France is causing a scandal. Its partners are pointing it out. They have accused France of irresponsibility, ignorance and Gallo-centrism since its president opposed the opening of accession negotiations with Northern Macedonia and Albania.
How can we not see, they say, that Emmanuel Macron has obliged the Union to break its word, and it can no longer be believed? How can we fail to understand that he has weakened the pro-European democrats in the whole Balkans, that he has opened up the doors of these countries to the Russian, Turkish and Chinese powers, whose only dream is to weaken the Union; in one word: that he is more worried not to bring grist to Mrs Le Pen’s mills than putting the higher ideals of European unity first?
Because those accusations are serious, they deserve answers.
True: by retracting its word, the Union inflicts a hard hit to its most ardent supporters in Ex-Yugoslavia. This is certainly not a good thing, but is it better to risk creating political difficulties in Skopje, Tirana or even Belgrade or to risk endangering a bit more the whole European enterprise in all the capitals of the Union? Could we really announce the opening of negotiations with North Macedonia and Albania at the same moment when Great Britain leaves? Would it not have been totally unreasonable to ignore that one of the prime causes of the disenchantment with the Union is its enlargement to countries that many of the citizens of the founding states could not even place on a map and where the standard of living is so low that free movement of people becomes the right to immigration?
France has Marine Le Pen, but, as far as we know, Germany has the AfD and nearly no one of the 27, not even Spain, is spared by the rebirth of extreme right nationalists, which has fed on the fear of immigration and the incomprehension of the paths taken by the Union. France simply said aloud what many other member states thought, not only Denmark and the Netherlands. In this controversy, there is a magnificent hypocrisy of large and small capitals that are happy to tell the Albanians and Macedonians that they had nothing to do with it, that they love nothing more than the Balkans and that only France, such a traitor, such a liar, is the only one to point at.
Well, no, sorry, France, in this case, is the only one to have the courage to speak the truth, in no way wanting to exclude the Macedonians and Albanians from the European Union forever, but point out that the Union is already not working well with 27 and would work even worse with 29 and, one day, 35 member states or more.
Before enlarging our ranks, we have to first reform the Union by getting rid of unanimous decision-making, which hinders us in moving on, and by sanctioning those governments who do not respect the principles to which they have nevertheless subscribed freely and in full knowledge of what they were doing.
Before enlarging our ranks, we have to first reform the Union by getting rid of unanimous decision-making, which hinders us in moving on, and by sanctioning those governments who do not respect the principles to which they have nevertheless subscribed freely and in full knowledge of what they were doing.
Before we negotiate new accessions on today’s basis, we have to define new ones in order to be able to go more clearly and easily towards a multi-speed Union in which those who want can accelerate – more than others – towards a political union. It is the essential, because the Union needs today to prove its capacity to assert itself and to act, to find larger and more solid support of its citizens and simply to exist until one cannot say anymore, as nowadays, in front of the betrayal of the Kurdish people: “But what does Europe do?” There is an urgency, not for new enlargements, because when the Union becomes a political power, its force will be multiplied and the Russian, Turkish or Chinese powers will have much more trouble than now to find their real place in the Balkans, these Balkans that the geography has put closer to Europe rather than to Russia, China or Turkey.
Without a doubt, the insiders would reply to all this: but why go on and create this crisis if we need a decade to conclude the accession negotiations anyway?
Why?
Come on! Really!
You raise the question, even if no one ignores the fact that we already need many years to move things in the Union of 27 and there would even be more time needed in an enlarged Union.
You raise the question, even if it is clear that new accessions will need to occur in a new Union and not in the one of today, the one that does not work anymore. For the moment, the Union is preparing for the large works ahead. It is entering work in progress; complete renovation.
