwilling to implement the unpopular reforms that the European union would like. Even in countries that are not on any EU lists of applicant or potential members the door to enlargement has a positive influence. The prospect of joining the European Union has tempted even those who might naturally be inclined to look the other way. Viktor Yanukovych was the Pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine yet he has continued on the path towards EU membership since taking office for example creating the legislation necessary for an EU-Ukraine free trade zone.[1]

 Enlargement is a unique opportunity to encourage nations to take a path which will lead them to becoming prosperous developed democracies. Most states are unwilling to accept lectures on where they are going wrong and would, like Russia has for example done, accuse western nations of violations against its sovereignty if there are attempts to encourage civil society, democracy or more westernized economies. Vladimir Putin has many times made statements referring to western NGO such as “the activities of "pseudo-NGOs" and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.”[2] However these are much more palatable if the end result is membership in the European Union and the reforms are accompanied by European expertise and money, per-accession assistance currently totals 12.9 billion Euros.[3]

[1] ‘Yanukovych: Laws for creation of Ukrainian-EU free trade zone will be adopted in June’, Kyiv Post, 24 May 2010, http://www.kyivpost.com/news/politics/detail/67511/#ixzz1pa38RYLE

[2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Russia’s Place in a Changing World’, Moskovskiye Novosti, 27 February 2012, Trans. Igor Medvedev, http://worldmeets.us/Moskovskiye.Novosti000001.shtml#axzz1peaNQNuc

[3] 2007-2013.eu, ‘Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. (IPA)’, 2006, http://2007-2013.eu/by_scope_ipa.php

While an argument for cooperation (including logistic and financial support) between the EU and neighbouring states, it is not an argument for granting full EU membership to these states. While the prospect of membership may motivate countries to introduce reforms, premature accession can cause this progress to grind to a halt, as seen with the corruption in Bulgaria still affecting government and there being very little chance of prosecution.[1] This is because once a state joins the European Union the EU no longer has much influence over that state. Once a state is a member the methods of punishing that state are constrained. This is because where previously their path to membership could be slowed of halted once they join this is no longer possible. It is no longer possible to impose effective economic sanctions against these states. For this reason some kind of association outside of the European Union itself would be more effective at encouraging states that are outside the European Union to become fully functioning democracies.

[1] Novinite.com, ‘WikiLeaks/Stratfor: Corruption in Bulgaria is Part of Society’, 28 February 2012, http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=137084

It is right to extend the economic and political benefits enjoyed by existing EU members to the rest of Europe. States in eastern Europe are still recovering from the “dead hand” of communist rule imposed after deals between the USSR and the USA and Britain at the end of World War II. Many within the boundaries of the former Soviet Union such as Belarus and increasingly Ukraine have reverted to more authoritarian governments. These states should not be abandoned by their western neighbours.  Europe has just as much responsibility to those states within Europe that have so far been left out the European Union’s enlargement as it did to those countries of Central and Eastern Europe that were accepted in the most recent enlargements.

European Union expansion is not a moral process. No one in Europe is trying to claim some kind of ‘civilising mission’. The remaining countries that are outside the European Union cannot be said to be countries that the members of the European Union had abandoned to Russian rule in the same way that could be said of Poland from 1945. Instead these were either within Yugoslavia which largely escaped Soviet control or were already within the borders of the USSR before World War II.

The sheer fact that a country is on the European Continent is not enough for a country to be admitted. Neither is it true that EU countries have a duty to give membership in order to help. The EU is already involved in aid, reconstruction and development programs all over Europe and should not have further obligations.

Expansion means extending a project which has ensured unprecedented levels of peace and cooperation among former enemies in western Europe for nearly half a century. This was the original purpose of the European project. The European Union started out as the European Coal and Steel Community which shared these important strategic resources that were necessary to fight a war. It was argued that this integration is the only way to keep France and Germany, enemies that had fought three wars in the previous eighty years, from attacking each other. Entrenching peace, democracy and economic integration throughout the continent is to the benefit of all European nations, the most recent two wars; World War I and World War II expanded to include the whole of Europe and much of the rest of the world. The European Union also means that there is no concern that there will be conflict. This both allows members of the European Union to spend less on defence – only the UK, France and Greece meet NATO’s 2% of GDP target[1]and frees up European forces for Peacekeeping missions such as those in the in the western Balkans in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, but also further afield, for example 3700 troops were deployed as an EU force in Chad in 2008-9.[2]

