The European Commission’s Enlargement Package 2024 puts a brave face to a mixed bag of results in the enlargement effort of the European Union. In the introduction to the annual Enlargement Package the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen makes the case that “the tense geopolitical context makes it more compelling than ever that we complete the reunification of our continent, under the same values of democracy and the rule of law. We have already taken great strides over the last years towards integrating new Member States. And enlargement will remain a top priority for the new Commission.” https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-adopts-2024-enlargement-package-2024-10-30_en

This blog cautions against sweeping statements, loose wording, and wishful thinking. Russian Federation and Belarus, rest assured, reunification of our continent, including you, is not on the table. And then, when was there ever a unified European continent? Did we already take great strides over the last years towards integrating new member states? Wasn’t it more of a mixed bag, with progress in the Baltic states, but less so in other ones? Poland is emerging from a severe anti-European turn, especially regarding the rule of law, which touches upon the foundations of the EU. Hungary is veering away from European policies, especially regarding foreign policy and the rule of law, but also with regard to economic policies. Do we have a Trojan horse in our midst? Romania and Bulgaria are not fully profiting from membership of the European Union as reforms in these two countries are insufficient as yet. And Slovakia? We applaud that enlargement will remain a top priority for the Commission but let’s be clear, the European Union’s enlargement is in for the long haul, and that is fine.

The task ahead is ensuring that candidate countries not only meet all the political, economic, and technical criteria for membership but the European Union must also be convinced that they will be reliable partners within the European Union. Enlargement will only strengthen the geopolitical position of the European Union if the new member states will not act as wrecking balls by espousing policies that are at variance with those of the European Union. Enlargement will only offer the prospect of increased prosperity for all if the new member states will not backtrack from their commitments shortly after accession. Otherwise, they will become a burden, a threat to the stability of the Union, and a bottomless pit for cohesion policies and funds.

This blog sets a high bar for enlargement but a necessary one. If the democratically elected government of a candidate country is itself reluctant to support EU-accession without reserve, if it is doubtful regarding the benefits of membership or faces seizable opposition to membership, then that country must be considered not yet ready to assume its responsibilities in the EU. A narrow vote in favour of accession is not sufficient, as some backsliding after accession is to be expected. Some benefits will not immediately be forthcoming, there will inevitably be losers when a new member state is confronted with the full effect of reforms and market forces. History has shown that a government which led a candidate country may lose power as a measure of disillusion sets in when the EU doesn’t prove to be El Dorado. A successor government often wishes to pursue policies less in tune with the European Union’s. Therefore, only if support for membership is broad, the fulfillment of commitments and the reforms undertaken during the accession negotiations can be taken for granted. Misrepresentation of the character of the EU by governments eager to persuade the people to vote in favour of accession or overestimating the possibility of the single country to change the course of the EU is another threat to succesful integration. 

We can trust the facts that the European Commission’s Enlargement Package puts forward. The work of the services of the European Commission is first-class. In compiling its reports, it works close in hand with its own well-staffed embassies in the candidate countries, experts from member states, embassies of member states, external experts like the Venice Commission, international organisations, and, last but not least, in close collaboration with the candidate countries. It’s the political interpretation of the facts that merits close attention. The EU itself, neighbouring countries may have its own reasons for pushing membership of a candidate country, even if that country is manifestly not yet ready to assume its obligations in the EU. They may take a continent-wide (the EU itself) or a regional view of the balance of power, have traditional links to a specific candidate country, or simply see trade advantages, no matter what. They may hope that accession will solve difficult bilateral questions and will argue that you cannot reasonably ask that the necessary transformation will be achieved fully before accession and that inadequacies can be addressed later. We have seen how this works in the case of Romania and Bulgaria. 

The following blogs will concentrate on those difficult questions that a technical approach of the accession process cannot solve. There are many such questions in the Western Balkans, Ukraine, and Moldova, and, most important of all, Türkiye. 

lls/24 november 2024