The current European strategy could be seen as an innovative one favoring change more than improvements. Change in the sense of the admission of new member states. Recently the European Union has been extended with 10 new member states and two more will probably follow in 2007 (Bulgaria and Rumania). The admission of Turkey or Croatia is not clear yet. The question is how much innovation will be acceptable? The style of any organization deals with innovation and conservation. No organization can do without innovation, but too much innovation without having fully exploited the current possibilities will not benefit the organization. Conservation is needed to stabilize the organization and to improve inconsistencies. Recently (2005) France and the Netherlands turned down the (new) European Constitution. Even if you may argue that this NO was filled with emotion, the message was very clear; wait a moment you European Union, you are going too fast! If an organization innovates too fast it will loose its (current) supporters. Rather than focusing on extending the union with again new member states, the EU should focus on those countries that are the current exceptions; - The UK, a EU member, but not accepting the Euro nor the contribution rules for which it has negotiated a discount
- Norway, not a member
- Sweden, a member but with exception for the Euro
And maybe also Switzerland, but that will probably remain the last exception to the rule.Credibility is at stake. And a stronger Europe will be more credible. It is quite human to procrastinate problems. It is not the best tactic to start with the easy part, but it is often a practice. Risks and problem are common enemies for many of us. Yet for Europe, a larger union is only possible if the foundation is strong. The focus on innovation and new members has been on the agenda for long. Maybe it is time to look at the other end of the balance and to focus on a stronger core group. Less innovation, and conservation. Less changes and more improvements. 2006 Hans Bool |