[1] Defence Dateline Group, ‘As Europe Wakes to Defence Spending Shortfall, NATO Risks Losing US Investment’, Defenceiq.com, 14 March 2011, http://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/articles/as-nato-wakes-to-defence-spending-shortfall-intern/

[2] Eufocus, ‘The EU and Peacekeeping: Promoting Security, Stability, and Democratic Values’, Stacy Hope ed., November 2008, http://www.eurunion.org/News/eunewsletters/EUFocus/2008/EUFocus-Peacekeeping-Nov08.pdf

While membership in the European Union might contribute to peace, economic cooperation and good diplomatic relations being a member is neither the cause such stability nor is it sufficient on its own. There are countries outside the European Union that are stable states – such as Norway and there are countries within the EU where membership is no longer creating stability and possibly even undermining it such as in Greece where being dictated to by other member states is one cause behind the anti-government riots in the country.

Once both the EU is ready/willing to expand and the countries have fulfilled the criteria for joining, membership can be extended, but it should not be considered to be a quick fix to create international stability.

The current economic crisis within Europe masks its immense success in turning new member states into prosperous economies while also benefiting those who were already members. Between 1999 and 2007 trade between the new and old member states grew from 175 billion Euros to 500 billion, this outweighs the cost of EU financial assistance to the new members which only amounts to between 0.2-0.3% of EU GDP.[1] For example British exports to the 12 new member states were worth £11.6billion in 2009 compared to £4.5billion in 1999 whereas the Dutch government estimates that the benefits of enlargement to each of its inhabitants was 650 Euros.[2]

Admitting new members is also necessary over the long term in order to counter the aging that is occurring in Europe. Every member of the European Union has an aging population and a fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1. Encouraging economic growth in countries that are old and getting older is difficult because they are less inclined to take risks and be innovative.[3] This means that Europe needs more young workers; these can be gained either through immigration from the rest of the world or through admitting more vibrant economies into the European Union. Turkey is a good example of the kind of country the EU needs to allow to join; its economy is growing rapidly, even faster than China’s in the first half of 2011,[4] and the median age of the population is still only 25.[5]

[1] ‘Good to know about EU Enlargement’, European Commission – Directorate General for Enlargement, March 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/publication/screen_mythfacts_a5_en.pdf

[2] David Lidington, ‘European Union Enlargement: Tulips, Trade and Growth’, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, 9 March 2011, http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=562922482

[3] Megan McArdle, ‘Europe’s Real Crisis’, the Atlantic, April 2012,  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/europe-8217-s-real-crisis/8915/

[4] Ergin Hava, ‘Robust private sector fives Turkey fastest H1 growth worldwide’, Todays Zaman, 12 September 2011, http://www.todayszaman.com/news-256556-robust-private-sector-gives-turkey-fastest-h1-growth-worldwide.html

[5] Euromonitor International, ‘Turkey’s Population Young and Rapidly Expanding’, 24 January 2012, http://blog.euromonitor.com/2012/01/turkeys-population-young-and-rapidly-expanding.html

That there were immense trade increases during the period when the new member states were joining does not necessarily show causality or that these same increases would not have been created without EU membership. Development and economic integration is something that will occur regardless of whether applicant countries join the European Union or not.  There would likely have been a similar growth in trade if these states had joined the network of free trade agreements such as the European Economic Area instead of full membership of the European Union.

The 0.3% of GDP figure for the financial transfers from the old to new member states the proposition gives may be accurate but 0.3% of GDP per year is not insignificant. Germany paying 0.3% of its GDP would still be almost 7.5 billion Euros. It is also questionable whether further expansion would be as beneficial as the most recent expansions as the new members would be getting progressively poorer and poorer compared to current members. Macedonia’s GDP per capita for example is less than 10% of the 15 pre enlargement member states. They are therefore going to benefit current member states through trade less while costing more. 

The prospect of joining the EU has been an impetus for reform in many ex-communist countries, driving changes (e.g. legal reforms, privatizations, human rights) that are desirable in their own right. The progress made in a few years by the first wave of eastern European states to join the European Union was impressive and membership was their deserved reward. Conversely, if the prospect of EU membership was now denied to those states that are still hoping to join in the future, these states are likely to be unwilling to implement the unpopular reforms that the European union would like. Even in countries that are not on any EU lists of applicant or potential members the door to enlargement has a positive influence. The prospect of joining the European Union has tempted even those who might naturally be inclined to look the other way. Viktor Yanukovych was the Pro-Russian candidate in Ukraine yet he has continued on the path towards EU membership since taking office for example creating the legislation necessary for an EU-Ukraine free trade zone.[1]

