Yes. If we expand now we could collapse under our own weight. The candidates have to wait and meet our requirements. Perhaps we should also look inwards to those not up to standards like Hungary.
I think that EU bureaucracy needs a harsh time limits. Otherwise, something that can be done in a couple of years to accomplish, will take decades for drafting a plan.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Before all you people chatter on about the EU go compare the last 25 years between the USA and the EU, you will be shocked how Europe has declined in almost every economic metric, IMF Figures not mine. So much so that even the poorest States in the USA are better off than the French and they pay lower taxes. If the EU had been a success and improved the standard of living across Europe it would not be in the terminal mess it in. But it has been a dreadful failure.
It's always extremely difficult to do treaty reforms in the EU, but they always seem to find a way, usually by locking them in a dungeon until they all come to an agreement lol. I feel serious talks on treaty change needs to start happening around 2025, if we keep delaying it, those countries that want to join the EU will eventually give up on the idea of EU membership and will look elseware, worse yet, the EU is making it difficult for these countries to reform themselves so they can become members of the EU, the EU is giving little to no hope that the door on EU membership is even open, regardless of what reforms those countries do, that's a major issue, because without hope, it's hard for these countries to get the political and public will to do the reforms needed to join, worse yet, if the door stays firmly shut, these countries will eventually lose interest and look at other alternatives, or worse, some might become authoritarian like Turkey did. So yes, the EU needs to do a lot of reforms and before 2030, but it also needs to send a strong credible message that the door to EU membership is open, based on merit, whereas at the moment, many of these countries feel that it doesn't matter what reforms they do, the door is still firmly shut with the EU Commission being the major problem here, they are sending the wrong message to these countries which the likes of Russia and China are taking advantage off.
@@danharold3087here are a few common ones: •remove the veto power •reform the way we elect the Commission President •give the Parliament the power to initiate legislation •increase the number of MEPs to make the Parliament more representative •combine all of the legally binding treaties into a common constitution
@@puraLusa It's literally what's going on right now. Laws change every so often here in Germany because they do not align with EU standards still. I'd ask the question less like "will member states agree to have a constitution above their own?" and rather "will a majority of people be willing to have another constitution above their own?"
2030 is not an unreachable date for Montenegro which is in the most advanced stage of joining EU and doesn't have any big issue unresolved. If EU want to show other countries that they're serious about enlargement this is their opportunity.
@@kjss4345 True, and I agree about Montenegro. But at the same time they'll have veto rights, even though they are small. So it needs some careful thought. I'd love to see Montenegro in EU.
It will be the first non island country/in the continental part to not have a land border with another EU member. Just like how Greece was in the past before Bulgaria joined. Edit: I just rembered that it has a small border with Croatia 😂
We should also not forget that support for the EU in Iceland is the highest in a decade with the majority of the population wanting to join the EU and the pro-Europe parties growing in the surveys
@@flensdude "dictating" that's called governing. To make decision that are overhall better for everyone and since everyone agree sometime to drop somestuff so that all the others drop also some stuff you lose a bit but you get more in the end. It's like taxes, it would be stupid to sugest that taxes should be abolished in a country because everyone know it's essential.
Interestingly, Poland's history shows why some parts of the EU need to be reformed. Way back in the day, Poland had essentially a "House of Lords" where all the nobles would get together and talk about what needed doing. Unfortunately, for the body to take action, motions had to be passed unanimously. This included things like levying taxes and raising/training armies. This basically meant that any lord could hold up important business for the purpose of soliciting bribes. In addition to that, other countries would bribe lords to veto certain measures ensuring that they would never pass until said lord died. Suffice to say, this was a very bad system that ended with Poland being wiped off the map because nothing could get done and/or lords would literally try to kill each other. The USA had a similar situation with their first constitution. It's kinda funny how history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme.
"Keeping countries in the waiting room" is not an accurate representation of reality. It's more like "Reluctance of candidates to meet EU standards on governance, law, and freedom." EU membership is not a "let's meet in the middle" proposition. Membership is an enormous opportunity for a country, and not just economically. It should be a no-brainer. Instead, the ruling elites hold back reforms for fear of losing power, status and corruption income.
Meanwhile Hungary and Poland would both not be allowed in today due to declining into fascism. The EU needs better security to prevent countries from sliding away from democracy.
The EU has already accepted one country as a member despite it being under partial foreign military occupation: Cyprus. But thus far, EU membership has not helped bring about a withdrawal of Turkish troops or explusion of civilian settlers installed by the occupying power. The settler population which currently outnumbers the local pre-occupation population in the occupied part of Cyprus has no automatic right to Cypriot citizenship (and hence EU citizenship). And since Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are in the same situation as Cyprus (all three being partially occupied by Russia), I doubt that the EU will allow them to join as long as they are not in full control of their own territories - EVEN IF those three countries should somehow manage to meet all the criteria for EU membership, notably the criteria concerning transparency in governance and accountability for corruption, which in itself is a daunting task for countries with weak institutions for checks & balances.
Considering the occupying forces of all those countries want those countries to join the EU 💶 that is not really an issue except by perceptions. For all the fabricated reasons for Russia 🐻 doing anything, it does not want to deal with middle men for eternity.
I think expulsion of settlers is kind of unfair. At this point kids will have been born there and lived their whole lives there and they may have grand kids at some stage like in Ni you can’t kick out the settlers
@@gothicgolem2947 I think the situation is comparable to the issue of non-citizenship in Estonia and Latvia. The EU has encouraged those two countries to speed up the integration and naturalization of their non-citizens who are the children and grandchildren of Russian settlers. So who knows, maybe something similar will eventually happen with the settler population living in Cyprus, as well.
I don't know why only Hungary gets mentioned when talking about vote blocking. The Netherlands has done the same to block Romania and bulgaria from shengen but no one talks about them as much. That's blatant discrimination. No wonder some EU members don't feel equal.
Whataboutism will lead you nowhere ! Romania and Bulgaria should have joined Schengen but Hungary and Poland are taking hostage the all bloc because they don't want to be stopped in their anti democratic turn... I do hope Romania and Bulgaria will not be vetoed the next time
@kristofmolnar7106Nop, it's because the hungarians are qeen as a reason of why it's bad to expand too quickly, not because they are opposed to expansion (as far as I know). Nah, you're not used as scapegoats for the failure of the EU that we implemented. You're more like... the kind of pestifered that we wish we could not touch with a stick, and yet becausd of our own foolishness, we have to take decisions with you.
Because in the eyes of many EU citizens, Hungary is pro-Putin, that's why. And Orban has kept many EU subsidies for himself and his friends. Bulgaria is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. That is why the Netherlands voted against it because it wants EU subsidies to be distributed fairly among citizens.
@@Just_another_Euro_dude who are you to say where Bulgaria and Romania belong? They are as European as France, Italy and Sweden. In fact, as much as every EU member state, candidate and to-be candidates.
Going from 100% to 51% would be insane. There are other numbers. 75%, 80% or even 90% would each be closer to unanimity but keep one or two nations from causing everyone else problems.
I agree! but again the question is why should any country within eu have rules enforced against their will by random other countries in the eu? You have to understand that EU countries are not one single country but many individual ones. Allowing the EU to make decisions about the future of your country despite your country being against it seems very odd. Imagine tomorrow germany decided to create a coalition within the EU to over rule france and chance laws that would put france in a worse position. Then france would have no way of stopping OTHER COUNTRIES from dictating those things in france.
@@JohnnieKirkegaard94 then they can leave. The EU is a Project to further unify europe and do stuff in common. If all you want is a economic partnership we can give you that but you don't need to be in europe, if you don't want to help the EU become a stronger force to balance the USA and China then just be like switzerland and let the rest of us unify as we want. What you call a coalition to overull france can only happen if it's the will of the people AND we french still have the option to leave if unhappy. Just like when you are living in a region of a country that doesn't agree with the rulling of the country it's normal not to always agree with the majority it's called democracy. It's a choice, dropping some liberties to ensure we keep them on the long term against outside stronger forces.
Not random, but those which it decided to ally and work together with. It happens all the time. Do you think NAFTA doesn't tie hands of Canada or US if they wanted to introduce environmental protection etc? If you joking any agreement you give up some of your decisions. But that's voluntary
@@JohnnieKirkegaard94 Same issue with States or even large cities in America. Why should a few large urban areas be allowed tell all rural populations how to live? Simply because they have more people? But most of them have little concept of life outside the city.
@@benwest9004 difference of the states and cities is they are part of a united country. The eu nations are not. They are just allies working together economically. Your example of cities and states doesnt work. It would be the equivilant of mexico or canada being able to dictate for USA what to do
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@BlackWater_49 Understand that getting rid of that will make smaller countries subject to the bigger countries. That is of utmost unfairness and cause a break in EU. What we need is a multi tier EU
@@FNDMA No, it won't. If every country got one vote and we'd use simple majority than the size of counties won't matter. But even if we use qualified majority your suggestion won't materialize because this means that 55% of the counties representing 65% of the EU's population would need to agree. So please, stop the baseless feermongering. PS: What on earth do you mean with "multi tier EU"?
