EU Enlargement - The Road Ahead

On Friday October 6^th, EU leaders declared their support for a new engagement towards an enlargement of the Union. In total, nine potential candidates are waiting for their accession procedure to start or completion. This constitutes a severe predicament for the EU and, more importantly, for its locus of power – writes Leander Papagianneas, MSc in Conflict and Development & MA in Southeast Europe Studies

It seems that Europe faces a similar conundrum as in 1989. Russian aggression and the rise of the extreme right have instigated crucial responses from both the EU and NATO. The resemblance with the end of the Cold War is two-folded.

In the first place, Brussels has to face a situation of expansion. Countries in the East face serious existential threat from Russia. Both the EU and NATO are enlarging. More countries want to join these organizations, mainly for external security reasons. The juxtaposition of East and West has become unsurmountable.

Furthermore, enlargement shifts the geopolitical power balance from Western Europe towards Eastern Europe and beyond. Analogously to the nineties and early 2000s, the EU is expecting to welcome six to nine new member states (the Western Balkans and the countries around the Black Sea). The EU must ensure that other actors such as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia don’t win influence in this region.

The EU should be prepared for a shift towards the East. The following five areas require thorough attention and reform.

The EU budget

Almost all candidate countries are poor. Wealthy states such as France, Germany and the Netherlands will have to come up with the money to raise the budget. Budget reallocation towards new member states will cause conflict. Old members will be disadvantaged because of the low GDP of new beneficiaries and their incapability to contribute to the EU budget. A delicate discussion: either the budget increases with money from the rich member states, or the budget stays the same, and all member states receive less.

The decision-making process

Institutions such as the Parliament and the Commission must reconsider their veto powers and how decisions are implemented. New member states will want to have a say in these procedures.

Unfortunately, member states have not yet reached a consensus about how to proceed with decision-making and policy implementation. Legally, treaties make everything possible, which offers constitutional reform possibilities. However, this might spark more complex political procedures such as referendums and other risky, time-consuming ratification procedures.

Alternatively, informal change in political governance is also likely, besides formal modifications. For example, enlargement will lead to fragmentation of representative political bodies of the national governments. Decision-making, policy implementation, and agenda-setting power will then centralize in the role of the presidency of the Commission.

The single market, free movement and employment.

New member states means also, new opportunities, new jobs. At least, in theory. Competition from new markets will likely hit local economies and create significant tensions between old and new member states. Such is the case with Poland and Ukraine about grain. Additionally, labor shortages could be fulfilled by cheap labor from new member states, yet will cause a brain-drain and a wage drop. In that respect, every welfare gain due to enlargement will automatically lead to unequal economic development.

The rule of law and democracy.

Member states are expected to fully comply with normative standards of democracy and the rule of law. If this is not the case, the whole EU looks bad. This enlargement aspect is most likely the most difficult since all (potential) candidate countries are prone to corruption and creeping authoritarianism/democratic backsliding.

EU security.

Ever since the Second World War, reliance on the United States has increased and will continue to do so. Unless the EU member states do something about it. Yet, this seems unlikely, and strategic linkages between NATO and EU member states remain crucial and strained.

Considering everything, the EU has very little time to ensure the new member states are firmly embedded within the Union’s sphere of security and prosperity. The Union cannot in any case, lower the bar: internal cohesion is the first priority. Geopolitical interests cannot override this. Either the EU buys more time or it redefines the meaning of its membership so that the Union can better prepare for enlargement.

Of course, many arguments against enlargement exist. Many people think the EU is entirely saturated and has exceeded its absorption capacity. Strong political leadership is necessary for another enlargement round to succeed. Everything needs to be thought over from scratch.

Alternative solutions are possible yet require enormous creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. Concepts such as gradual integration, accelerated accession, and sectoral integration are to be considered in this discussion. Enlargement politics are very volatile, and nothing has been decided yet. Only when policy-makers and politicians alike are ready to map out every possibility and path available can enlargement succeed.

Leander Papagianneas is an analyst specialised in Southeast Europe. He graduated  in Conflict and Development ( MSc, University of Ghent, Belgium ) & and in Southeast Europe Studies ( MA , University of Graz, Austria ). He was awarded with the Marte-Versichelen Prize of the Department of Conflict and Development Faculty of Political and Social Sciences Ghent University.  He is fluent in Greek, English, French, Dutch and Serbo-Croatian.

Share this article: