By DC member Jochen M. Richter

Ahead of the European Council meeting mid-December, the question of a future enlargement of the EU is on the table. Or maybe it is not, depending, amongst other issues, on Council President Michel’s discussions with Hungarian Prime Minister Orban. And one could add many more “ifs” and “hows.”

Independent of all these arguments, two things are assured: disappointment by all candidate countries, first and foremost in Ukraine, and a déjà-vu for those who were involved in the 2004/2007 enlargement process. Why that?

The disappointment at all fronts has many, but primarily two, reasons. First, following the understandable admission of Ukraine, the Republics of Moldova and Georgia as candidate countries, no discussion took place how this fast speed train would be perceived by the Balkan countries, many of which are candidate countries for 10 years and longer. It is fair to say that this new development was not taken by any of them as encouragement that their own progress should see a positive impetus. In difference, the latest progress reports by the European Commission clearly point to quite some outstanding challenges that need to be addressed.

Secondly, we face a déjà-vu because the same questions are still unresolved that were discussed prior to 2004. They can be summarised as fair (re-)distribution of the finances of the EU and a need for institutional reforms. And, of course, observers as actors ask again: “Are these countries ready and are we ready?” “Should we take all of them, and if not, what criteria to apply to divide them into groups?” “How to avoid regrets that haunt us now with certain countries?” even though it was said that the new enlargement methodology^[1] would solve this problem.

Picking up first the financial aspects, like in 2000 when the then Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries, Franz Fischler, proposed changes to the CAP, the EU is facing again the need to reform this sector. But while at the time the main issues were more a matter of internal affairs, this time the need of integrating new producers and markets is met by the much more vivid debate about food security. How complicated this subject has become is most prominently displayed by the unease of some Member States regarding Ukraine’s export rights, the Dutch farmers’ protests on the reduction of nitrogen, and the fight around the renaturation proposal from the European Commission.

Similar aspects could easily be listed around the two other spending programs, the cohesion fund, and probably to a lesser extent, the regional development fund. But everyone is aware that on top, the question of supporting the reconstruction of Ukraine is overshadowing this part of the debate.

That the failure in all these sectors back then is complicating the discussion nowadays is obvious.

While leaving aside a deeper analysis of to which extent the candidate countries would be ready to face the challenges in becoming EU members, it is worthwhile to elaborate some thoughts around the EU’s readiness.

The recently intensified reflections for enlarging the scope of majority voting were immediately met with suspicion that those in favour would only wish to silence the too vocal opponents. Therefore, it is necessary to find a good explanation why more majority voting is needed beyond the simple argument that discussions and therefore decisions take too long.

Equally, for the old question whether the size of the European Commission of more than – back then 20, now – 27 Commissioners would become unmanageable, no proposal has been made that seems convincing. Looking back at my own experience as Deputy Head of Cabinet to the first Romanian Commissioner, it is clear to me that especially during the first phase after accession, a voice from home and back to the capital of that country is vital. But I also share the concern of an ever-extended college.

Equally, the question of the distribution of seats in the European Parliament is far from being trivial. The latest change giving certain Member States very few additional seats was already a complicated matter.

Having listed all these challenges, I would claim that the famous elephant in the room is a question no one dares to put forward, namely WHAT IS THIS EU?

Is it the British dream of just a free market that provides for the four freedoms and that’s it, more or less? The French dream of a (member) state-controlled economy that should enable what is now called strategic autonomy? The German dream of a rules-based Europe whatever it costs, as long as it doesn’t increase its own budget contribution? Or the Eastern European dream for a Union that provides safety and, of course, prosperity?

But since we see nowadays too much critical analysis, I will attempt to state what, in my view, would be needed.

A real agricultural reform should end subsidies to market participants who effectively don’t need such support (the Royal family of the UK as maybe an outstanding example). Small producers should be at the forefront, easing transition especially for future member states. It should address an ambitious but also realistic bio-production. And we should (finally) admit that without GMOs, we won’t be able to support feeding the world.

Such a reform should go hand in hand with an HONEST review of the cohesion and regional development funds as well as state aid rules. As nation-states cannot solve every crisis or even less every misery with public money, neither can the EU. Innovation and education would be worthy recipients.

Looking at institutional reforms, I would favour a fresh debate about the size of the European Commission. While I was pointing myself to the need to have a national voice in the college just after accession that could be considered temporary. The real question is whether having all national voices present in the college concerns the Commission and its tasks. Isn’t that anyhow secured by the Council and its privilege to be consulted much earlier than Parliament on any Commission proposal? Shouldn’t such a reflection concentrate on how a rotation system could be a means to foster trust amongst Member States?

Referring to the criticism that more majority voting would just be a way to outvote uncomfortable partners, it is worthwhile to recall that the current system already foresees a blocking minority. Isn’t it therefore fair to say that if any country disagreeing with whatever subject can seek to block it? But only if one convinces enough other partners. Single vetoes need to become something of the past.

Two more aspects need to be mentioned. The first concerns the complicated but urgent matter of an effective defence Union. Europe should not wait until the scenario under ex-President Trump repeats itself in one or the other form. The current geopolitical challenges from the Russian war in Ukraine over the crisis in the Middle East (in all its facets) and the uncertainty of China’s plans towards Tawain don’t allow us to wait. The way forward should include a cold-blooded analysis how best Member States could organise a division of labour.

The second aspect is the much-needed reform of the EU’s migration system, starting from a clear semantic and effective separation of migrants and refugees, over an honest review of the completely overburdened Dublin system, towards becoming a first step for a joint approach in foreign policy.

^[1] A more credible, dynamic, predictable and political EU accession process - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_181