As a french who hate Macron (so just a normal one) I still have to agree I like his idea of tier of integration in the EU That way you keep the strong part of the union and let country have a step in it while having room to improve and join the core of the EU
Totally agree, I think it's his best idea yet. And I say that as a Brit that voted to leave. Getting and keeping these countries on-side is important right now. Serbia in particular is a big risk if it became a Russian puppet state, and at the very least if they were surrounded by EU countries they could be forced to back down. Heck, if there were tiers that a country could drop down to, maybe the UK would have never voted to leave, with my vote being one that could have been swayed. Wouldn't apply to the UK, but a second free movement zone like Schengen could be setup amongst those other countries. This alone could really reduce tensions in the Balkans and improve trade across them all. They have already made some small steps towards this with the Open Balkan Initiative, like a separate mobile roaming zone, but more could be done. Georgia, Moldova and maybe Armenia could also be part of such a zone since all are on similar GDP and population levels. Ukraine and Turkey would be tough though, due to their size, they would overwhelm all these other small countries.
A word of caution from the US. We have territories that should be admitted as states. Politics prevent this from happening. If you choose a tier structure take care that a similar problem is not in the design.
"Germany will be the horse and France will be the coach-driver" Charles De Gaulle. When Jean Monnet announced on French radio that the Community would be a federation like the United States the General was aghast he said it should be a Communite Des Etats. He also said UK joining was a mistake as it is fundamentally different, politically and industrially. Vraiment, tojours, on all three counts. The General knew a thing or three. D'accord.
As a Romanian, I hate this idea. Tiered membership just turns it into even more of an old boy's club, where western Europe has one set of rules, and we in the east have a different set of rules (already happens to some degree). We have fulfilled every criteria for joining Schengen long ago, and Austria is still blocking us. I don't want to see an even stronger westward focus in the EU, we already have too much of that.
@@ajx9747 That is false. It is also used as a bribing tool. In European wide policies the veto is just unnecessary and is prone to be misused. For that we have a qualified majority
@@ajx9747Nope, it's mostly used as an hostage tool. And we can always replace it with a qualified super-majority. The Veto is more of a problem than a tool.
@ajx9747 As a Pole I can tell you that Vetos like that tend to cause more problems then benefits xD Pretty much always it is used to stagnate decision making rather than be used in a meaningful way.
problem is all those country's have differing opinions. Serbia would be like a new Hungary as it doesn't consider Europe as friends but Russia and China and it always has. BIH is a mess that we can't clean up 28 after the end of war and rest could be admitted as they are mostly to small to impact anything of essence as they are Euro aligned
There is not even enough support for the EU in Serbia, don't know what they are trying to do there with 30%. Maybe if all members guaranteed Serbia's territorial integrity things would be different. But they don't and i doubt they will in the future.
It would all change overnight if the money gets in the pockets and business opportunities take place, there would be such a fast consensus of neighboring countries, faster than a pack of hyenas after lion kill.
@@IAmAlorel Utter nonsense. Dickriding an autocrat is not „looking out for your citizens“ its betraying your own people. And where does that notion come from that we can only decide between the Russians and the Yanks? What Europe should do is playing out and reinforcing its own strengths to free itself from the grasp of those powers. Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Bulgaria and others, who either openly sympathise with Russia or don’t do enough to detach from it, and all those who slow down progress out of principle, like Germany, do more harm than good with their frontal opposition to anything self-reliant. If they were „looking out for their citizens“ they‘d enable Europe to stand on its own feet without needing soldiers and weaponry from the Americans and gas and oil from the Russians. But that‘s obvioulsy too much to ask for…
As a pro-EU Serb, I'll tell you this: Serbia is the only country that is forced to give up it's territory in order to join, which is a big no-no for most Serbs as expected. The trend goes back to the 99's bombing, to which most EU countries contributed. Serbia has a big problem of brain-drain(smart people moving away), estimated at 50.000 people emigrate yearly. Also the country is basically in a pseudo dictatorship, with 1 person controlling mainstream media, all institutions, basicaly everything. There are freedoms here, it's not as bad as Russia obviously. But this makes a problem of the huge % of low educated citizens, who have wages of literarly 500e/monthly who blindly follow our president and vote for him, because they are completely indoctornated by the media. The oppostion has a hard time of winning because the ruling party regularly steals thousands of votes. Like for example, in Belgrade, the capital, most people are obviously againts him, so he takes people from rural areas, makes pseudo temporary residences in the capital for them. So now they can vote in the Belgrade elections even tho they aren't even from Belgrade. Then he organizes like hundrends of buses on the day of voting brings them to Belgrade and they vote for him, get a sandwich and like 10-20euros in cash. No joke this is actually happening in an European country. And this is not even the biggest scandal, I am sure you Europeans would never believe what kind of crap is happening in this country.
But I'll tell you this, the high educated Serbs are extremely smart, hard working people, one of the best kinds of people. If only the EU would help us get rid of this dictatorship and actually put a decent gouvrement the country would flourish so fast. But I agree this is not the job of the EU but rather Serbias citizens, but the citizens are unhopeful because this situation is happening since the 90s, there was a flash of hope when a pro EU PM was elected after the bombings, but sadly he was assasinated in 2003, that was the death of him and death of a hopeful future.
Very well written, brate. Serbia is in a very complex predicament which I have no idea how it will be solved. I wish I could move back to our family house and live in a prosperous society. However Aca Srbin and his goons are holding our democracy back.
If the 2030 deadline is possible is hard to tell. It's only 7 years from now, but it's better to fall short of an ambitious plan, then to exceed plan without any ambition
if it doesn't fail completely. At some point even the western countries will run out of a need for skilled labourers then where will all the poor men of the new member states go get their money to stimulate their economy at home? Because that is the way it currently works
@@alpacaalpaca2509 my guess is they would return to their home country and help build prosperity via internal growth. Just like it's currently happening with Poland.
I know that a lot of residents of the Balkan countries lost faith in the EU because of the slow progress. And their views on joining shifted from positive to negative
EU is slow sure, but are the Balkan countries any faster? And it's not just about speed, it's about quality as well. If other countries don't like the slow process and don't want to join because of that, then don't. With that view, having a slow process is actually good, if serves as a filter for the impatient.
@@TheRanguna People who don't have a good understanding of governance often think that their problems can just vanish overnight with the right person in charge. Logistics are everything. However, if you're suffering under the crushing weight of poverty and food insecurity, who has time to consider long term growth? Sure, it's worth it, but people can be impatient for a reason.
@@ziqi92I think, considering the amount of help that the EU gives to its poor countries and the anti-coruption stances it has, strugling people should want their gov to try to enter. Trying to enter the EU means the gov is actively trying to solve problems that affect the poor people the most
The EU cannot force any candidate country to meet the Copenhagen Criteria. Each candidate country needs to decide for itself if and when it is ready to meet those criteria. The EU can only provide assistance and guidance and issue recommendations to help speed up the process.
Honestly, if were a EU bureaucrat, I wouldn't let Balkan countries in, including ones currently in. We are all corrupt as hell, we don't contribute and the only reason why we want in is the access to the development funds that our politicians are using to line their pockets for most part. The only reason why EU would want us in is the expansion of the market and economic exploitation and colonization. But even that requires some dose of order and stability, which is non-existent in Balkan countries. And the moment other Balkan countries get accepted, demographic catastrophe will follow, just like it happened in Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia. Millions of people rushing to other countries of EU, further destabilizing and impoverishing their native countries.
The problem though expanding to most of these countries are that they have territorial disputes and the EU doesn't want to inherit any territorial disputes.
@@stumpysolo What makes Russian occupied territories special in comparison to like Turkish occupied territories and similar Foreign occupation is occupation regardless of an country Same goes with territorial disputes
If we want all of europe to remain united we must consider reform and integration. First i think we need to get rid of unanimous voting as it has been shown to be exploited by members for garbage reasons (looking at you Austria) Ehich reminds me, we also have to bring all the current memebers into Schengen and Eurozone as to tie up loose ends before we start using more ropes.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The two major problems are money and security. Just about none of the current net recipients of European funds are at a place where they could become net contributors, and even if their budgets can be shortened by a little, it is the net contributors who will have to carry the brunt of the costs for an expanding Europe. That was one of the reasons for GB to leave the EU. Secondly, the people of western Europe are weary of very conservative nations joining the EU. They fear that such nations just might pull the same stunt as Poland and Hungary (amongst others) to join the EU and then reverse on the agreed upon reforms needed to become a member state. When such countries join the EU, and a reform takes place to agree on policies by majority, their is a real fear of reversal of policies such as abortion, equality and LGBTQ+ rights. Smaller countries like the Netherlands and Sweden will become stuck in a situation where they will have to pay for Europe without having a say in Europe. If, for instance, Ukraine would become a full member state of the EU, they would have 5,5% of the votes in Europe based on their population, while a country like Sweden would have 1,3%. To reach a qualified majority (55% of the member states representing at least 65% of the EU population) the now "rogue states of Europe" would have full blocking power to any major decision. The small contributors (the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Finland) would have no real governing power of their own at all. The expansion of Europe might theoretically sound like necessary and good for Europe, but in reality it is very scary stuff for a lot of countries and their people.
