“A stable neighbourhood is a first-order security interest for us.”

Currently, nine countries are candidates to become members of the European Union (EU). Recent Russian destabilisation and disinformation campaigns in some of these countries have underlined the strategic importance of a more active EU with its neighbours. How can the EU increase its geopolitical influence? Should the EU do more to support those fighting for democracy, justice and economic opportunities? At the same time, a recent Eurobarometer poll showed that a substantial share of EU citizens worry about or are against further EU enlargement. Many doubt how European these new candidates truly are, and whether an enlarged EU will remain governable.

Studio Europa Maastricht spoke with Gert Jan Koopman (Director-General Enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood at the European Commission) about this dilemma. How can we build an EU that is more meaningful for its neighbours, while remaining mindful of the concerns of a large part of the EU’s population?

Negotiations

When talking about the prospect of new members joining the EU, the EU uses the term ‘accession negotiations’. What are the negotiations about, and what kind of compromises do you seek? Koopman: “One of the first things I do when interacting with candidate countries is explain that becoming an EU Member State is like joining a club. They need to accept the rules of this club. These are non-negotiable. The only thing we actually negotiate about are the transition periods; think of temporary restrictions on the free movement of citizens, temporary exclusion from agriculture subsidies or the delayed implementation on certain technical requirements. Poland, for instance, had to wait more than 20 years to fully receive funds from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.”

Koopman does not believe these transitional requirements are detrimental to the integrity of the EU internal market. “In the wider scale of things, these are relatively minor issues. Whenever we are considering the length of a transition period, we take into account whether it leads to undue problems regarding economic competitiveness, competition in the internal market or product safety.”

Once these negotiations on possible transition periods have concluded, who eventually decides whether a country can join? “The EU as such cannot decide this by itself, the 27 EU Member States meeting in the Council have to reach an intergovernmental decision. The 27 Member States then have to ratify an accession treaty. Any of these 27 countries could veto that decision.”

“There is overwhelming evidence that previous enlargement rounds have brought significant economic benefits for current EU Member States like the Netherlands”

A unanimous decision by 27 Member States may seem hard to reach, given the bumpy relations between, for example, Hungary and Ukraine and between Bulgaria and North Macedonia. Would Koopman agree? “It is important to note that intermediary decisions are taken throughout the accession process. This means that current EU Member States have to agree at several instances that the rules of the club have been accepted and applied by the candidate country. The final decision on accession is only taken once all Member States have agreed that every rule of the club has been respected. So, in principle, this unanimous decision has the same character as the ratification of a treaty. It is mainly a formality because the hardest decisions have already been taken earlier.”

Benefits

Koopman is clear about the benefits of EU enlargement for current EU Member States. “There is overwhelming evidence that previous enlargement rounds have brought significant economic benefits for current EU Member States like the Netherlands. Adding new members to the EU creates a larger internal market. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the average EU income per capita has increased by approximately 10% as a result of EU enlargement. I would call that significant. Zooming in on the Netherlands, we see that the 2004 enlargement round has been massively economically beneficial because Dutch companies have used the internal market in a way that few other Member States have managed. Many large corporations located in the Netherlands have diversified their supply chains right across the internal market. One fun fact I often quote is that the royalties and dividends accruing to Dutch companies from the Czech Republic alone are larger than the entire Dutch contribution to the EU budget. And that is just one Member State!” What is more, Koopman says, is that many of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 have tripled their income per capita over the past twenty years. “If you look at Poland today, it is hard to imagine that the size of its economy only 25 years ago was comparable to that of Belarus today.”

Yet economic growth is not the only important rationale, Koopman says. “As a result of increased prosperity, these new EU Member States have become much more stable and EU-oriented. They provide security. They are anchored in the EU system. They apply our rules and regulations.’ Koopman believes that the argument of security and stability is more important today than ever. ‘As European Commission President von der Leyen said at Davos, “Europe is on its own”. “We are living in a world where the big eat the small”, Canadian Prime Minister Carney added. So, size matters. A stable neighbourhood is a first-order security interest for us.”

Still, many citizens across the EU are quite sceptical about integration of new member states. Many EU citizens, some 40% according to the Eurobarometer, have said that they fear for uncontrolled migration, corruption, crime and high costs to them as taxpayers. What do you say to those citizens? Koopman: “We need to take those concerns seriously. They are legitimate concerns. The EU is taking action to address these fears.”

