Ukraine’s EU road is littered with obstacles

Obtain free EU enlargement updates

A yr in the past, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Fee president, advised Ukraine’s parliament: “There’s a lengthy street forward however Europe might be at your facet each step of the best way, for so long as it takes, from these darkish days of battle till the second you cross the door that leads into our European Union.”

She was proper that Ukraine’s street to the EU might be lengthy. Simply how lengthy turned obvious when Ukraine’s push to hitch Nato, the western world’s different premier establishment, acquired the delicately worded response in July that the alliance would situation an invite when “allies agree and circumstances are met”.

If something, EU membership could develop into even tougher for Ukraine to safe than Nato entry. In each instances, unanimous settlement amongst alliance states is a prerequisite for increasing the membership. As Sweden has found since making use of to hitch Nato, this course of will not be essentially easy.

However Ukraine’s EU bid raises a further set of formidable challenges. Within the first place, it’s entangled with the method, to which the EU is formally dedicated, of admitting not less than 5 different international locations: Albania, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. Like Ukraine, none comes shut for the second to assembly the EU’s exacting necessities on democracy, the rule of regulation, a functioning market economic system and a capability to fulfil the obligations of bloc membership.

Turkey is the sixth official EU entry candidate, however its membership prospects — by no means sturdy even when Brussels and Ankara loved a extra constructive relationship than now — are distant within the excessive. The queue on the EU’s door additionally contains Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Kosovo.

This lengthy line of potential entrants, which might develop the EU membership from 27 to 33 and even 37 international locations, throws mild on a second impediment to the bloc’s growth. Regardless of how fascinating as a approach of stabilising Europe’s jap and south-eastern neighbourhood, enlargement would require far-reaching adjustments to the EU’s establishments, insurance policies and monetary preparations for which neither nationwide governments nor electorates in a lot of the 27 member states seem ready.

With respect to establishments, it could be tough however not inconceivable to accommodate new members by reallocating seats within the European parliament, reweighting votes within the European Council (wherein nationwide governments meet) and redesigning the fee. Rather more vexed is the query of whether or not, or how, to interchange unanimity in fields comparable to taxation and international coverage with a system of majority voting.

That is exactly what German chancellor Olaf Scholz proposed in a speech final yr at Charles College in Prague. He accurately identified that, as enlargement proceeded, the chance would develop that one nation might use its veto to dam a standard coverage. If, nevertheless, the EU determined to stay with majority voting, varied teams of nations may select to maneuver forward on their very own in numerous coverage areas. “It might be a complicated tangle — and an invite to all those that need to wager in opposition to a united geopolitical Europe and play us off in opposition to one another,” Scholz noticed.

It’s a sturdy argument however not everybody likes it. Mateusz Morawiecki, Poland’s prime minister, advised an viewers at Germany’s College of Heidelberg in March that the EU’s responses to the debt disaster and pandemic every uncovered “the bounds of supranational governance in Europe”. Increasing on his implicit criticism of Scholz’s proposals, Morawiecki added: “In Europe, nothing will safeguard the liberty of countries, their tradition, their social, financial, political and navy safety higher than nation states. Different methods are illusory or utopian.”

It’s ironic that Poland, a fervent supporter of Ukraine’s EU entry, objects to the type of institutional reforms that may make enlargement workable. However the irony doesn’t finish there. Like Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, Poland needs the EU to increase curbs on Ukrainian grain imports as a way to defend home farmers.

This dispute suggests how laborious it is going to be for the EU to include Ukraine, one of many world’s largest agricultural producers but in addition one in all Europe’s poorest international locations even earlier than the battle. With out in depth reform of the EU’s Frequent Agricultural Coverage and regional support schemes, Ukraine would have an infinite declare on the EU funds — some 65 per cent of which fits to those two spending programmes.

Different candidate international locations, admittedly smaller than Ukraine, would additionally count on entry to the EU’s largesse. But budgetary reform on the size wanted to pay for enlargement would imply much less for a lot of states in central and jap Europe which have acquired tens of billions of euros since becoming a member of the EU from 2004 onwards. Are political events and voters prepared for such concessions within the title of a safer Europe? Allow us to not overlook that one other impediment in Ukraine’s path is Hungary’s allegation that western Ukraine’s ethnic Hungarian minority suffers mistreatment.

The EU, anxious to reward Ukraine for its brave resistance to Russian aggression, can and should press on with enlargement. Ukraine and others must be given advantages, comparable to some entry to EU funds and a voice in policymaking, even earlier than gaining full membership. Even so, enlargement guarantees to be essentially the most tough activity within the EU’s nearly 70-year historical past.

tony.barber@ft.com