Of course they should not be given membership without progress. But progress is there. Montenegro is in the waiting room for 10 years, despite being at list prepared as Bulgaria or Romania at time of entery. Not only are these countries forced to wait, there isn't a clear timeline. It's not a coincidence that for 10 year there hasn't been a new member while in the 10 before there were over 10 members added. It mostly comes to the EUs whilinges to take new members. I would like to point out that the expansion of 2004 and 2007 were major successes. These has been economically the fastest growing region of the EU, it's finally very stable with low debt. Sure, Hungary and Poland can be bad in many ways, but they are far better inside the EU then if they were outside it. Russia would still have it's sphere of influence with the exception of Poland. Even now it has influence in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. In a situation like that I don't see how Ukraine could fight the war. Balkans need a clear roadmap, do this, this and this and we can close the chapters. I think Russia's Balkan influence would diminish but China's is rising. China has put so much money into Serbia in the hope of getting an ally in Europes doorstep. So far it has proven to be unsuccessful, but that might change. And the issues in the Balkans can be solved with more pressure and incentives, there needs to be a final deal on Kosovo. I had a Balkan Europen integration subject in university. And I read all the reports. Yes I have no life. It's really more of a readiness of the EU then the Balkans. If the EU is ready, remaining reforms can be implemented and it can be done by 2030 with the possible exception of Bosnia and Kosovo that might take longer
A country can have a partner very far away out of foolish pride. But the population only has to travel to their neighbor's house to realize that they are being foolish.
How can there be a clear timeline or a roadmap presented by the EU? It depends on the progress that these candidates make to meet certain criteria. So the only one that can translate this into a timeline or into a roadmap, is the candidate itself, because they will know how long they will take to meet all criteria and how the process if changes will look like. When it comes to deficides in laws, democracy, equality etc., than changes can happen pretty fast, depending on the lawmaking process in that specific country and the will to follow down this path. But thresholds in terms of numbers (stability criteria for example) will need more time. Some of them are hard to achieve with multiple crisis happening one after another. There is no candidate out there - according to what I know at this point - that has met all of the membership criteria and is only sitting there and waiting for the EU to finally act.
Many people felt that the big expansion of 2004 (in particular) was a white elephant, incurring massive costs and problems on the older EU ("the fifteen") by throwing in ten impoverished and often backward former eastern bloc countries. A friend of mine commented at the time: "There is no way the EU will be able to bribe and assuage ten countries to raise them out of deep poverty, upgrade their infrastructure and schools and pour incentive cash over them the way it was done, on a somewhat smaller scale, with Spain and Portugal in the 80s/90s". And he was proved right. It became massively expensive and those countries also siphoned off a great deal of industry jobs from western Europe and Germany. Of course the business sector laughed all the way to the bank and cut gold with knives, but for ordinary people in western and central Europe it was really not a blessing. This wide enlargement happened for political reasons, reasons that were never really discussed in an open and timely way or brought to be approved by the people by debate before ordinary elections.
This time too: a huge thank you for putting subtitles, so that finally NON English-speaker well will have to give up watching the videos on your channel for the umpteenth time.
@@Real_MrDev Because they don't want to have african immigrants inside of their own borders in 2023, after countless proofs that this had been a bad idea, after countless arsons in Paris? Seriously? What's wrong with you.... I'm saying that because Poland doesn't veto anything else, only that... Have immigrants if you want but stop pushing them to countries that have seen what happened to Paris and don't want them. Poland already grants a huge number of visas to people from 3rd world countries, it's just that they come legally.
As someone who lives in Serbia, I can partially agree regarding our situation but the key factor is missing. Although it is true that we flip flop between the EU, Russia and China, we are kind of forced to because we aren't given any solid proof, gesture of good will or paper-bound agreement on EU's behalf, additionally we aren't bound to the single market of the EU therefore we trade with whomever we like. And the MAJOR reason why we aren't pro EU (as we were in the early 2000's) is because we have been blackmailed by the EU to give up our claims on Kosovo (regarding which I personally don't really care about) in order to join the EU, however, the hypocrisy is that for example the Republic of Cyprus didn't have to give up on Republic of Northern Cyprus in order to join the EU and because of that we aren't really keen on doing much because we would give up a lot for an "oral gesture of good will" that we will join the EU, which is, honestly, not Ursula's (or any specific individual's) decision but all member states which means that unless the EU reforms, we WONT be in the EU since Croatia most likely will block us from joining. Basically we are waiting to see if a reform will happen and depending on that we might pursue membership, unless the blackmail still continues.
Let's be honest too, since we bombed you guys, you've been fuming with will of revanch, anti-western sentiments, and pro-russian ones. You're not a democracy, and the main effect of you guys obtaining a veto power in the EU would be to destroy it from within. Because of our own faults and policies, we sadly made it our duty to make sure Serbia never enters the EU, for the sake of our union, our democracies and Ukraine. Same for the republika srpska, maybe pushing for the partition of Bosnia Herzegovina with a full backing of the bosnians both militarily and economically would be the best solution.
Its better to serbia to not have kosovo, else ask spain. They forced basques and catalans to stay in spain and are know bkackmailing the goverment, imagine forcing albanian as a lenguage in goverment in serbia and so on
Croatia is literally one of the countries that are most supportive of Serbia and other Balkan countries joining. Serbia is one of the countries we export the most to and them joining the EU economy would be a huge positive to us. Same goes with Bosnia and Herzegovina too. And that's just the biggest of the many other positives other Balkan countries joining would bring. Pretending like it's just the Kosovo situation and a Croatian "veto" that wouldn't even ever happen that's stopping you rather than your government being one of the most corrupt out there is kinda silly. Sure, there is still some animosity between Croats and Serbs since the war, but they're a minority and most people in Croatia would be more than happy with other Ex-Yu countries joining EU - and as for politicians, many have already made steps towards helping Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina join EU and publicly said multiple times that they want to work further towards that goal. I am all for EU reform and I think there needs to be one before EU expansion, but not because Croatia or any other country would veto new member states - as that definitely wouldn't happen if the state is ready to join, but rather because the time to make any meaningful decisions is already insane and there needs to be a better system in place so corrupt countries like Hungary can't hold so much power over important decisions. I think the first step Serbia can make towards possibly joining is finally removing Vucic from power who is, much like Lukashenko, Putin, and Orban as other examples, pretty much just a step away from being a full-on dictator due to the amount of power he has and the amount of time he's been in office.
@@samimamedov Georgia is not ready to accept EU politics which can affect then like the Refuguees relocation from Africa & Middle East, the aceptance of Gay Marriage from Western Europe to their conservative country, and the loss of judicial Independence to Brussels. They need some years of liberalization and adaptation prior join on EU.
Im not a EU citizen but I strongly believe that the EU needs to resolve its current internal issues before they can expand. Otherwise they are trying to build ontop a poor foundation with will eventually cause massive issues.
@@jonC1208westerners don’t like the authoritarian traits of Poland and Hungary, but would be ok with Ukraine that is much worse in every aspect? I doubt it.
@@pomorackotor because it's a good deal? like no tariffs, better freedom to roam for citizens, better economic growth and stability, etc. it's also a great opportunity for co-operative growth and bringing europe together as a whole
They want to join voluntarily, EU doesn’t point a gun at their heads and forces them to join. They may join and if they don’t like it they may leave just like UK.
I don't know how they'll do it, but if they manage to get the QMV as the new standard, everything will start moving from there. But well, convincing Hungary and Poland to give up veto powers seems impossible. Honestly, this probably should've happened before 2004, and now everyone's paying the price for letting in those two troublemakers.
Make an option for "EU Frontier States". Basicly, partial EU membership. Free trade, loads of assistance, but limited influence and an easier path to leaving (or expulsion).
They tried that around 2000, and NATO did the same, to achieve a belt of "associated friends" who would not have to be in the inner rooms and have a say on the wider deals of these blocs - but the eastern European states in question saw it as demeaning, as being "invited with the elbow", and the US also wanted them to become full members and lobbied for it. Actually I think most of what the EU has been up to over the last 25 years has been misguided and overambitious.
