2 5 3B Enlargement of the European Union 920)

2   5   3B Enlargement of the European Union 920)

in the previous part of this video we looked at how the Union gradually evolved from a community of six to the current union of 27 member states in this second part of this video we will focus on the substantive and procedural conditions for EU membership and we will discuss special cases of Croatia and Turkey we are going to look at both the substantive and the procedural conditions concerning EU membership first concerning the substantive conditions originally they were not lay down anywhere essentially but other work conditions was illustrated by the fact that the application of the UK was was vetoed twice in the 60s and in the fact that Morocco in the 80s was refused membership as well in the 90s at the European Council in Copenhagen a number of official criteria were laid down which needs to be complied with for EU membership these criteria are both political legal and economic from a political point of view an applicant must have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy the rule of law human rights and respect for the protection of minorities from an economic point of view the candidate must have a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU and from a legal point of view the candidate must have the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership in other words the candidate must accept the a key community or in other words must accept the EU law that had been adopted previously article 49 of the Treaty of Lisbon now describes the codifies to a certain extent these conditions and describes which substantive conditions need to be fulfilled it indicates that any European state which respects the values refer to in article 2 of this treaty and which is committed to promoting them and may apply to become a member of the Union now which are the values referred to in article 2 well article 2 mentions that the union is found on the value of respect for human dignity freedom democracy equality the rule of law and respect for human rights including the rights of persons belonging to minorities these are the substantive criteria that need to be fulfilled for EU membership indicate that or notify that one still hasn’t described precisely what is considered to be a European State know where we can find the definition of the contours or the outer limits of the European Union now apart from the substantive conditions what are the procedural conditions that need to be complied with also the procedural conditions are codified now or lay down in article 49 of the treaty of the European Union an applicant State shall address its application to the council which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament now this is quite something this means that the application for membership of a candidate country cannot be vetoed by any of the existing member states one also needs to obtain the consent of the European Parliament now subsequently the conditions of eligibility are agreed upon with the European Council if the European Council has set the light on green as a matter of saying then a country a candidate or or an applicant country becomes an official candidate country when one is then going to assess whether the golden egg criteria are fulfilled and if they are then one can start with the official accession negotiations accession negotiations deal primarily with investigating to what extent the applicant country then candidate country can adapt implement and apply the a key community the European law of the 27 member states after the conclusion of these negotiations if it is successful an accession treaty will be signed which subsequently needs to be ratified in all the 27 member states of the European Union as you can well imagine this can be a very technical or is a very technical and can be a very long cumbersome process if we look at the example of Croatia Croatia became a potential candidate country in 2000’s received filed an application for membership in 2003 became an official candidate country in 2004 only in 2005 the accession negotiations started and in 2011 these negotiations were concluded at this moment Croatia is at the verge of becoming a member state of the European Union now it is time to turn to the elephant in the room concerning enlargement the specific and sensitive case of turkey it is clear that this illustrates that enlargement can be a very lengthy process the Ankara agreement was signed in 1963 and already in the Ankara agreement it was indicated that the idea was to facilitate the integration of turkey into the union at a later stage it also reflects the case of turkey also reflects that it is a very technical dossier enlargement there are problems with Cyprus there are problems with human rights all elements that are difficult to solve but most importantly the case of Turkey shows that enlargement is very much a political process as well if turkey is going to enter one day into the European Union it will become immediately one of the most important if not the most important country from a political point of view because of the fact that it will has highest population this will be a tough nut to crack for certain countries secondly additional enlargement criteria are the absorption capacity of the Union and the acceptance of the except of the candidate country both in the union and in the home country and with regard to Turkey one can ask questions in both respects it is questionable whether at this moment the Turkish population is still in favor of enlargement or of joining the Union and the other way around ultimately it is very well possible that turkey will not enter the European Union in the end if that were to be the case it would be the first time that the accession negotiations wouldn’t yield to a positive result this case is to be distinguished from the Norwegian case in which the accession negotiations had been successful but the population of Norway in the end voted against membership in a popular referendum

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *