Since its inception in the 1950s the EU has become the lifeboat of international relations, successfully saving its members from squabbles and blatant aggression. But how many countries can the boat take in before it sinks under weight and jostling?

Potential upheaval
The May 2004 EU enlargement may cause commotion that will reverberate throughout the continent. And not only in the political sense. According to calculations of the French National Institute of Geography, the geographic center of the EU will now move east, from the Belgian town of Viroinval to the Germany’s Kleinmaischeid, near Koblenz. (tellingly, the geographic center of the eurozone is even further to the west, near France’s Montreuillon) But will the geographic center of political Europe ever become the Lithuanian Capital of Vilnius, which is the geographic center land-wise taking into account all of Europe, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals?

Definitely not in the next 20-to-30 years, considering the current state of the union. The opinion that even the 10-member-state enlargement will place the current framework of cooperation under severe strain is becoming more prevalent in Brussels and the populace of the EU-15.

Fraser Cameron of the European Policy Center in Brussels argues that EU enlargement is too vast – the product of mistakes and a political power play between member states, each propagating the accession of different states.

Bulgaria looking at fast-track to EU accession, and is even pushing Romania

" Cyprus should never have been given the green light before the resolution of the conflict between the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots," he says, a fact all the more acute following last month’s "No" vote for unification of the island. "Now the EU has no leverage to get Cyprus to agree on the UN peace plan, and is bringing its discord within the EU borders."

Yet, the logic of enlargement is like a bulldozer, rolling over more and more problematic (and poorer) areas, making the "peripheries" a heavier and heavier burden on the "core." This is sure to happen as the target date set for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania is 2007. Analysts have only recently come to admit that Romania might miss that deadline because Bucharest continues to make little progress in delivering on previous promises to Brussels. Bulgaria, meanwhile, is already protesting against being an EU country surrounded by non-EU members. (Romania, of course, agrees with its neighbor.)

Ever expanding club
If Romania joins, it would be hard to deny diligent Croatia’s request, and if Croatia becomes a member, how can the rest of the Balkans be left out? Macedonia has already applied. And on top of that, the new government of Georgia has said that in the long-term, it wishes to "join Europe."

Fraser Cameron of the European Policy Center

And while it can convincingly be argued that these countries are like flies on an EU-elephant considering their size and economic significance, sooner or later Turkey, the Ukraine and Russia, all giants, come into play. Even the membership of Turkey, which first applied in 1963, would turn the EU on its collective ears. Not only is it exceedingly poor compared to current members, it is also Muslim, and expected to grow in population so fast it could become the largest member in a couple of decades, giving it potentially the biggest share of votes in EU affairs.

Yet, if the increasingly impatient Turkey is turned away after so many decades of discussions, it will widen the rift between the so-called Christian and Muslim states, and alienate a large neighboring country with significant military might.

Russia cool to expansion
Further enlargements will undoubtedly also have impact on EU-Russian relations, which are already at a post-Soviet low after last year’s optimistic EU policy papers on "a ring of friends" in "wider Europe." Russia vetoed a UN resolution aimed at encouraging Greek Cypriots to vote ‘‘Yes’’ to the UN plan to reunite Cyprus. It also stated it does not consider its treaties with the EU automatically extended to new member states, and a visit by European Commission President Romano Prodi to Moscow at the end of April proved insufficient to deliver modification of the EU-Russia accord.

Lukewarm relations will at least keep the question of Russia’s EU-membership locked away for the far future.

Welcoming ten new countries into the EU is one thing, but does the buck stop here?

" The realities of the situation point to the fact that neither partner will suggest that Russia join the EU, but economic and political ties will continue becoming closer," says Zsuzsa Ludvig of the Hungarian Academy of Science’s World Economy Institute.

Enlargement will undoubtedly have the most significant impact on where it is orchestrated, in Brussels. So far, all countries fulfilling Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union were accepted after sufficient analysis of how enlargement would effect new members. But from now on, the question of how new members will effect the EU will steal some of the limelight.

A question of money
The first question is money. Even the current, fifth enlargement of the EU brings in countries that will likely take more money out of the "bank" than what they put in, all further enlargements will only make the number of claimants for funds grow.

Politicians of richer member states are even now clearly having second thoughts about financing the development of the poorer countries, especially as these countries are attracting jobs (and tax revenue) from richer states with their relatively low cost of labor. Germany’s Gerhardt Schröder has even said that the 10 can only afford to have low-tax policies (averaging about half of the 15’s) because EU development money finances their loss of revenue.

Economists have also been attacking the EU policy of redistributing funds to regions on the basis of gross national income per capita, saying this does not sufficiently improve the competitiveness of European companies. Brussels’ regional policy officials are clearly puzzled.

" But this is the only policy that we definitely know to improve competitiveness, all other theories are unproven," an official from the regional directorate says.

Immigration as political danger?
Member states also see immigration as a source of political danger. Even though Europe’s workforce is getting older, and problems of the pension system will become exacerbated in only a few years, anti-immigration parties are gaining popularity across Western Europe.

Brussels "Eurocrats" and Council members also worry that the growing number of countries taking part in discussions will eventually make the EU’s policy of consensual votes difficult to attain.

" The tables would have to be huge, and each speech very short," one Brussels official commented, while another complained that "soon it will be just like the UN".

Still, some feel that these would not cause serious difficulties in coming to an agreement.

The pressure of an increasing number of members could in the long term, effect the EU’s framework. It might enhance the differentiation of "multi-speed Europe," where treaties within the EU, such as Schengen or Maastricht, define concentric rings of members surrounding the "core." István Csillag, Hungary’s minister of economy and transport, sees this as inevitable. "We can only hope that we will be able to stay near the fastest-moving group of countries," he says.

The many different interests which a larger EU will have to bring together might also move the center of power further away from the Council of the European Union (comprised of the nation states’ representatives) toward the European Parliament and the Commission – if it does not simply immobilize talks.

Also, it might pressure member countries into reforming the union as Willem Buiter, leading economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development suggests. He feels that the EU might actually benefit more from new members than what new members gain from accession.

" Poland will need 40 years to catch up to the EU average while other countries will be able to do so in 15-30 years," he says, pointing out that ‘unfairly’ low-tax new members are forcing reform on the older members of the EU, "who should be happy about that."

The new members’ presence might actually achieve some of the things Buiter feels it will. Many officials cite the fact that discussions on the new EU Constitution were rekindled after seeming to reach an impasse over the weight of country votes.

Previous enlargements
The first wave (1961-1973) Negotiations for the accession of the UK, Denmark, Ireland and Norway to the European Economic Community (comprised of Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Germany and Italy) proved a bumpy ride from the start. The UK originally wanted to establish its influence on European affairs in a free-trade zone, but upon giving up that idea in 1961 found its entry to the community obstructed by France. Only when Charles de Gaulle stepped down in 1969 did it open the road to its membership. In 1972, the four northern states signed the accession treaty, but the referendum in Norway vetoed the country’s membership, so only the other three actually joined.

The second wave (1975-1981) Greece was eager to join at all costs, so negotiations were considered easy.

The third wave (1977-1986) Portugal and Spain were not welcomed as eagerly because they proved much tougher negotiators and because France, Italy and Greece were worried about competition from cheaper Spanish farmers.

The fourth wave (1993-1995) The smoothest enlargement ever, Austria, Finland and Sweden concluded negotiations for membership in one year. These European Free Trade Association countries were persuaded to apply for membership by how fast the common market was being established. Norway’s second referendum also brought an emphatic "No," so they stayed outside the EU, but joined the European Economic Area along with Switzerland.