Brexit viewpoint was its all about big control from that central assembly room ( although there may be a few spare seats now ). So 'partial' anything isn't really in the Brussels mindset. Surely anyone can see when tracking the progress of the project over time is that its about super-federalism first & foremost.
personally, i don't think some countries from the East and Southeast of the EU have the same standards as some other countries in the West and North of the EU; i don't think they have the same level of human and civil rights, the same level of democracy and i don't think it is the same model of life. it is possible to have high levels of cooperation with all of the countries named in the video, in various areas, without them becoming EU member states; imho, the EU needs to be reformed, decision-making depends on consensus between states that don't share the same view and don't have the same level, of human and civil rights or democracy, enlargement would make that even worse imho.
The big eastern expansion of the EU twenty years ago (ten new member states in 2004/05, most of which also joined the Euro currency) was seen as a white elephant by lots of common people across the "old EU", and actually criticized by not a few politicians, but the criticism was suppressed and hushed down by the Euro elite who forced through the expansion. Much the same thing happened with the attempt at the same time to give the EU a federalized constitution - well, it fell through due to wide criticism and failed referendums in France and the Netherlands, but much of the content was revamped a few years later by the Lisbon treaty. I think both of these "grand expansions" in scope beg the question: did these leading politicians jump (of their free will, against so many sound critical arguments) or were they pushed (by the US and others)? From today's perspective, it's easy to see the parallel with NATO moving eastwards, which had become an American wish rather than a western European. And the Ukraine war has made it clear that NATO and the EU, as parallel blocs, are more closely entwined than ever before.
The unanimous voting requirement is absolutely stonewalling EU development. I agree with EU leaders that significant reform must take place before the next enlargement. Bureaucracies must also evolve with the times to remain relevant and effective.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stupid remark. Younger UK generations are massively pro-EU and some of the most left leaning in the world. Furthermore, this is about current affairs, an export the UK has done exceptionally well for many decades. Ever heard of the BBC?
The EU is a bit of a clown show in this regard and Im not even sure how they can reform given the catch-22 theyve managed to make: They need unanimous votes to sort out the issues with the union, but the people causing the issues have absolutely no intention of giving the EU their votes to sort out the issues with the union. E.g. there are apparently clauses that can switch to majority voting over treaties, but take a wild stab in the dark what kind of vote you need to activate the clause in the first place...
Is the actor to blame for the screenwriters' idea? "Competent" bureaucrats are not screenwriters, this is anarchic chaos allowed by the screenwriter. Divide and conquer!
Expansion/inclusion of certain countries has become "a moral imperative" okay so it's not gonna happen. Well, I appreciate the candor, and I'm sure plenty of people will be understandably relieved.
I think the EU should first solve it's problems with the veto system and then start a multi-speed europe. After that shure every country that trully wants to enter should be let to.
Exactly. It's waiting for Poland's next national election, really. If PiS is kicked out, the gridlock will finally be broken, and we can get around to reforming the EU's legislative processes to stop one ever forming again. That's when we will be ready for new members.
Those countries don’t meet the criteria and that is it. EU should not lower its standards and must mind their own children before getting more in to mess around.
Did Bulgaria and Romania met the criteria back in 2008? Don’t talk shit. As a someone from Serbia we don’t need the EU If we will look like nowadays Bulgaria 15 years after joining it.
@@nemanjaxBugari i Rumuni so ratni plen Amerikanaca nakon hladonog rata. Srbija nikada nije pala niti ce pasti. Eu je samo nova Austrougarska, znamo kako to zavrsava.. Nikada Srbi nece uci u Eu.
@@BlackWater_49 The EU is already dysfunctional, just they cover it up well. Thats what a large bloc does, it allows politcians to bury decades and even generations of financial abuse of citizens. The bigger the ponzi the longer it can be ran without being recongised as a ponzi.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5:25 - This is where the REAL AGENDA lies. The "Brussels Junta" wants to move to Qualified Majority so that it can run through certain decisions despite protests from any member state, especially in accession of breakaway territories (such as Catalonia). If Spain cannot block Catalonia from joining the EU because accession is changed to only require Qualified Majority, the EU will proceed to balkanize certain member states to increase the power of Brussels, since smaller member states are easier to boss around.
That is just bullshit. A qualified majority is needed, yes, but not because of Catalonian separatism but because of Hungary and Poland blocking vital reforms
Im from Bosnia and Herzegovina, in my opinion privileged partnership is way better option than full membership, and could happen way faster. I cant imagine EU with Balkan leaders and their veto, but also some states were accepted in worse situation than Balkan countries now, and it works well so far. Anyway, even if Western Balkans never join EU, young people will, for studies, for work or both together.
West Balkans countries like Albania Serbia Bosnia... will cease to exist in the future so why not accept them ASAP They won't exist in the future so at least let them die while being EU members
Cheers to you from Serbia my dude. You know how our politicians are, especially Serbian ones (currently). Until this bs is resolved , we're not moving forward. Expect bots to reply to my comment xd
@@karzan995 I am a Serb as well, but from BiH 😁 and generally, I agree. However I am in doubt if we can recover, we lost so many people and it keeps increasing, Жив био! 😁
"Why the EU Needs to Expand" remeber when the same people saying this cried crocodile tears about past expansionism? 'expansionism for me not for thee'
Inviting someone like Serbia to the EU when we already have Hungary? What a great idea, I can't see any problems with literally smaller russia being inside the block.
@kristofmolnar7106 It is already bad, but there's no need to make it worse. And I wouldn't call apologizing your own made genocide, supporting occupants and terrorists and belittling human rights as "differing views" :)
*1. Promotion of peace and stability.* *2. Economic Benefits.* *3. Democratic Values and Humans Right.* *4. Security and Defense.* *5. Culture Exchange diversity.* *6. Geopolitical influences.* *7. Fulfillment of Aspirations.* *8. Strengthening Regional Cooperation.* *9. United with all European Countries INC Balkan.* *10. Never let Ruzzian and belearus inside the Union until the government is restored to democratic value.*
@@No-wr2pb *proceede to democratically elect a candidate* People that don't like Ukraine be like: "Clearly not a democracy" Camoan man, you can't compare Urkaine to literally Belarus or Russia.
The question is wheather or not EU is sort of an....empire? The nature of empires is to grow an expand. Once they stop expanding, they go into decline and die. Sure, it's doing it the peacefull way - probably first one of one of the few existing empires - and with new members wanting to join and working hard to adapt, but is it the same or not? EU will despearatly need miliions of people - new manpower in a couple of years or decades. One way is a complicated migration system, other is anexing new countries.
The eu wasn't so peaceful when its president and foreign affairs commissioner went to Ukraine in 2014 to support the coup against their democratically elected government... How did that turn out for the people of Ukraine??
@@stc3145 There is an elite layer within the EU which aspires to become the basis for a half.official "Euro government", which would be able to push around most smaller or mid-sized member countries. This elite exists both in Brussels and within national governments/political classes - people,who get into politics these days often want to have long careers, longer than they are likely to get on the national level, so therefore they learn to align their goals and their thinking with Brussels long before they might actually be based there. Juncker for example probably had twice as long a career as he could ever have had if he'd been constrained to Luxemburg, a tiny country that's had an influence out of all proportion to its size on the EU political scene. Note: I'm from Scandinavia, so I am not making these points out of a typical UK Brexiteer perspective, but from an anti-federal, anti-"United States of Europe" perspective. The EU level in itself is not democratic, even though most of the member states are democracies.
The European Union should not expand but become smaller again. The EU was at its peak when it consisted of 11 countries. EU citizens were much more involved and there was more unity. Since enlargement, the EU is no longer what it used to be. History shows that every time an empire or union expands, decline also begins.
Great video. Just, why does the EU need to expand? Is it because of Brexit? My last point, aren't these countries in the waiting room so long so to speak, only they're not very democratic are they?
Not exactly, Ukraine is fighting for its survival, and prospecting eastern europe at the same time. I'd gladly see Hungary out, but Ukraine would bring its own problems to the EU, no, not now at least.
The EU should consider Caucasus countries joining their structure. And later they should integrate some Eurasian countries such as Kazakhstan, Tajikistan an others.
@@rafaelrobello9895 BRICS is just alphabets, it’s nothing but heads of states gathering once a year. European Union is an economical and political union. First of all, it’s called EUROPEAN union, not Asian, as far as I know Tajikistan is in Asia. It is supposed to be a union of countries that share a lot and have the same cultural, economical and political goals. There is nothing that a Finn or a Swede share with a Kazakh. These countries can never be a part of something like EU. They are too different.
One day my friend. the first steps to at least economic cooperation were done last year. Very important step, economic partnership will drastically increase over the next years!
Bizi sevmiyorlar. Besides that fact, our population is to big. Türkiye would have the most voting power in the EU if it would be a part of it. The only way Türkiye would be able to join is to brake it apart with a independent Kurdistan, leave Cyprus and maybe lose East Thrace. Türkiye's way forward is together with it's brothers and sisters (Türk kardeşlerimiz) and not with the leeches that'll drain your countries capabilities and brains.
