Is treaty change necessary to enlarge the EU? [Promoted content]

EU enlargement cannot be a hostage of the false pretext of imposing qualified majority voting. The peoples of Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia as well as the six Western Balkan countries, want and deserve the EU membership. The Union should welcome them seriously in good faith, without blackmailing them and the current new member states with treaty changes.

MEP Anna Fotyga, ECR’s foreign affairs spokesperson and former Polish foreign minister. 

For many years, all EU member states belonging to Central and Eastern Europe have promoted the accession of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, as well as the Western Balkans. In the case of Poland, it was a very firm policy of all governments since 2004. The same attitude applied to the NATO enlargement. 

At the same time, leaders of the region had been alone in advocating bold decisions opening Western institutions to newcomers. Paradoxically, we owe their current willingness to fulfil their dream to Putin’s aggression against Ukraine and his malign influence on some Western Balkan countries. For European leaders, the decision to open negotiations with the large group of aspiring states, including Georgia, is not easy. The Union has still to overcome the political, economic and social effects of COVID, and the world markets distortions ensuing from the aggression. Additionally, as another full-scale conflict erupted in the Middle East with the violent Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, the well-known spirit of reluctance appears to have returned to the West.

The support to Ukraine in its brave resistance against the full-scale Russian invasion is inadequate. In many countries belonging to the collective West, the will to push Ukraine towards some kind of the negotiated cease-fire is already visible. Politically correct declarations in support Ukraine’s resistance for “as long as it takes” are still present in statements of numerous world leaders, but practical obstacles to maintain continuous, substantial assistance in the form of financing and arms deliveries are frequent. Only the EU Member States that are immediate neighbours of Russia are radical in their assessment of the Russian threat and are convinced that the aggressor should be decisively defeated. Despite courage of Ukrainian soldiers, their resolve and sacrifice, in some countries this war fatigue and readiness to achieve a quick end to the hostilities, even with some territorial concessions, are strong and prominent among the most powerful EU players. 

It is also the group of some old EU Member States that are convinced that future enlargement should be coupled with far-reaching changes within the Union, such as abandoning unanimous decision making in many areas. Yet, according to treaties, but also the EP report initiated by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and adopted with very narrow margin of votes, the enlargement decision is still to require unanimity. 

The same applies to NATO’s open door policy, where decisions are also made by consensus, despite it being a larger and more heterogeneous institution. Being a member of the NATO Reflection Group I haven’t heard any serious voices to replace the consensus decision-making by majority voting. It would destroy the very core of collective defence. “One for all, all for one” cannot be imposed on anyone. That’s why consultations take place until a decision that is acceptable to all is reached. 

I am convinced that also the Member States will reject the temptation of qualified majority voting, which gives only a deceptive sense of strength. Benefits of coordinating policies within the EU outweigh the risk of some of the decisions being temporarily blocked from time to time. Moreover, it is consensus that gives power to the EU’s decisions, because once it is reached, everyone is on-board and more willing to implement them. Member States being forced to follow policies which go against their national interest in the long run will become more and more disillusioned with common projects. This in turn may even force them to follow the example of the United Kingdom, meaning that while talking about enlargement, we may in fact see precisely the opposite. 

There is even more. While the EU is a strong proponent of multilateralism at the global level, the attempts to impose qualified majority voting are really about supporting the rule of the strongest. There is no doubt that even if qualified majority voting is introduced, the two most powerful members of the EU will not lose their veto rights, as they would be able to use their size to enact a blocking minority.

Qualified majority voting does not guarantee more efficient EU policies. It is enough to recall the policy of Berlin and Paris towards Moscow in the last decades, even shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. Renaming the ‘Normandy’ format an ‘EU’ format would not make it any better. The same powers who argue for a more federal Europe are unwilling to pursue sanctions evasion by their own companies, with the most notorious example being Siemens. 

Finally, scientific research shows that the recent enlargement did not have a negative impact on the speed of foreign decision-making. On the contrary, the available data proves that, if anything, it has been quicker and more efficient in EU-28 than it was before 2004. 

In our part of the region bordering Russia, we are very sensitive to security issues. History is not behind us. Nord Stream 2 was never a mere business project. The concept of a common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok has always been an illusion. I am strongly convinced that Ukrainians, Georgians and Moldovans also share the same perspective, and it should be obvious that decisions in foreign affairs and security within the EU must be upheld in order to keep the union strong and united.

The calls to introduce qualified majority voting didn’t occur yesterday or a few months ago with membership bids from our eastern partners. They were officially introduced in 2018 in Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union Address on behalf of the entire European Commission. It was not triggered by the aspirations of those who wanted to join the EU, but by the decision of the British to leave it. And it was a defined policy objective of the ruling SPD-Greens-FDP coalition even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

That’s why it should be obvious to everyone that this idea is not about ‘improving our ability to speak with one voice when it comes to our foreign policy”, as Juncker said five years ago, but  about domination; about taking over the space left after Brexit. But there’s a misleading flaw in this reasoning. The UK has left the EU, but there are still 27 nations and I am pretty sure they will reject this attempt to impose further federalisation.

Attempts to achieve the enlargement process by blackmail are only designed to divide the Union. Instead, everyone should try to fix the culture of consensus, of treating each other as equals, of listening to needs and problems. This would benefit all of us, not just the most powerful. The late President Lech Kaczynski believed that all nations should be treated equally, regardless of their size. It was a well-known policy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, one of the most successful unions in our history. The European Union cannot build a prosperous future by trampling over this principle. I am strongly convinced that aspiring countries should also be outspoken about this blackmailing. EU enlargement cannot be held hostage of the false pretext of imposing qualified majority voting. 

Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, as well as the six countries of the Western Balkan, want and deserve EU membership. They should be welcomed by us in earnest and in good faith, without blackmailing both them and current new Member States with treaty changes.