Barbarians ante portas or the post-communist rule of law in post-democratic European Union

Abstract

It is quite difficult to write about my topic due to the extensive debate on the Constitutional Treaty, prepared by the European Convention. The work of the European Convention has been closely connected with the first wave of eastern enlargements. This connection was confirmed by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder who, in the Palazzo dei Congressi in Rome on October 4, 2003, the first day of the inter-governmental conference, said that "enlargement and the constitution are two sides of the same coin." The complexity in writing about the enlargement process is that it is difficult to decide which perspective to adopt-that of the Eastern European, which I am, or that of theWestern European. It is also possible to adopt a third perspective, that of a sympathetic external observer. In this chapter I have opted for a different approach: not the position of an impartial judge nor a prosecutor or defence lawyer but that of a sceptical lawyer, similar to what is known in legal procedure as an expert witness. The arguments for such an approach are partly obvious. I am an academic lawyer with interest in the constitutional structure of the European Union. I am also an Eastern European with some insight into the problems faced by the citizens of the new Member States. The structure of this chapter is simple. I argue that Eastern Europeans wanted, and still want to, join the European Union but a Europe from the past rather than the present. I go on to look at the issues connected with the relationship between enlargement and constitutionalization in the European Union. I finish with some sceptical remarks relating to the prospects for a European rule of law. © 2006 Springer.