To enlarge the EU or to concentrate on integration has been a dilemma at the heart of the organization since Belgium, Holland, France, Italy, Luxembourg and West Germany came together to form the then European Economic Community in 1957.
Since then the bloc has seen successive waves of enlargement, most notably in 1973, when Ireland, Demark and the UK joined, and 2004 when 10 new members, most of them ex-communist states, piled into the EU.
Expansion has brought new markets, helped lift countries out of poverty, turned the EU into an economic powerhouse and, at times, revitalized and added new purpose to the organization.
But at the same time, it has brought problems that have increased in size with each wave of enlargement.
More members heighten the chance of disagreement, which can in turn lead to institutional paralysis. Attempts to bypass any paralysis by reducing the power of member states, such as the introduction of majority voting and scrapping national vetoes, can add bite to claims that the EU is stifling democracy, and fuel anti-EU sentiment.
So rather than aiming for enlargement, some argue, the EU should work on ways to increase integration while at the same time finding solutions to the myriad of problems that are now being gleefully exploited by Eurosceptics.
At the moment there are 10 countries aspiring to become EU members: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Turkey.
The EU, perhaps suffering from a mix of enlargement fatigue and a certain reluctance to embrace a region still riven by intense and sometimes volatile divisions, has been hesitant when it comes to pushing the membership of some of the western Balkans countries.
This has created a power void in the Balkans which has, according to the EU’s critics, been eagerly filled by Russia and China.
The arrival of the two powers in the Balkans, the detractors of the EU claim, exemplifies what happens when the bloc fails to offer a clear and unfettered road to membership.
Without the bright dangly carrot of membership, countries stray into the orbit of unwholesome states; they don’t realize they have an alternative. This, the detractors add, is why enlargement is so crucial to the EU because the prospect of membership is one of the most diplomatic tools it can wield to keep countries in its orbit.
It keeps unwanted powers at bay while pushing countries to improve governance, democratic standards and crack down on corruption; steps that can help ward off the advances of autocratic powers.
Perhaps to rectify past mistakes in the western Balkans, in November the European Commission published its Growth Plan for the Western Balkans. Speaking about this in March, Ursula von der Leyen, the commission’s president, said that the EU “had to take responsibility” for the accession of the Balkans’ countries.
Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine have huge obstacles in the form of Russian troops blocking their path to membership.
With war raging in eastern Ukraine and large parts of the country either occupied or illegally annexed by Russia, critics of enlargement say it would be dangerous for the EU to even countenance bringing Kyiv into the fold. Although it could be argued that a clear path to membership, and all the diplomatic backing that comes with it, could help stiffen Ukrainian resolve and make clear to Moscow that Ukraine is, once and for all, out of its sphere of influence.
Moldova and Georgia, both have Russian troops on their soil. This could stymy their roads to membership, although in the past the EU accepted Cyprus, despite a large part of the island consisting of the Turkish Republic of Nothern Cyprus, a de facto state recognized by nobody but Turkey.
There is still little or no enthusiasm for Turkey, despite it being engaged with the EU for ages in membership talks.
So out of the 10, Albania, Montenegro and North Macedonia are in the best position to achieve membership, but just when this will happen remains unclear.
But what is clear is that the EU, wary of the growing power of Eurosceptic parties across the continent, will prefer not to pursue a “big bang” enlargement program, preferring a more pragmatic approach setting the appropriate pace for each prospective member.
Expansion has brought new markets, helped lift countries out of poverty, turned the EU into an economic powerhouse and, at times, revitalized and added new purpose to the organization.
But at the same time, it has brought problems that have increased in size with each wave of enlargement.
More members heighten the chance of disagreement, which can in turn lead to institutional paralysis. Attempts to bypass any paralysis by reducing the power of member states, such as the introduction of majority voting and scrapping national vetoes, can add bite to claims that the EU is stifling democracy, and fuel anti-EU sentiment.
So rather than aiming for enlargement, some argue, the EU should work on ways to increase integration while at the same time finding solutions to the myriad of problems that are now being gleefully exploited by Eurosceptics.
At the moment there are 10 countries aspiring to become EU members: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Turkey.
The EU, perhaps suffering from a mix of enlargement fatigue and a certain reluctance to embrace a region still riven by intense and sometimes volatile divisions, has been hesitant when it comes to pushing the membership of some of the western Balkans countries.
This has created a power void in the Balkans which has, according to the EU’s critics, been eagerly filled by Russia and China.
The arrival of the two powers in the Balkans, the detractors of the EU claim, exemplifies what happens when the bloc fails to offer a clear and unfettered road to membership.
Without the bright dangly carrot of membership, countries stray into the orbit of unwholesome states; they don’t realize they have an alternative. This, the detractors add, is why enlargement is so crucial to the EU because the prospect of membership is one of the most diplomatic tools it can wield to keep countries in its orbit.
It keeps unwanted powers at bay while pushing countries to improve governance, democratic standards and crack down on corruption; steps that can help ward off the advances of autocratic powers.
Perhaps to rectify past mistakes in the western Balkans, in November the European Commission published its Growth Plan for the Western Balkans. Speaking about this in March, Ursula von der Leyen, the commission’s president, said that the EU “had to take responsibility” for the accession of the Balkans’ countries.
Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine have huge obstacles in the form of Russian troops blocking their path to membership.
With war raging in eastern Ukraine and large parts of the country either occupied or illegally annexed by Russia, critics of enlargement say it would be dangerous for the EU to even countenance bringing Kyiv into the fold. Although it could be argued that a clear path to membership, and all the diplomatic backing that comes with it, could help stiffen Ukrainian resolve and make clear to Moscow that Ukraine is, once and for all, out of its sphere of influence.
Moldova and Georgia, both have Russian troops on their soil. This could stymy their roads to membership, although in the past the EU accepted Cyprus, despite a large part of the island consisting of the Turkish Republic of Nothern Cyprus, a de facto state recognized by nobody but Turkey.
There is still little or no enthusiasm for Turkey, despite it being engaged with the EU for ages in membership talks.
So out of the 10, Albania, Montenegro and North Macedonia are in the best position to achieve membership, but just when this will happen remains unclear.
But what is clear is that the EU, wary of the growing power of Eurosceptic parties across the continent, will prefer not to pursue a “big bang” enlargement program, preferring a more pragmatic approach setting the appropriate pace for each prospective member.
Source: TVP World
More In Politics MORE...
