AFCO

Let me in, let me iiiin: The long dragging accession process of the EU candidate countries, together with the three new applications stemming from the war in Ukraine, led to discussion highlighting the criticism of the current procedure. How can the EU institutions reform the accession system in order to resolve the current issues?

Committee on Constitutional Affairs

By Teni Shittu (IE)

Case study & introduction

In June 2022, in a decision that highlighted the EU’s solidarity with the State, Ukraine was granted EU Candidate status amidst the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Several other Eastern European countries suffered from the ripple effects of the war and began to seek shelter in European Union Membership. Countries such as Moldova and Georgia  have consequently applied for the membership status. However, these economically developing countries will suffer from the especially lengthy accession process. 

The EU  accession policy consists of 5 key steps. A country seeking EU membership must submit an application to the European Council who then refers it to the European Commission. This is where the Copenhagen Criteria come into play. All EU countries must then unanimously decide whether an applicant country can be awarded candidate status. Furthermore, once granted candidate status, a series of discussions must take place between the potential candidate country and the Commission and it is only once these have been completed that  a country becomes an EU Member State.  The process in its entirety may take years, such as in the  case of North Macedonia, Albania and many other Balkan countries. Where our point of discussion arises is the contrast in a 17 year gap between candidate status and accession negotiations compared to that of Ukraine which took mere weeks. Where are the discrepancies? What are the driving factors behind this? Is this the EU Institutions acting in a preferential manner?

Key problems

There are two main issues regarding the EU accession policy; the Copenhagen criteria and the inconsistent time frame for different countries becoming candidates.

1. The Copenhagen Criteria

The Copenhagen Criteria, as aforementioned,  are the key criteria for accession, as decided upon in the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993. he basic requirements a country has to satisfy are:

  • stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, Human Rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
  • a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
    the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

Though this criteria play an integral role in deciding a country’s eligibility to join the EU, the wording itself is quite vague. This is one of the key criticisms on the criteria, coupled with the EU’s lack of vigor in ensuring that all the criteria are met before a country attains candidate status.  

2. The Arbitrary Time Frame between Application and Candidate Status 

As discussed, there are criticisms over the length of the process of accession within the EU. Different countries of a similar status have taken drastically different time-periods to become candidate countries. The most notable example is the difference in timing between Western Balkan countries and Ukraine’s applications. While it took the Western Balkan countries up to 17 years to attain candidate status , yet due to the unprovoked war in Ukraine, they were able to avail of candidate status after mere weeks, yet both countries were suffering from similar economic and social crises.  Is it  essential that the EU is not seen to be giving preferential status to certain Member States or should certain applications be given a fast-track due to current circumstances?

Key stakeholders and and measures in place

In order to come up with solutions, it is essential to look at the relevant stakeholders in the issue on both a larger and smaller scale. 

EUROPEAN LEVEL 

The General Affairs Council, created by the Council of the European Union, establishes and supervises the EU enlargement/accession policies. The Council itself is the main decision making body in deciding whether a country may achieve candidate status and achieve this goal through the General Affairs Council. It has stressed the need for a review of the Copenhagen Criteria.
They wish  to  reform the accession process making it more predictable, more credible, more dynamic, and subject to stronger political steering. They recognise the fact that candidate status must be awarded on objective criteria and that having an arbitrary selection process is completely unacceptable. This stance of the Council is correct as at December 2021. Evidently, the Council will play a huge role in whatever changes are proposed to improve the accession process and thus they are one of the biggest stakeholders in the matter. 

The European Commission drafts and proposes new laws. Specifically in this context, the European Commission is the institution that assesses if the country has met the Copenhagen Criteria. Based on their stance, the Member States must then agree whether the candidate status can be awarded or not. They also approve of the ascension treaty. They are a key actor in reviewing how the Copenhagen Criteria is applied and how long it takes before the candidate status is rewarded. 

The EU Council is the body taking the unanimous decision as to whether or not a country becomes a candidate country for EU membership. Composed of heads of state or government from EU member states,  they represent the views of all European citizens. Notably, unlike in some other decision making process of the council, matters regarding members olf the EU must be decided upon unanimously. Being a main political diretor of the EU, in the context of Eu enlarfgemet, the council are responsible for  In the context of EU enlargement, acting as a bridge between the Commission and the citizens is essential that a candidate country in their application put forth an argument that can be relayed to eu citizens, convincing them of their potential for candidacy. 

NATIONAL LEVEL 

Member States are significant stakeholders in the EU enlargement process for two main reasons. Firstly, any application to join the EU must be agreed upon unanimously by all Member States according to their own national procedures. Therefore the Member States have a say in who is eligible to be a part of the EU. Secondly, there are several contributing factors that may affect a Member State’s vote: whether or not the moral or cultural values of the Member State and the potential candidate country align, or the economic prospects of an enlargement, as well as the implications on the Member State due to having more members in the Union. Therefore any enlargement decision should be seen in the sense of adding value to the common market, rather than unnecessary or unfair competition within it.


Enterprises in the EU Countries:The enlargement of the European Union creates a bigger trade market. This will have a direct effect on Small and Medium Enterprises across EU member states. An example of this is the impact on the labour market. With an enlarged European market, businesses are faced with an increase in new technologies which oftentimes cannot be matched with unskilled labour causing the businesses to struggle with workers. As well as new technology , the free movement of labour in a now expanded EU may lead to an increase in brain drain and migration. This leads to people leaving countries with low employment opportunities which may be best for the individual but a strain on the countries’ economy.

Task

In order to ensure you have a grasp on the topic and are prepared for the session, listen to the Liberal European Forum podcast (available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and SoundCloud)   on EU enlargement in which the host welcomes Stefan Lehne, a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe whose work focuses on post Lisbon Treaty development of the EU’s foreign policy. In listening, pick out 3 key points that you find most interesting about EU foreign policy and enlargement as well as one argument in favour of the current accession system and one against it.