I can't say for the rest of the Balkan countries, but given the situation between Serbia and Kosovo, I can't see either becoming part of the EU anytime soon, regardless of my belief that Kosovo is its own independent country. Also, as much as I'd like to see Georgia become part of the EU, its integration would be nothing short of a logistical nightmare, especially as Turkey has become more and more zealous and extremist over the last few decades.
Because it's the Fourth Reich, offspring of the Third Reich, and as its predecessor it's exactly as imperialist, exactly as fascist and it equally needs Lebensraum. The sooner it breaks down the better for all European people.
As a Croat I can only say that since joining EU we're worse off than before,we lost around 500000 workers to Germany,Austria etc. Also,the corruption is higher than ever,the money from EU funds is used mainly to build unnecessary things like a kindergarten which they build in my town,even though we already had a perfectly good one ,and the only reason they built it was to skim money from it,they actually said that building it cost 900000 euros which is ridiculous because the real figure is around 350000-400000 euros....all in all our EU membership brought us more bad than good.
That seems more like you are electing the wrong people in your country. Th fact your goverment mis uses EU funds is not the fault for the EU. Croatie has deffo grown economically because of the EU
At least you get to take out money... It s tax payers from my country that are funding this... Very few countries are net contributors, most are just leeching on us.
We definitely elect the wrong people but only someone who doesn't live in Croatia can say that we have grown economically lol...tourism is basically the only thing that keeps us afloat,production of almost everything has dropped massively... for example,the region I live in used to produce food for 15 million people and now we can't even feed ourselves.
I few questions regarding a possible expansion to the east: 1. Is it really a good idea to invite more members into the EU with weak economies? We have done this before and the result was a mass import of relatiively cheap labour, which brings down the salaries (or at least stops the salaries from growing) for the existing workers in the developed countries. Also, there was a brain drain in the countries the workforce came from. Neither of these are great scenarios. 2. As a Dane and a country which is part of the Frugal Four (The Frugal Four are 4 countries which all are in the top 5 of the contributors to the EU per citizen. All small countries, so they don't get much political power in return), I have to ask; Who is going to pay for this? The weak economies are probably not going to be net contributors. Meaning either we redistribute the funds we are already working with, or we are going to ask the net contributors to contribute even more, and most likely not get anything in return. 3. The political leanings of these nations, as with most eastern european nations, are mostly conservative and therefore not progressive. If the EU wants to instill progressive culture into the member nations. Is it then really a good idea to invite new members in, who have contradictive veiws? I am aware that being progressive is all about diversity. But as we also know, the diversity that progressivism refers to is only about race, gender and sexuality. Diversity of political views is heavily frowned upon.
The expansion of EU is now about preventing Russia from getting foothold in Europe rather than economy or ideology The war in Ukraine changed everything and there's no going back
I don't think racial diversity, sexual diversity is going to make progress, it's just going to make the country fall behind.Europe is in decline because of Immigration and race diversity. If you look at China and Japan, do they have racial diversity?
As part of the pigs, I agree with you. I love the diversity of political views and I hope we can be better. My biggest goal is to be able to become net contributors soon, take some wight off your shoulders and keep our governments more responsible. (ok, not happening yet, but we are better)
Interesting how you completely disregarded Turkey's candidacy status with paused negotiations. I wonder if it's to push a particular agenda of your own or to avoid controversial reactions.
There is one key reason, and it's not political, it's economic. Demoliden are becoming expensive. Europe needs cheap "untaxed" labour. Not immigrants, but localized labour that takes low wages.
It is. What about this video says otherwise? Moldova and Montenegro might join? Oh shit, well that’s sure told us 😆 Italy and Germany are in terminal demographic decline and Germany is also well down the road to deindustrialising. It’ll become an economic shell of its current self in a few years. Spain and Poland aren’t exactly in the best shape demographically either. The only country in the EU with any real significance that has decent demographics, is France. If you want to be ruled by the French, good luck with that but I’m glad we’re out. The EU needs to federalise or it will die and good luck getting all members to agree to that path.
As an American, many Americans don’t understand just how useful the EU is to us ideologically and economically. It’s highly demanded reform and future expansion is nothing but good news.
As a Canadian, I've always viewed the EU as a potential good influence on the United States... a friendly competitor on the same team, showing the States what's possible. Like Lou Gehrig keeping Babe Ruth from getting slack and soft on the Yankees. LOL I just realized nobody in Europe is going to know what the hell I'm talking about. :D
@@loneprimate Yeah, the problem is the only thing the EU has been competing in with the US is regulation. The EU has been progressively more stagnant since 2008 and the gap in innovation happening between the US (and China) and the EU is only growing wider and wider. At some point the EU needs to wake up, otherwise we'll become completely irrelevant.
As an American you need to work on your critical thinking skills! Why do you think the UK left? The EU is ideologically MORE corrupt than the USA.....and reform has been a conversation that has been happening from the beginning and NOTHING has changed! BTW, they are very anti American business because they cant compete so they keep trying to "shoplift' from us. The Brussels boys are no different from Xi in China!
@@kacperwroblewski3716We say this a lot, but to be honest, the state of the R&D is fairly good, and often excellent in Europe. We don't lack the brains, nor the educated population. Hell, we're also often ahead in terms of advantages in pays and living conditions. Where we seriously lack is, in a dumb way, in the realm of the economical and financial tools, I'm especially thinking about venture capital. We constantly bloom with small startups ideas and technologies. But for too long, we have allowed them to be bought by the US, and let's face it, China. It's how they got their hands on the german solar panels for example. Venture capital is growing, and becoming increas8ngly attractiv. But yeah, it's *really* hard for european companies to get the funancing to become anything else than promissing startups.
The problem with the Austrian FM's speech is that "freedom" and "democracy" aren't commodities. There's a large number of people who do not care for such things; they want stability, social hygiene and money, and they believe authoritarianism is the answer.
Charles Michel is wrong, plain and simple. There is no need to expand the EU in order to survive. No country has a right to join the EU either, candidate or not. If you are worried about Russia, join NATO instead. The main goal of the EU is to keep the peace between member states. That's it. All the rest has been developed to ease tensions between memberstates. That includes Schengen, the Single Market & Customs Union, the Euro, the ECJ and so on. Of course, there is an ambition to build an ever closer union between memberstates, but the reason why is simply peace. Rushing an expansion threatens that peace. Apparently this can be overlooked even by European politicians.
Further enlargement would be make or break; it'd either make the EU the true third global power, or cause its collapse. Changes to the voting sounds great, but unanimity ensures each country doesn't feel held hostage to bigger/more influential players. And those proposed countries have average political and social culture vastly different from the progressive ideals of the Netherlands (for example). Could be a recipe for division. But we might have to take the risk on it.
Before any expansion the EU needs a lot of reforms. I mean even Romania and bulgaria still can't join shengen, so we still have work to do with existing members. All the countries who are candidates to join have serious problems who need to solve them before joining or else they'll bring headache to the EU - Ukraine had a war with Russia - Georgia has two regions occupied by Russia - Moldova has a breakaway state (transnistria) - North Macedonia had problems with Bulgaria and Greece - Serbia has problems with Kosovo - Kosovo isn't even recognized by 5 EU members - Bosnia isn't stable and can fracture anytime - I don't think Greece would be happy to let Albania join Only Montenegro has a chance to join the EU. And forget about turkey it's impossible.
I'd argue that the issues mentioned above regarding Albania and Northern Macedonia could be overcome... not really with ease, but I can see that happening. And I think the main issue with Ukraine (after the war ends) is that the countries with most influence in the EU as of now won't want a new big influential player to deal with. Ukraine would take a lot of seats in the European Parliament, and while I don't see an issue with that, leaderships of those big countries likely will see an issue.
All this rush to have as many members as possible is akin to a marriage barely working and the couple intending to fix said marriage by having children, not realizing that's an additional burden on the relationship itself.
@kristofmolnar7106 every empire eventually collapses and when it does it leaves devastation behind. We found out how uniited the eu is during the covid crisis when eu countries unilaterally closed their borders and were fighting over vaccines. So when the shite hits the fan again, thats when you'll see genuine stresses on the eu and I don't think it will survive.
Reform foes need to happen before any kind if enlargement. Brexit and the rise of the far right has revealed cracks in the EU. I personally think the comissions should be directly elected by EU citizens but that is a controversial opinion that i know many are cautious of. But removing veto powers would go a long way to improving things. EU countries also need to understand that can't just pick and choose what laws and policies they can follow. If they refuse to follow them then they should be punished. I think we all know which countries im referring to here
"the rise of the far right has revealed cracks in the EU" Haha, how clueless can you STILL be and not link the rise of right wing people with the most stupid decisions EU has been enforcing, including turning Paris into a ghetto of burnt cars and destroyed buildings, and r*pe capital, and having Berlin as a dangerous place for women to celebrate Christmas or New Year. STAY CLUELESS, amigo. If you lived one day next to a ghetto neighbourhood with african immigrants you would turn "far-right" too.