 Enlargement is a unique opportunity to encourage nations to take a path which will lead them to becoming prosperous developed democracies. Most states are unwilling to accept lectures on where they are going wrong and would, like Russia has for example done, accuse western nations of violations against its sovereignty if there are attempts to encourage civil society, democracy or more westernized economies. Vladimir Putin has many times made statements referring to western NGO such as “the activities of "pseudo-NGOs" and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.”[2] However these are much more palatable if the end result is membership in the European Union and the reforms are accompanied by European expertise and money, per-accession assistance currently totals 12.9 billion Euros.[3]

[1] ‘Yanukovych: Laws for creation of Ukrainian-EU free trade zone will be adopted in June’, Kyiv Post, 24 May 2010, http://www.kyivpost.com/news/politics/detail/67511/#ixzz1pa38RYLE

[2] Putin, Vladimir, ‘Russia’s Place in a Changing World’, Moskovskiye Novosti, 27 February 2012, Trans. Igor Medvedev, http://worldmeets.us/Moskovskiye.Novosti000001.shtml#axzz1peaNQNuc

[3] 2007-2013.eu, ‘Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. (IPA)’, 2006, http://2007-2013.eu/by_scope_ipa.php

While an argument for cooperation (including logistic and financial support) between the EU and neighbouring states, it is not an argument for granting full EU membership to these states. While the prospect of membership may motivate countries to introduce reforms, premature accession can cause this progress to grind to a halt, as seen with the corruption in Bulgaria still affecting government and there being very little chance of prosecution.[1] This is because once a state joins the European Union the EU no longer has much influence over that state. Once a state is a member the methods of punishing that state are constrained. This is because where previously their path to membership could be slowed of halted once they join this is no longer possible. It is no longer possible to impose effective economic sanctions against these states. For this reason some kind of association outside of the European Union itself would be more effective at encouraging states that are outside the European Union to become fully functioning democracies.

[1] Novinite.com, ‘WikiLeaks/Stratfor: Corruption in Bulgaria is Part of Society’, 28 February 2012, http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=137084

Continuing expansion will mean a dilution of common national interests between the member states. National interests are to a large extent based upon geography and the economy. The EU-15 could be said to have both a unity of purpose; preventing another war between France and Germany as well as similar cultures, similar levels of wealth, and even a similarity in social policy. This has meant that the EU-15 member states had a lot of common interests so could agree to continuing integration. Newer member states have very different post World War II national experiences, shaped in particular by communist occupation. This makes many new EU members less willing to share sovereignty or contemplate the Union deepening. Moreover as the European Union gets bigger and more geographically diverse other interests diverge. For example some countries such as Germany are already inclined to conciliate Russia while others have been much more outspoken. This was particularly highlighted during Russia’s conflict with Georgia in 2008 where Poland strongly supported Georgia.[1]

[1] Andrew Curry, ‘Old Europe vs. New Europe Will Poland Split EU over Russia Policy?’, Spiegel Online, 14 August 2008, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,572105,00.html

Conflicts of interest between member states are inevitable. Britain has consistently been one of the outlier states even though it has been a member since 1974 and has many interests in common with the other old members of the EU. It has remained outside the Eurozone and the Schengen agreement and disagrees on policies such as a tax on financial transactions. New members in the Balkans for example are unlikely to be less cooperative than the UK. Moreover these conflicts of interest are most acute in foreign policy, such as the conflicts of interest over policy towards Russia, where so far the EU does not demand a common position from members so this should not be a concern.

The financial crisis and European Union member states’ having to bail each other out means that there will be less money available for any new members. The bailouts have cost the EU more than $500 billion plus financing the European Stability Mechanism with $650 billion.[1] Hence current prospective entrants will not have such auspicious conditions for adoption as there were for all previous entrants into the EU. This means that all the benefits will have to come from the extension of Free Trade, something which could happen without full membership. Joining the EU as full members would at the same time work against these poorer countries’ competitive advantages. European labor regulations will make many workers in these countries less competitive and stringent environmental regulations will impose a cost that countries at their level of development cannot afford. For example Croatia will require an extra 10.5 billion Euros to implement the EU’s environmental regulations.[2]

[1] Alessi, Christopher, ‘The Eurozone in Crisis’, Council on Foreign Relations, Backgrounder, 14 February 2012, http://www.cfr.org/eu/eurozone-crisis/p22055

[2] ‘EU environmental regulations will cost Croatia €10.5 Billion’, Macedonian Intl News Agency, 27 December 2011, http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/19954/46/

