|
Your EEA idea is interesting, but I can see a number of problems. First, Turkey has been an associate member since 1963, so it's not just about trade. There are other reasons for being in the EU rather than having an associate status, a point which I'll return to later.
Second, being in the EEA now brings with it the right to free movement. Since one of the major obstacles to Turkey's EU membership with the French and German publics is the prospect of Turks getting free movement, that would be a political difficulty.
Third, another reason why Turkey would want to join, just like Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia wanted to join, rather than be in EFTA is because of EU regional aid. Being so poor, Turkey would be entitled to a lot of regional aid.
Fourth, EFTA isn't exactly a thriving organisation. Norway and Iceland are considering joining the EU. Without them, the only other EFTA members would be Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and only Liechtenstein is in the EEA.
Fifth, would Switzerland let Turkey into EFTA? I can imagine the Swiss reacting with even more disfavour to the idea of letting Turkey in and so granting Turks free movement to Switzerland (Switzerland has a free movement agreement with the EEA) than the French and German publics. I mean, these are people who won't even let people of non-Swiss ancestry born in Switzerland become citizens!
Why did Britain join if we don't believe in federalism? We joined because EFTA was free trade with a few small countries. The EEC was free trade with the other big countries in western Europe. At the time, there was no free trade between the two, because the EEC wanted to break EFTA. It only became more friendly to EFTA after Britain left.
At the time, the EEC itself was little more than a free trade area and a huge subsidy scheme for farmers, particularly French and Italian ones. The British didn't much like the idea of subsidising the French, but felt the other economic benefits were worth it. The British also joined to counter the French. If Britain hadn't wanted to do that originally, that was certainly the intention after General de Gaulle said 'non' to the British application in 1963.
Countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU in recent years because if you aren't in the EU you have to comply by many EU standards if you want free trade. So you have to follow the rules without having a say in them. It's better to be, as President Johnson once said, inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.
Regarding Britain having to leave if it rejects the EU constitution, we aren't the only ones who are likely to vote no in a referendum. Denmark and Poland are both likely to vote no too. Polls suggest that the Dutch and even the French might vote no. If the French people say 'non' to the constitution, do you think France should have to leave the EU? Or are some EU members more equal than others, haku?
The problem for European federalism is that the people of Europe don't want it. European integration has been a project of the political elites. The British and the Danes have been the awkward squad for many years, but nearly all the new members are anti-federalist too. That's why the constitution turned out to be such a small step towards federalism. The populations of these countries don't want to hand any more power to the European institutions. Some of that is because of a suspicion of centralisation (which I share) and some of that is because of nationalism (which I don't share), but it's a fact that Eurofederalists are going to have to face up to.
|