Before all of you jump on Macron's integration idea, you have to carefully think of the implications. The potential members will again be treated differently just because they are out of the EU, whereas countries like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia are in while they themselves wouldn't have entered if they were judged by the current criteria. If done so, it will reinforce the belief that the EU is hypocritical and that some Europeans are lesser than others. Most candidate countries are poor and corrupt, but keeping them out for so long just creates frustrations and breeds more corruption. The EU should either start integrating them, or just tell them they won't be integrated at all.
I personally think the EU is at serious risk of failure unless drastic changes are made. Which is unfortunate because I like the idea of the EU.. so much so that Im currently applying to become a citizen of the union. But it would not surprise me if it all collapsed.
@@thearpox7873 you can say what you want, but the EU is Romes true successor! A European Empire. Ironic, Europe unites finally after foreign powers overtake Europe.
ohhhhhh...so now that labor is supposed to become more expensive with the shortage of qualified people around, NOW we need to expand?.....right, need to continue wage-dumping...
my PERSONAL prediction on the expansion of the European Union: By 2030: -Internal reform and overcoming the unanimity mechanism -Entry of Montenegro, Albania and North Macedonia. By 2035 - Entry into the EU of the French overseas collectivities (Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Barth, Wallis et Futuna, French Polynesia and 50% of which could include New Caledonia) and of all 6 Dutch overseas territories (Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Saba, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten). - Entry of Ukraine, Moldova and Bosnia Herzegovina. By 2040 -Return of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. -Entry of Belarus (only in the event of the collapse of the regime with a change of pro-Western government.). -Entry of Serbia and Kosovo (only if the issue is resolved). -Entry of Iceland (After the EU changed the law on exclusive fishing rights to allow the Nordic countries to join). -Cypriot reunification By 2045 -Entry of Switzerland and Norway. -Entry of the British overseas territories (Bermuda, Cayman, Turks and Cacois, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, Falklands, St. Helena-Ascension-Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn). By 2050 - Entry of Cape Verde (allowed for Portuguese sponsorship and for the completion of Macaronesia, As well as for its strategic position in the Atlantic). - Entry of Georgia and Armenia. - Entry of Greenland and Faroe (as independent nations and outermost territories). By 2055 - Entry of Türkiye and Azerbaijan (but only in case of secularism and achievement of the rule of law) -Unification of the microstates (Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Vatican, Andorra, Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands).
Nice, that’s detailed and quite realistic. But I think 2040 is the point when the whole continent should be united to face the obstacles and problems of a crumbling world (that is getting closer and closer to Dark Ages 2.0 dystopia).
I think that is overestimating the EU 💶, assuming no major crisis happens to crisis shock it into progress. Though in that event major reforms could pass, such as: • Gaining union territory (run by the EU itself) for the EU • Centralisation of adoption (the world is pretty pathetic on this issue right now) • Removing the democracy restriction on member states (especially if the USA becomes undemocratic, meaning the EU has no real reason to keep it and a lot to gain by not) • Adding in a military constitution that among other things prevents waging unprovoked holy wars to convert the world to humanitarianism, which also nigh certainly means peace ☮🕊 Russia 🐻 • Creating an unlanded state for the EU's military (probably a small thing, mostly to deal with internal issues and coordinate member state militaries) • Economising the EU's military and having it do stuff for the EU • Gaining eminent domain powers over member state's land • Gaining some pro-patriotism things like having a public broadcaster or making a unified European history cirriculum
EU reform before expansion sounds like a good idea.
The EU is incapable of meaningful reform
Yes. If we expand now we could collapse under our own weight. The candidates have to wait and meet our requirements. Perhaps we should also look inwards to those not up to standards like Hungary.
I think that EU bureaucracy needs a harsh time limits. Otherwise, something that can be done in a couple of years to accomplish, will take decades for drafting a plan.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Before all you people chatter on about the EU go compare the last 25 years between the USA and the EU, you will be shocked how Europe has declined in almost every economic metric, IMF Figures not mine. So much so that even the poorest States in the USA are better off than the French and they pay lower taxes. If the EU had been a success and improved the standard of living across Europe it would not be in the terminal mess it in. But it has been a dreadful failure.
The most difficult part is for the EU to agree what kind of reforms that will happen. That will be extremely difficult...
I see everyone saying reform is needed but little about what that reform is.
It's always extremely difficult to do treaty reforms in the EU, but they always seem to find a way, usually by locking them in a dungeon until they all come to an agreement lol.
I feel serious talks on treaty change needs to start happening around 2025, if we keep delaying it, those countries that want to join the EU will eventually give up on the idea of EU membership and will look elseware, worse yet, the EU is making it difficult for these countries to reform themselves so they can become members of the EU, the EU is giving little to no hope that the door on EU membership is even open, regardless of what reforms those countries do, that's a major issue, because without hope, it's hard for these countries to get the political and public will to do the reforms needed to join, worse yet, if the door stays firmly shut, these countries will eventually lose interest and look at other alternatives, or worse, some might become authoritarian like Turkey did.
So yes, the EU needs to do a lot of reforms and before 2030, but it also needs to send a strong credible message that the door to EU membership is open, based on merit, whereas at the moment, many of these countries feel that it doesn't matter what reforms they do, the door is still firmly shut with the EU Commission being the major problem here, they are sending the wrong message to these countries which the likes of Russia and China are taking advantage off.
@@danharold3087here are a few common ones:
•remove the veto power
•reform the way we elect the Commission President
•give the Parliament the power to initiate legislation
•increase the number of MEPs to make the Parliament more representative
•combine all of the legally binding treaties into a common constitution
@@AstroTheFunguscomon constitution?!?! Do u think member states are willing to have a constitution above their own?
@@puraLusa It's literally what's going on right now. Laws change every so often here in Germany because they do not align with EU standards still. I'd ask the question less like "will member states agree to have a constitution above their own?" and rather "will a majority of people be willing to have another constitution above their own?"
2030 is not an unreachable date for Montenegro which is in the most advanced stage of joining EU and doesn't have any big issue unresolved. If EU want to show other countries that they're serious about enlargement this is their opportunity.
Montenegro has 500thousand people they can integrate into the city of Berlin without anyone even knowing 😂
@@kjss4345 exactly 🤣
@@kjss4345 True, and I agree about Montenegro.
But at the same time they'll have veto rights, even though they are small. So it needs some careful thought.
I'd love to see Montenegro in EU.
It will be the first non island country/in the continental part to not have a land border with another EU member. Just like how Greece was in the past before Bulgaria joined.
Edit: I just rembered that it has a small border with Croatia 😂
@@hamlet557 It has a short land border with Croatia around 18km
We should also not forget that support for the EU in Iceland is the highest in a decade with the majority of the population wanting to join the EU and the pro-Europe parties growing in the surveys
They wanted to join once, but when it came to fishing they said no. If i were an icelander i would also say: thanks no
I hope Iceland steers clear of joining the EU.
Wouldn't want EU dictating the Icelandic "gold mine" that is their fishing industry.
@@flensdude "dictating" that's called governing. To make decision that are overhall better for everyone and since everyone agree sometime to drop somestuff so that all the others drop also some stuff you lose a bit but you get more in the end.
It's like taxes, it would be stupid to sugest that taxes should be abolished in a country because everyone know it's essential.
That's interesting for sure.
I hope Iceland joins in, Europe is our common homeland
Interestingly, Poland's history shows why some parts of the EU need to be reformed. Way back in the day, Poland had essentially a "House of Lords" where all the nobles would get together and talk about what needed doing. Unfortunately, for the body to take action, motions had to be passed unanimously. This included things like levying taxes and raising/training armies.
This basically meant that any lord could hold up important business for the purpose of soliciting bribes. In addition to that, other countries would bribe lords to veto certain measures ensuring that they would never pass until said lord died.
Suffice to say, this was a very bad system that ended with Poland being wiped off the map because nothing could get done and/or lords would literally try to kill each other.
The USA had a similar situation with their first constitution. It's kinda funny how history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme.
I'd like to point out that Poland had more than 150 nobles who could veto, whereas enlarged EU would only have 30-35.
@@liborkundrat185 Are you seriously implying that 30-35 countries would be easier to wrangle than 150 nobles?
@@weeabooman2867Hahahaha but small number is smaller than bigger number
@@weeabooman2867 I think a country would be harder to bribe than a lord...
@@jeebusk Literally the only thing Europeans have in common is a mutual condescension towards America
"Keeping countries in the waiting room" is not an accurate representation of reality. It's more like "Reluctance of candidates to meet EU standards on governance, law, and freedom."
