As reported in the European Commission’s latest annual ‘Enlargement Package’, the last year saw an important new dynamic. But ambiguities and contradictions open up questions about the very nature of the enlargement process, with two related but partly separate tracks emerging. The first is the formal accession process with a methodology structured around chapters and clusters. This track saw accession procedures formally started with Ukraine and Moldova – but suspended for Georgia. Montenegro was singled out as making good progress towards accession. The second track comes under ‘gradual Integration’ and ‘facilities’ with the rapid initiation of ‘Growth Plans’ for the Western Balkans and Moldova, and the implementation of a big new EUR 50 billion ‘facility’ for Ukraine.
The relationship between the two tracks raises important issues. While the first track moves very slowly, with every step being subjected to unanimous decisions in the Council, the second has moved fast with much more reliance on being managed by the Commission. With all this, plus the fact that the EU has seen the rise of far-right parties that are either skeptical or even hostile to enlargement, two very different scenarios could emerge. In the first, EU Member States could collectively find the political will to really advance enlargement, with Montenegro to accede relatively soon, confirming the way is open for the later accession of other candidates. In the second, the accession process is blocked by individual Member States, wielding their veto, while the mechanisms of gradual integration continue to develop. These could then morph into an alternative transitional system, which could stay in place until the EU reforms its own decision-making rules.
This piece was originally published on the SCEEUS website.