First of all while many members of the EU are experiencing low or even negative growth the bailouts don’t actually make Europe poorer as they have so far been loans that will have to be paid out. Even if current members are unwilling or unable to give large subsidies to any members that may join the European Union in the future there will still be large economic benefits to joining. The principles of European integration, such as free competition or free movement of goods and capital, will foster the transition from a post-socialist economy to a free market economy in  any new member states. The removal of custom barriers will enable producers to cut production costs, which will result in export increases. In addition, integration into the EU will encourage foreign investment. It will create new jobs and will bring new technologies and experience into East-central European industry and trade. New member states inevitably engage in a catch up phase where grow rapidly. The ten new members who joined the EU in 2004 grew from having an income per capita of 40% of the EU15’s average in 1999 to 52% in 2008 with most of the growth coming after membership where GDP growth was 5.5% from 2004-2008 compared to 3.5 % in 1999-2003.[1]

[1] European Commission, ‘Five Years on an enlarged EU – A win win result’ Press Conference, Europa.eu, 19 February 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/5years/documents/enlarg_5_years_almunia_speaking_point_en.pdf

As the EU expands allows poorer and poorer countries to join there are likely to be increasing problems with internal migration creating a brain drain. The EU will not in the future be able to be nearly as generous in terms of funds to develop new members’ economies. If any new members are allowed freedom of movement their will almost certainly be even greater migration flows than there were as a result of the 2004 enlargement. Poland for example despite being the only European country to avoid recession has still had a net loss of 1.4million people who have stayed abroad more than a year.[1] If the talented and skilled from a country that is experiencing rapid economic growth are staying abroad when the rest of Europe is in the middle of a downturn how many more would move from the poorer potential members such as Macedonia?

[1] Marcin Sobczyk, ‘Poland Loses 1.4 Million People to Brain Drain’, Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2010, http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2010/09/24/14-million-poles-leave-in-eu-brain-drain/

According to the principle of free movement of people, citizens of EU may work and study anywhere in the EU. This is a very important chance for every individual and should be embraced. By spending part of their education or training in another EU country, they acquire an insight into other work environments and gain skills that are invaluable in later life. Closer cooperation and sharing experience with other European countries will bring democratic traditions and modern way of living to the society of new member states. Indeed there have been suggestions that far from their being a brain drain in the long run such migration results in a brain gain. The possibility of migrating to a richer nation means that individuals are much more likely to increase their education or learn skills with the intention of migrating. This decision to increase their human capital is a decision that would not have been made if the possibility of migration was not present. Of course in the short term much of this gain will migrate abroad as intended some will not and others will return home later. The result is therefore that both the source country and the receiving country have more highly skilled workforces.[1]

[1] Stark, Oded, ‘The New Economics of the Brain Drain’, World Economics, Vol 6, No. 2, April – June 2005, pp.137-140, p.137/8, http://ostark.uni-klu.ac.at/publications/2005/THE%20NEW%20ECONOMICS%20OF%20THE%20BRAIN%20DRAIN%20World%20Economics%20Vol.%206%20No.%202%20April-June%202005_neu.pdf

As expansion moves outward to places that are further and further away from the western European countries and into countries that are culturally less ‘European’ there is bound to be less enthusiasm for allowing them to join. Turkey is the country most likely to be a victim of public opinion against membership. Polling in 2010 showed 52% against membership and only 41% backing it if voting in a referendum. The main reason for being against was Turkey being “a Muslim country… not compatible with the common Christian roots” of Europe.[1] The trend has been for a decline in support for further enlargement falling from a high of 49% in 2004 to 41% two years later in 2006.[2]

[1] EU Business, ‘Europeans split over Turkey EU membership: poll’, 24 January 2010, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/enlarge-turkey.2ed

[2] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3 http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1632.pdf

Previous enlargements were unpopular as well with support in the low 40s percentage points in 2001 however this rapidly increased to above 50% as enlargement approached before falling back, possibly as a result of media attention towards the possible negative consequences such as immigration.[1]

Therefore basing policy on public opinion years, possibly decades before a country would actually be joining the EU is not helpful as opinion is fickle and could easily change in the intervening period. Moreover public opinion is likely to be based upon prejudices, for example with Turkey opposition is based on it being a Muslim country but this ignores that Turkey is in fact secular with an Islamic culture in a similar way to France being a secular state with a Christian culture.

[1] Antonia M. Ruiz-Jiménez, José I. Torreblanca, ‘Is there a trade-off between deepening and widening? What do Europeans think?’, European Policy Institutes Network, Working Paper No.17 April 2008, p.3 http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1632.pdf