EU membership is not a "let's meet in the middle" proposition. Membership is an enormous opportunity for a country, and not just economically. It should be a no-brainer. Instead, the ruling elites hold back reforms for fear of losing power, status and corruption income.
yea right, romania and bulgaria were accepted on the basis of meeting the EU standards, not on purely political grounds… talking about hypocrisy
Exactly many candidates get upset when other countries join, while 'they have been waiting for much longer'. They just don't get it
@@sonneh86 these days all you need is shared border with Russia and you get a free pass
@@sonneh86 It has nothing to do with time, you meet the requirements, or you don't
Meanwhile Hungary and Poland would both not be allowed in today due to declining into fascism. The EU needs better security to prevent countries from sliding away from democracy.
The EU has already accepted one country as a member despite it being under partial foreign military occupation: Cyprus. But thus far, EU membership has not helped bring about a withdrawal of Turkish troops or explusion of civilian settlers installed by the occupying power. The settler population which currently outnumbers the local pre-occupation population in the occupied part of Cyprus has no automatic right to Cypriot citizenship (and hence EU citizenship).
And since Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are in the same situation as Cyprus (all three being partially occupied by Russia), I doubt that the EU will allow them to join as long as they are not in full control of their own territories - EVEN IF those three countries should somehow manage to meet all the criteria for EU membership, notably the criteria concerning transparency in governance and accountability for corruption, which in itself is a daunting task for countries with weak institutions for checks & balances.
Cyprus is one reasons that rule exists.
Considering the occupying forces of all those countries want those countries to join the EU 💶 that is not really an issue except by perceptions.
For all the fabricated reasons for Russia 🐻 doing anything, it does not want to deal with middle men for eternity.
I think expulsion of settlers is kind of unfair. At this point kids will have been born there and lived their whole lives there and they may have grand kids at some stage like in Ni you can’t kick out the settlers
@@gothicgolem2947 I think the situation is comparable to the issue of non-citizenship in Estonia and Latvia. The EU has encouraged those two countries to speed up the integration and naturalization of their non-citizens who are the children and grandchildren of Russian settlers. So who knows, maybe something similar will eventually happen with the settler population living in Cyprus, as well.
Cyprus also isn't even in Europe, which continues to not make any sense.
I don't know why only Hungary gets mentioned when talking about vote blocking. The Netherlands has done the same to block Romania and bulgaria from shengen but no one talks about them as much. That's blatant discrimination. No wonder some EU members don't feel equal.
Whataboutism will lead you nowhere ! Romania and Bulgaria should have joined Schengen but Hungary and Poland are taking hostage the all bloc because they don't want to be stopped in their anti democratic turn...
I do hope Romania and Bulgaria will not be vetoed the next time
@kristofmolnar7106Nop, it's because the hungarians are qeen as a reason of why it's bad to expand too quickly, not because they are opposed to expansion (as far as I know).
Nah, you're not used as scapegoats for the failure of the EU that we implemented.
You're more like... the kind of pestifered that we wish we could not touch with a stick, and yet becausd of our own foolishness, we have to take decisions with you.
Because in the eyes of many EU citizens, Hungary is pro-Putin, that's why. And Orban has kept many EU subsidies for himself and his friends. Bulgaria is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. That is why the Netherlands voted against it because it wants EU subsidies to be distributed fairly among citizens.
Netherlands has stopped it for Romania, only Austria is left
@@Just_another_Euro_dude who are you to say where Bulgaria and Romania belong? They are as European as France, Italy and Sweden. In fact, as much as every EU member state, candidate and to-be candidates.
Going from 100% to 51% would be insane. There are other numbers. 75%, 80% or even 90% would each be closer to unanimity but keep one or two nations from causing everyone else problems.
I agree! but again the question is why should any country within eu have rules enforced against their will by random other countries in the eu? You have to understand that EU countries are not one single country but many individual ones. Allowing the EU to make decisions about the future of your country despite your country being against it seems very odd. Imagine tomorrow germany decided to create a coalition within the EU to over rule france and chance laws that would put france in a worse position. Then france would have no way of stopping OTHER COUNTRIES from dictating those things in france.
@@JohnnieKirkegaard94 then they can leave. The EU is a Project to further unify europe and do stuff in common. If all you want is a economic partnership we can give you that but you don't need to be in europe, if you don't want to help the EU become a stronger force to balance the USA and China then just be like switzerland and let the rest of us unify as we want.
What you call a coalition to overull france can only happen if it's the will of the people AND we french still have the option to leave if unhappy. Just like when you are living in a region of a country that doesn't agree with the rulling of the country it's normal not to always agree with the majority it's called democracy. It's a choice, dropping some liberties to ensure we keep them on the long term against outside stronger forces.
Not random, but those which it decided to ally and work together with.
It happens all the time. Do you think NAFTA doesn't tie hands of Canada or US if they wanted to introduce environmental protection etc? If you joking any agreement you give up some of your decisions.
But that's voluntary
@@JohnnieKirkegaard94 Same issue with States or even large cities in America. Why should a few large urban areas be allowed tell all rural populations how to live? Simply because they have more people? But most of them have little concept of life outside the city.
@@benwest9004 difference of the states and cities is they are part of a united country. The eu nations are not. They are just allies working together economically.
Your example of cities and states doesnt work. It would be the equivilant of mexico or canada being able to dictate for USA what to do
No. the EU needs a total reform before it expands further.
Agreed. We have get rid of the unanimity principle first, otherwise we risk the EU becoming totally dysfunctional which would be really bad.
David Cameron tried to do that. It didn't end well.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@BlackWater_49 Understand that getting rid of that will make smaller countries subject to the bigger countries. That is of utmost unfairness and cause a break in EU. What we need is a multi tier EU
@@FNDMA No, it won't. If every country got one vote and we'd use simple majority than the size of counties won't matter.
But even if we use qualified majority your suggestion won't materialize because this means that 55% of the counties representing 65% of the EU's population would need to agree.
So please, stop the baseless feermongering.
PS: What on earth do you mean with "multi tier EU"?
As a french who hate Macron (so just a normal one) I still have to agree I like his idea of tier of integration in the EU
That way you keep the strong part of the union and let country have a step in it while having room to improve and join the core of the EU
Totally agree, I think it's his best idea yet. And I say that as a Brit that voted to leave. Getting and keeping these countries on-side is important right now. Serbia in particular is a big risk if it became a Russian puppet state, and at the very least if they were surrounded by EU countries they could be forced to back down. Heck, if there were tiers that a country could drop down to, maybe the UK would have never voted to leave, with my vote being one that could have been swayed.
Wouldn't apply to the UK, but a second free movement zone like Schengen could be setup amongst those other countries. This alone could really reduce tensions in the Balkans and improve trade across them all. They have already made some small steps towards this with the Open Balkan Initiative, like a separate mobile roaming zone, but more could be done. Georgia, Moldova and maybe Armenia could also be part of such a zone since all are on similar GDP and population levels. Ukraine and Turkey would be tough though, due to their size, they would overwhelm all these other small countries.
A word of caution from the US. We have territories that should be admitted as states. Politics prevent this from happening. If you choose a tier structure take care that a similar problem is not in the design.
Kinda sounds like colonies if you have hierarchical tiers of territories.
"Germany will be the horse and France will be the coach-driver" Charles De Gaulle.
When Jean Monnet announced on French radio that the Community would be a federation like the United States the General was aghast he said it should be a Communite Des Etats.
He also said UK joining was a mistake as it is fundamentally different, politically and industrially.
Vraiment, tojours, on all three counts.
The General knew a thing or three. D'accord.
As a Romanian, I hate this idea. Tiered membership just turns it into even more of an old boy's club, where western Europe has one set of rules, and we in the east have a different set of rules (already happens to some degree).
We have fulfilled every criteria for joining Schengen long ago, and Austria is still blocking us. I don't want to see an even stronger westward focus in the EU, we already have too much of that.
Definitely has to happen but we seriously need to get rid of the veto in overarching policies like foreign relations and external borders
Veto protects the interest of small countries
@@ajx9747 That is false. It is also used as a bribing tool. In European wide policies the veto is just unnecessary and is prone to be misused. For that we have a qualified majority
@@ajx9747Nope, it's mostly used as an hostage tool.
And we can always replace it with a qualified super-majority.
The Veto is more of a problem than a tool.
@@ajx9747are you polish/hungarian?
@ajx9747
As a Pole I can tell you that Vetos like that tend to cause more problems then benefits xD
Pretty much always it is used to stagnate decision making rather than be used in a meaningful way.
problem is all those country's have differing opinions. Serbia would be like a new Hungary as it doesn't consider Europe as friends but Russia and China and it always has. BIH is a mess that we can't clean up 28 after the end of war and rest could be admitted as they are mostly to small to impact anything of essence as they are Euro aligned
There is not even enough support for the EU in Serbia, don't know what they are trying to do there with 30%. Maybe if all members guaranteed Serbia's territorial integrity things would be different. But they don't and i doubt they will in the future.
