They say that the conclusion of the European Commission on Ukraine's application for EU membership, announced yesterday, was ready at the end of May.. The only thing missing in this text and around which discussions have been held in recent weeks is the main thing - recommendations on the decision of the EU member states in response to the application of Ukraine. Yesterday, the European Commission finally decided and proposed to grant Ukraine the status of a candidate country. After that, the chances that in a week the European Council (that is, the EU summit) will approve this decision have sharply increased..
[see_also ids\u003d"
In the Treaty on European Union, only one article describes the procedure for the entry of new members - article 49. Its full text is as follows: " The European Parliament and the national parliaments are informed of such an application. The applicant State sends it to the Council, which acts unanimously after consultation with the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, acting by a majority of its members.. The eligibility conditions agreed by the European Council must be taken into account. The conditions for accession and the resulting changes to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded are the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. The treaty is sent for approval to all states that are contracting parties, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements..
In a simpler way, this complex text should be interpreted as follows: the decision is made by the member countries. Which is logical, because who else, if not members of the club, should decide on the admission of new members. It is the member states that are represented in the EU Council (a body that consists of the ministers of the EU member states) and the European Council - the summit of the heads of state and government of the EU member states. Although the text of Article 49 states that the decision is made by the Council, that is, the ministers, it is clear that in fact they, as a rule, only formalize the decision taken by the leaders of the EU countries at the meeting of the European Council.
What may not seem obvious after reading Article 49, but corresponds to the reality: this is not one solution, but many, because the accession process is stretched over several stages. The expected decision on granting candidate status is only the first key stage after the application of the country wishing to join the EU.
The European Parliament has already managed twice (in March and June) to support, with an absolute majority of votes, granting Ukraine the status of a candidate, but its position is not decisive. Similarly, the conclusion of the European Commission is only advisory in nature.. But, unlike the European Parliament, the European Commission, as a rule, tries to coordinate its proposals in advance - formally or informally - with member countries, at least with the largest of them.. Obviously, this was also the case now, when the conclusion of the European Commission was published the day after the visit of the leaders of key member countries to Kyiv with their public statements in support of the early granting of candidate status to Ukraine.
However, an important part of the preparation of the political decision was also the preliminary expert work of the Ukrainian government to provide answers to the huge questionnaire of the European Commission regarding Ukrainian legislation, institutions and policies in various areas.. This great technical work, which the governments of many applicant countries (including the current EU members) have been doing for more than a year, the Ukrainian government managed to do in a month, which is an absolute record. Moreover, they did it qualitatively, because they did not receive any additional clarifying questions from Brussels. This, by the way, also became one of the arguments in favor of the fact that Ukraine sufficiently meets the criteria and objectively deserves the status of a candidate..
The complexity of preparing the conclusion of the European Commission lies in the vagueness of the evaluation criteria for deciding on the status of a candidate for EU accession. The “conditions of eligibility” agreed by the European Council, referred to in Article 49 of the EU Treaty, were formulated in 1993 at the meeting of the European Council in Copenhagen and have since been called the “Copenhagen Membership Criteria”.
In fact, they fit in just one paragraph: “Membership requires that the candidate country achieve the stability of institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect and protection for minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressures and market forces.. Membership provides for the candidate's ability to assume the obligations of membership, including compliance with the objectives of political, economic and monetary union..
These are EU membership criteria, not criteria for granting candidate status. In fact, it is believed that a certain sufficient level of compliance with these Copenhagen membership criteria is needed to become a candidate.. But exactly what level is sufficient remains to be precisely determined.. That is why it was possible that the European Commission prepared an analytical report, but hesitated to determine a policy recommendation based on this analysis..
[see_also ids\u003d"
In fact, the European Commission had to choose whether to consider the glass half full or half empty, and in the end decided that in the case of Ukraine and Moldova this is the first, in the case of Georgia it is the second. In all three cases, the European Commission has formulated lists of priority tasks that these countries must complete by the end of this year, with the difference that Ukraine and Moldova should fulfill these requirements after receiving candidate status now, while for Georgia these are prerequisites for granting this status.
In the case of Ukraine, all the tasks formulated by the European Commission relate to the first, political, criterion of EU membership. This is a list of seven items:.
selection of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine based on an assessment of their integrity and professional skills in accordance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission;
completion of the verification of the integrity of candidates for members of the High Council of Justice and the creation of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges of Ukraine;
strengthening the fight against corruption through active and effective investigations and judicial convictions; appointment of a new head of SAP; selection and appointment of a new director of NABU;
ensuring compliance of anti-money laundering legislation with FATF standards; adoption of a reform strategy for the entire law enforcement sector;
implementation of the anti-oligarchic law in order to limit the excessive influence of the oligarchs, given the future conclusion of the Venice Commission;
adoption of a European media law and the creation of an independent media regulator;
completion of the reforms of legislation concerning national minorities in accordance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
Immediately after the publication of the conclusion of the European Commission, apparently agreed with the leaders of France and Germany, a number of countries that were previously considered skeptics (Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands) declared their support for the recommendation to grant Ukraine candidate status. Although surprises cannot be ruled out, because each member country has the right to veto. However, now the most likely scenario is the official recognition of Ukraine as a candidate country for EU membership..
The current list of seven points by the European Commission looks quite realistic for implementation before the end of this year, if there is political will.. Moreover, according to Ursula von der Leyen, the President of Ukraine himself notes that these reforms need to be done by Ukraine for its own sake, and not for the sake of the EU.. However, it seems that the external framework of internal reforms in the form of EU requirements for the candidate country will still be very appropriate for Ukraine in the coming years, so as not to suddenly, so to speak, go astray.
But now it remains unclear what will happen after the implementation of these seven steps (or some others, because the European Council may add something else to the list proposed by the European Commission). Will this be considered sufficient to move on to the next stage - the opening of negotiations on accession to the EU? At least the conclusion of the European Commission does not mention this, although it is possible that such a link may appear in the decision of the European Council.
Actually, the most optimistic development of events will be if, at the end of 2022, the EU states the fulfillment of the prerequisites and decides to open accession negotiations with Ukraine. The subject of such negotiations is the harmonization of legislation, the practice of its application and the functioning of institutions in the candidate country with EU standards in 35 sections (areas). Moreover, here it will be necessary to adopt all European legislation, and not selectively implement only a part, otherwise they will not be accepted into the EU.
In the case of Central and Eastern European countries that have joined the EU in recent decades, such negotiations have taken at least three to six years.. After their successful completion, a certain time - a year or even more - required the signing of an accession agreement, its ratification by all parties (including all EU member countries), and finally it came into force.
At each of these stages, the process may stall, either because of our regression in reforms, or because of political veto by some member countries. Over the past two or three decades, a lot of such negative examples have accumulated in the EU enlargement policy.. Thus, Turkey, Montenegro and Serbia started negotiations on EU accession in 2005, 2012 and 2013, respectively, but have not yet joined due to the fact that, according to the EU, they still have not reached the eligibility criteria.. But there is an example of North Macedonia, which has been a candidate since 2005, but its movement towards EU membership was first blocked by Greece, then France slowed down somewhat, and more recently Bulgaria blocked. At the same time, Albania also suffered from the Bulgarian veto, because the EU considers it in the same basket with North Macedonia..
Predicting exactly when Ukraine will join the European Union is a thankless task. But the movement of history cannot be stopped: Ukraine becomes part of the West. With their heroism, the Armed Forces of Ukraine opened the doors to the European Union for Ukraine. Now politicians must seize this chance and ensure that all requirements for a future EU member are met..
[votes id\u003d"