2023-10-10 12:34:49
WORLD – Many more contributions, fewer cohesion funds or agricultural funds for traditional beneficiaries, changes in priorities and balances, here are some of the main challenges that were not mentioned at the European summit in Granada.
EU enlargement was the main theme of the meeting of the European Political Community held in Granada on October 5, bringing together the 27 heads of state and government, as well as 22 other neighbors, friends and former partners. “We all understood, after the war in Ukraine, that it is better for the EU to enlarge”, declared the President of the European Council, Charles Michel. This summer, he dared to set a date for accession: 2030.
However, and paradoxically, one question remains unanswered, the most critical and delicate point, the absolute priority and which is devalued: the costs, the risks, the dangers and the enormous consequences that an express enlargement would have, for all European countries, but also for all these countries taken individually.
Inevitable reforms and crucial reflections
An enlargement has many aspects. The latest were the extension to 10 countries in 2004, to Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, and to Croatia in 2013. In Brussels and in the capitals, reflection on what the EU should do before to accept a new arrival began discreetly. There is absolute consensus among politicians, diplomats, civil servants and experts that it would be suicidal to add member countries without reforms first.
A few days ago, twelve experts convened by the French and German governments presented their long-awaited report on the necessary roadmap, and it became the basis of the discussion. The task is colossal, ranging from transforming the budget from top to bottom to eliminating, as much as possible, the unanimous decision-making process. If an assembly of 27 countries already makes the Union very ineffective, the situation would become impossible with more than 30 governments having a permanent veto. But we must also look at the composition of the Commission, the powers of the European Parliament, the mechanisms for applying the rule of law and relations with neighbors.
Budgetary, political and social impact on citizens
What is not discussed in public are the consequences of enlargement, its economic, political and social costs. The impact it will have on citizens, on national budgets, on community priorities, on the balance of powers, on the rule of law, social cohesion, debates on immigration, free movement. The efforts required of those who will move from the status of recipients of funds to that of contributors. No one wants to take the plunge and there is competition between the leaders of Brussels institutions and national governments to show their commitment. But depriving citizens, voters, of information is a time bomb.
A study by the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU, reported by the Financial Times Wednesday, begins to put some numbers on the table. The cost of entry for the nine candidate countries (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine) would exceed a quarter of a trillion euros! Ukraine, as the main grain supplier to Europe, would lead to a significant increase in the multiannual financial framework, raising it to almost 186 billion euros. The realignments would imply a 20% reduction in agricultural aid, and countries like Spain, currently beneficiaries, would become net contributors. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta would also see the Cohesion Fund tap turned off.
Figures that no one can accept. But it’s not just about money. The entry of nine countries would leave Spain and Portugal, for example, even further on the periphery. A change with real and immediate consequences that many governments, driven by enthusiasm or pressure from their peers, seem to underestimate in the medium and long term.
#Grenada #Summit #costs #risks #accelerated #enlargement