By Jorge Liboreiro
So many (bad) things have happened in the last few years that it is difficult to remember how the European Union used to be. But for the sake of this reflection, let’s give it a try.
Long ago, the bloc was eager to expand. The fall of the Soviet Union, the creation of the single currency and a sustained economic bonanza provided fertile ground for the idea of enlargement. The enthusiasm was so febrile that in 2004, the EU welcomed no more and no less than 10 new member states, including seven former Communist countries and one island, Cyprus, whose territory was split into two halves as a result of a decades-long unresolved dispute.
It seemed then that nothing and nobody could stop the EU from becoming whole.
That was, of course, until a devastating financial meltdown and a polarising migration crisis abruptly pulled the brakes on the project. When Jean-Claude Juncker was named president of the European Commission in 2014, he was quick to impose a five-year moratorium on enlargement, effectively relegating the portfolio to near-absolute irrelevance.
His successor, Ursula von der Leyen, saw it differently and framed enlargement as a strategic opportunity to strengthen the bloc’s geopolitical character. Her pitch was celebrated but was soon overshadowed by the ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was Vladimir Putin, and his personal decision to launch a brutal war against Ukraine, who brought enlargement to the forefront and forced EU leaders, even the most sceptical ones, to give it a second thought.
Fast foward to October 2023 and everybody is talking about expanding the bloc.
Some, like Germany and France, are calling for a significant reform of the EU’s decision-making before admitting new members, saying a bigger club could become paralysed by individual vetoes. Others, like the Baltics, are more bullish and want to admit candidates, especially Ukraine and Moldova, as soon as it’s materially possible.
Meanwhile, a growing chorus of voices are urging caution and argue the entry of eight new states might simply overwhelm the EU’s coffers. The worry centres on Ukraine, whose mighty agricultural sector and post-war reconstruction could easily take up an enormous chunk of the common budget.
Charles Michel, the president of the European Council, seems undeterred by the ominous warnings and has even put a date on the possible next wave: 2030.
“The Union is not yet ready, which is why we have to prepare. And I wanted to set a date because I think that not only must the European Union prepare itself, but the states that want to join us must also speed up the efforts that are necessary in terms of reforms to be able to join us,” Michel told Euronews in an interview recorded ahead of a summit in Granada, Spain.
“The purpose of setting a date is to open everyone’s eyes and to say we can’t procrastinate any longer. We can’t put it off any longer. It’s clear what kind of world we’re in.”
While candidates who have been waiting on the EU’s doorstep for more than a decade, like North Macedonia and Montenegro, are likely to embrace a fixed date that makes the final destination appear within tangible reach, Michel’s ambitious pitch has so far drawn a mixed reception.
Some diplomats in Brussels fear that by setting a clear-cut date, the EU is turning the enlargement process upside down and putting the prime focus on the end rather thanon the start. “I have no idea whether 2030 is feasible or not feasible,” said a senior diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The European Commission, which is tasked with examining the progress made by each candidate country, is even more reluctant and resents the initiative taken by Michel, who is known for having a difficult working relation with Ursula von der Leyen. In the executive’s view, the 2030 deadline presumes that all candidates, from Albania to Serbia, are at the same stage and will therefore reach the finish line at the same time. Reality clearly says otherwise.
"We don't understand the need for this date,” a Commission spokesperson said this week when asked about Michel's proposal. “This risks undermining the confidence of many stakeholders in a fair, transparent and merit-based accession process.”
GO DEEPER Our reporters Alice Tidey and Aïda Sánchez are in Granada following back-to-back European summits and bring us the latest on the growing debate about enlargement. |
|
| |
|
portal
Φόρουμ
Γεγονότα
Εικονοθήκη
Latest images
Αναζήτηση
Εγγραφή
Σύνδεση
ΔιαχειριστήςAdmin
Ν' απλωθείς ή να μην απλωθείς;