Citizens’ concerns

Looking at migration, Koopman argues that the EU has learnt some clear lessons. “Therefore, we are proposing to manage migration through limitations on the freedom of movement, so that large-scale movements of people from new Member States will be prevented.” However, Koopman stresses that a lot of the migration from EU candidate countries to the EU has in fact already occurred. “In countries like the Netherlands, it is nearly impossible to find qualified workers in certain industries. As a result, EU companies have recruited a lot of employees from Western Balkan countries in recent years. And there are already 4 million Ukrainians living in the EU at the moment. Once Ukraine is at peace again, and once the Western Balkan countries and Ukraine have joined the EU, they will begin to feel the positive economic effects of membership at home. This may encourage many people to return to their home countries. My prediction is that we are going to regret the Albanian, Montenegrin and Ukrainian workers returning home.”

How certain is Koopman that these workers will actually return home? “You must ask yourself, why did they come? The answer is economic opportunities. But if you compare the quality of life in Tirana, Albania to the quality of life in Brussels, I know where I would go… All we need to do is create better economic opportunities in Tirana and other places. The massive growth of the Polish economy has caused a lot of Poles to migrate back to their home country.”

At the time of writing, we do not know when Ukraine will be at peace again, let alone under what conditions a peace deal will be reached. Isn’t it risky to discuss EU enlargement so early? Koopman: “Enlargement could only happen in a situation where Ukraine was stable, would be growing.”

Some EU citizens worry that the cost of EU enlargement will be prohibitively expensive. Koopmans does not agree. “Of course, given its size and the cost of reconstruction, Ukraine will be a different kettle of fish. Yet the other candidate countries are relatively small, so the extra cost of taking them in will be rather small as well. If we were to take them all in in 2028, the EU budget would only need to grow by 4-5%.”

Some of the most notorious examples of democratic backsliding are found in Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, countries that joined the EU in 2004. Should we be worried that countries that join in the future will develop autocratic tendencies as well? What will the EU do to prevent this?

“We need to make sure that the EU is strengthened, not weakened, as a result of enlargement”

Koopman: “Although we should not forget that democratic backsliding in a country like Hungary occurred many years after they joined, it is a legitimate question. After all, we need to make sure that the EU is strengthened, not weakened, as a result of enlargement. Hence, we will be incorporating much sharper safeguards in the new generation of accession treaties. This will give us powerful tools to sanction countries should democratic backsliding occur.” Koopman explains, “The conditions that could be included in the new accession treaties would automatically withhold funding from countries when corruption or rule-of-law-related issues occur”. Should large transgressions in the application of EU laws take place, countries shall be barred from participating in those policy areas, Koopman says. “And if it gets really bad, we should also be able to stop them from participating in EU decision making. So, this goes much, much further than we have ever considered.”

Governability and phased accession

Democracy is not just a national issue. It is also a matter of EU decision making. How can we ensure that the EU remains governable with 28, 29 or even 30 members? Koopman: “Firstly, this debate started when we had 12 Member States; now there are 27. Of course, this created plenty of challenges, but we still function relatively well. Very few decisions are actually taken by unanimity. So, the issue of EU governance is a smaller issue than people make it out to be. Secondly, I think we should separate the debate on internal EU reforms from the debate on enlargement. We may need to take some decisions in parallel, but the debate on internal EU reform is important regardless of whether new countries join the EU. It would be wrong to block enlargement until comprehensive EU reforms have taken place. First, there is no agreement on what it means to comprehensively reform the EU, and secondly, reforms to the EU may take a long time.”

The discussion on whether or not the EU should block newly joined EU Member States from exercising their veto rights is controversial, according to Koopman. “It is something that is being considered, but it is not yet something that has been decided.” The debate on the use of phased or partial EU integration is not yet settled either, Koopman believes. This would mean that a country like Ukraine could already become a part-member, while not yet benefitting from all aspects of EU membership. “It would also have geostrategic advantages for the EU, and it would speed things up. New EU Member States would be incentivised to implement reforms more quickly which is in our interest. But EU membership cannot come for free. The rule of law, democracy, and the fight against corruption are fundamental. We cannot abandon the merit-based principle that stipulates that countries must reform in exchange for EU membership. So, if we would choose to implement so-called phased accession, new EU Member States will have to meet demanding requirements before they even start the process. This doesn’t make it a very straightforward matter. But if we could make it work, there would be clear advantages.”

What do you think about EU enlargement? Join us for our event Local Europe: The Netherlands and Europe between Power Blocs on Monday 30 March in The Hague. Find more information and registration here.