Enlargement and the European Union’s Absorption Capacity: ‘oft-forgotten’ condition or additional obstacle to membership?

The Austrian government may have failed in its efforts in 2005 to have ‘privileged partnership' inserted into the European Union's framework for accession negotiations with Turkey, but this did not prevent the country's Chancellor, Wolfgang Schussel, from claiming that ‘for the first time ever, we have set an extra condition which will yet be very important in the future for Europe, namely the ability of the Union to take in new members'. Indeed, since its inclusion in the framework for negotiations, the EU's ‘capacity to absorb' new members is referred to as a new criterion for further enlargement of the European Union (EU). When opponents of Turkey 's membership, like Schussel, celebrate the emphasis on the EU's ‘absorption capacity', Turks generally regard it as specially-designed extra obstacle to their membership aspirations even if the EU's ‘absorption capacity' is a permanent agenda item whenever the EU discusses enlargement. This article explores the origins of this – supposedly new – condition and argues that the increased emphasis on the EU's ‘absorption capacity' can be explained by the shifts in the dynamics of EU enlargement.

Do hens have friends?

Recent interest in positive welfare has encouraged consideration of the formation of socio-positive relationships in farmed species which may provide a means by which to manage positive states. We investigated in detail the existence of dyadic preferential associations in small groups of domestic laying hens. Spatial and temporal associations were examined in two contexts (day activity and evening roosting), within 8 identical pens of 15 laying hens over 8 weeks. Little aggression was observed. Social network analysis was performed to investigate correlations in who associated with whom using weighted degree (number) and binary (presence or absence) data for shared resource areas and proximity to other individuals. No consistent evidence was found for hens actively preferring others in their choice of resource area, or in companion proximity. Perch-roosting positions chosen by the hens were compared with data generated from a random-choice model. Hens showed no position preferences. Most dyads were never observed roosting together and, although some apparently perched together frequently, the low number of nights perching and proportion of nights spent together indicates these findings should be interpreted with caution. Overall, we found no convincing evidence of dyadic preferential relationships expressed by close active and resting proximities. Further work is required to confirm whether these findings hold true in other experimental contexts, are affected by social experience and if they hold in common with the progenitor sub-species. © 2012 Elsevier B.V.