One can ask how a country as small as Estonia relates to the debate on the future of Europe? What kind of role can Estonia play in finding solutions for European cooperation? I want to explain to you that Estonia’s role might be very important for finding solutions for Europe. The accession to the EU is the top priority of the current foreign policy of Estonia.

In the case of Estonia, it has been interesting to observe the negotiations with Brussels regarding a future membership in the European Union. The initiative for these negotiations dates back to November 1995 with the Prime Minister’s 3-line letter to the President of the Council of the European Union, notifying him of Estonia’s interest in membership.

However, this objective, regarded as the top priority of the foreign policy of the Estonian President, the Government and the Parliament lacks legal instruments to back it. Furthermore, it is, as foreign juridical experts have indicated, in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia.

The negotiations are unconstitutional

The basic Article 1 of the Constitution states that “Estonia is an independent and sovereign democratic republic wherein the supreme power of state is vested in the people. The independence and sovereignty of Estonia are timeless and inalienable”. Article 54 further states that Estonian citizens have “a duty to be loyal to the constitutional order and to defend the independence on Estonia”. Consequently, even the negotiations on giving away Estonian sovereignty - fully or in part - are unconstitutional.

The European Union, which Estonia started negotiations with when becoming an official candidate for membership in 1998, is obviously not the same as the EU of today. In the course of this process, Estonian Euro-politicians initially tried to convince the people that the European Union is just an international organization, nothing more.

Today’s leaders of European States are debating about the future of the European Union. German foreign minister Joschka Fischer proposed for us a Europe as a centralized Federal State, United States of Europe, led by a strong Brussels-based government. An idea which has been proposed already by Saint Simon, Karl Marx and Lenin. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder argued in favor of a German-type Federal State with a bi-cameral parliament and relatively independent regions. French leaders Lionel Jospin and Jaques Chirac have proposed a Federation of Nation States. Tony Blair sees the future of Europe as Superpower but not as a Super State.

Realistic Intergovernmental Model

On the other hand, it is difficult at this stage to pronounce the name of today’s prominent European politician or scientist who can propose and successfully argue in favor of realistic intergovernmental model for a more democratic and credible cooperation in Europe, which will also guarantee solutions to todays problems in Europe.

Anyway, as the background to the EU enlargement eastwards, Estonia has its own experience from the Euro-debate, which could be useful to share with other candidate states as well as with present member states. Perhaps many a thing sounds familiar.

Further more, we can conclude that Estonia’s accession negotiations with the EU, before and after the Treaty of Nice, is still unconstitutional and that the one-sided Euro-propaganda is continuing. Bu the three basic Euro-myths for the motivation of joining the EU; (1) the continuation of the independent and sovereign Estonian state also in the lap of the EU, (2) economic gains deriving from joining and (3) increasing security, have to date fallen apart.

Not part of another state

The first Euro-myth (the continuation of the independent and sovereign Estonian state also in the lap of the EU) of the Euro supporters in Estonia has totally fallen apart. Why? Because deriving from Estonia’s constitution (Article 1) the independence of the state lies in the fact that Estonia is not part of another state or union of states, today or in the future. What is the difference between the former Soviet Union and today´s European Union?

The second myth of the Euro-supporters is that EU will bring economic prosperity to Estonia (promising the moon and the stars). Economic profit or loss of the accession? In addition to the loss of independence and agriculture dying out, the accession to the European Union brings Estonia direct economic loss.

Even the gains from the EU for a hypothetical year would make up 1,5-4 percent of the GDP, but the costs per year would make up about 16-19 percent of the GDP. Thus the economic loss per year would be 6-7 times bigger than the profit hoped for. Out of this the justified expenses would constitute only 10-15 percent and this without any accession to the EU.

The EU does not give any guarantees

The third myth of the Euro-supporters is that joining the EU is inevitable and will bring Estonia increasing security. Estonia is said to have two choices, either joining Russia or the European Union. Other alternatives are not sought for, as Estonia as an independent country is so tiny and would not manage as a state. Unfortunately it is so that the EU does not guarantee us military or economic security, not to speak of political security.

Therefore, let’s analyze the one-sided power tactics used for the EU enlargement in Estonia to date. There is a great lack of analyses of the economic, social and cultural changes deriving from joining. With an approach of “pseudo-neutrality” in the media´s coverage of the EU-debate, the critical arguments are left out. The information dealing with the consequences of joining the EU is mostly vague, difficult to follow and totally mute about the negative aspects.

The Euro-debate already under way, is very unequal, as the financing of a balanced Euro-debate is lacking. For example, for six years the Euro-supporters have used more than several billions euros for wall-to-wall propaganda, while the Euro-adversaries received zero euros during the seven years. The Euro-supporters have better access to the media.

A sell-out of the Estonian State

Consequently, under the label of co-operation a sell-out of the media is taking place. The Euro-supporters have the taxpayers’ money and the higher authorities at their disposal, backed up by a sufficient foreign aid, striving for the sell-out of the Estonian State.

To sum it up, the three basic Euro-myths for the motivation of joining the EU - the continuation of the independent and sovereign Estonian state also in the lap of the EU, economic gains deriving from joining and increasing security, have to date fallen apart. The government and other Euro-enthusiasts now have to start looking for new myths. The new myths should, however, be more waterproof. The reason is that the myhts are weak, both juridically and economically.

Negotiations between Estonia and the European Union have developed into a unilateral demonstration of power where the weaker side is the Republic of Estonia.

Dr. Uno Silberg Chairman of the Movement No to EU, Estonia Observer of the TEAM Board

This article is an extract of Silberg´s speech given at TEAM´s Annual General Meeting in Prague, March 9, 2002.