It would all change overnight if the money gets in the pockets and business opportunities take place, there would be such a fast consensus of neighboring countries, faster than a pack of hyenas after lion kill.
Austria doesn't get enough mention as a Putin-curious country. Austrian sympathy and support towards Russia is as worrisome as Hungary's.
The only two countries in Europe looking out for their citizens' interests and not the Yanks'.
@@IAmAlorel Utter nonsense. Dickriding an autocrat is not „looking out for your citizens“ its betraying your own people.
And where does that notion come from that we can only decide between the Russians and the Yanks? What Europe should do is playing out and reinforcing its own strengths to free itself from the grasp of those powers.
Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Bulgaria and others, who either openly sympathise with Russia or don’t do enough to detach from it, and all those who slow down progress out of principle, like Germany, do more harm than good with their frontal opposition to anything self-reliant.
If they were „looking out for their citizens“ they‘d enable Europe to stand on its own feet without needing soldiers and weaponry from the Americans and gas and oil from the Russians. But that‘s obvioulsy too much to ask for…
Austria is indeed heavily infiltrated by Russian propaganda and secret service
As a pro-EU Serb, I'll tell you this: Serbia is the only country that is forced to give up it's territory in order to join, which is a big no-no for most Serbs as expected. The trend goes back to the 99's bombing, to which most EU countries contributed. Serbia has a big problem of brain-drain(smart people moving away), estimated at 50.000 people emigrate yearly. Also the country is basically in a pseudo dictatorship, with 1 person controlling mainstream media, all institutions, basicaly everything. There are freedoms here, it's not as bad as Russia obviously. But this makes a problem of the huge % of low educated citizens, who have wages of literarly 500e/monthly who blindly follow our president and vote for him, because they are completely indoctornated by the media. The oppostion has a hard time of winning because the ruling party regularly steals thousands of votes.
Like for example, in Belgrade, the capital, most people are obviously againts him, so he takes people from rural areas, makes pseudo temporary residences in the capital for them. So now they can vote in the Belgrade elections even tho they aren't even from Belgrade. Then he organizes like hundrends of buses on the day of voting brings them to Belgrade and they vote for him, get a sandwich and like 10-20euros in cash. No joke this is actually happening in an European country. And this is not even the biggest scandal, I am sure you Europeans would never believe what kind of crap is happening in this country.
But I'll tell you this, the high educated Serbs are extremely smart, hard working people, one of the best kinds of people. If only the EU would help us get rid of this dictatorship and actually put a decent gouvrement the country would flourish so fast. But I agree this is not the job of the EU but rather Serbias citizens, but the citizens are unhopeful because this situation is happening since the 90s, there was a flash of hope when a pro EU PM was elected after the bombings, but sadly he was assasinated in 2003, that was the death of him and death of a hopeful future.
Find a job in the EU and get out of Serbia. It isn't your fault, you can't fix Serbia.
Very well written, brate. Serbia is in a very complex predicament which I have no idea how it will be solved. I wish I could move back to our family house and live in a prosperous society. However Aca Srbin and his goons are holding our democracy back.
If the 2030 deadline is possible is hard to tell. It's only 7 years from now, but it's better to fall short of an ambitious plan, then to exceed plan without any ambition
Indeed
Can definitely do the western balkans by then
if it doesn't fail completely. At some point even the western countries will run out of a need for skilled labourers then where will all the poor men of the new member states go get their money to stimulate their economy at home? Because that is the way it currently works
@@alpacaalpaca2509 my guess is they would return to their home country and help build prosperity via internal growth. Just like it's currently happening with Poland.
jesus 2030 is only 7 years away... time really flies
I know that a lot of residents of the Balkan countries lost faith in the EU because of the slow progress. And their views on joining shifted from positive to negative
EU is slow sure, but are the Balkan countries any faster?
And it's not just about speed, it's about quality as well.
If other countries don't like the slow process and don't want to join because of that, then don't.
With that view, having a slow process is actually good, if serves as a filter for the impatient.
@@TheRanguna People who don't have a good understanding of governance often think that their problems can just vanish overnight with the right person in charge. Logistics are everything. However, if you're suffering under the crushing weight of poverty and food insecurity, who has time to consider long term growth? Sure, it's worth it, but people can be impatient for a reason.
@@ziqi92I think, considering the amount of help that the EU gives to its poor countries and the anti-coruption stances it has, strugling people should want their gov to try to enter.
Trying to enter the EU means the gov is actively trying to solve problems that affect the poor people the most
The EU cannot force any candidate country to meet the Copenhagen Criteria. Each candidate country needs to decide for itself if and when it is ready to meet those criteria. The EU can only provide assistance and guidance and issue recommendations to help speed up the process.
Honestly, if were a EU bureaucrat, I wouldn't let Balkan countries in, including ones currently in. We are all corrupt as hell, we don't contribute and the only reason why we want in is the access to the development funds that our politicians are using to line their pockets for most part. The only reason why EU would want us in is the expansion of the market and economic exploitation and colonization. But even that requires some dose of order and stability, which is non-existent in Balkan countries. And the moment other Balkan countries get accepted, demographic catastrophe will follow, just like it happened in Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia. Millions of people rushing to other countries of EU, further destabilizing and impoverishing their native countries.
The problem though expanding to most of these countries are that they have territorial disputes and the EU doesn't want to inherit any territorial disputes.
That is why Croatia, Spain, Slovenia, UK (in the past) and Cyprus have became full EU and Schengen members despite having many territorial disputes...
@@kostam.1113but they were at least not under Russian occupation, like territories of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldavia
@@stumpysolo What makes Russian occupied territories special in comparison to like Turkish occupied territories and similar
Foreign occupation is occupation regardless of an country
Same goes with territorial disputes
If we want all of europe to remain united we must consider reform and integration.
First i think we need to get rid of unanimous voting as it has been shown to be exploited by members for garbage reasons (looking at you Austria)
Ehich reminds me, we also have to bring all the current memebers into Schengen and Eurozone as to tie up loose ends before we start using more ropes.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Austria is a netpayer plus EU migration policy is not working
So it is in a very strong position
@@goenzoyit's bullshit
Maye a idea to ask the people if thats what they want first, its called democracy and thats something thats in short supply in the EU
No voting, no democracy. So that's how it works.
The two major problems are money and security. Just about none of the current net recipients of European funds are at a place where they could become net contributors, and even if their budgets can be shortened by a little, it is the net contributors who will have to carry the brunt of the costs for an expanding Europe. That was one of the reasons for GB to leave the EU.
Secondly, the people of western Europe are weary of very conservative nations joining the EU. They fear that such nations just might pull the same stunt as Poland and Hungary (amongst others) to join the EU and then reverse on the agreed upon reforms needed to become a member state. When such countries join the EU, and a reform takes place to agree on policies by majority, their is a real fear of reversal of policies such as abortion, equality and LGBTQ+ rights. Smaller countries like the Netherlands and Sweden will become stuck in a situation where they will have to pay for Europe without having a say in Europe. If, for instance, Ukraine would become a full member state of the EU, they would have 5,5% of the votes in Europe based on their population, while a country like Sweden would have 1,3%. To reach a qualified majority (55% of the member states representing at least 65% of the EU population) the now "rogue states of Europe" would have full blocking power to any major decision. The small contributors (the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Finland) would have no real governing power of their own at all. The expansion of Europe might theoretically sound like necessary and good for Europe, but in reality it is very scary stuff for a lot of countries and their people.
And what about Malta with just half a million people?
Considering how well the UK is doing outside the EU, good luck with that.
How well? 2/3 of British want back
Of course they should not be given membership without progress. But progress is there. Montenegro is in the waiting room for 10 years, despite being at list prepared as Bulgaria or Romania at time of entery. Not only are these countries forced to wait, there isn't a clear timeline. It's not a coincidence that for 10 year there hasn't been a new member while in the 10 before there were over 10 members added. It mostly comes to the EUs whilinges to take new members.
I would like to point out that the expansion of 2004 and 2007 were major successes. These has been economically the fastest growing region of the EU, it's finally very stable with low debt. Sure, Hungary and Poland can be bad in many ways, but they are far better inside the EU then if they were outside it. Russia would still have it's sphere of influence with the exception of Poland. Even now it has influence in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. In a situation like that I don't see how Ukraine could fight the war.
Balkans need a clear roadmap, do this, this and this and we can close the chapters. I think Russia's Balkan influence would diminish but China's is rising. China has put so much money into Serbia in the hope of getting an ally in Europes doorstep. So far it has proven to be unsuccessful, but that might change.
And the issues in the Balkans can be solved with more pressure and incentives, there needs to be a final deal on Kosovo.
I had a Balkan Europen integration subject in university. And I read all the reports. Yes I have no life. It's really more of a readiness of the EU then the Balkans. If the EU is ready, remaining reforms can be implemented and it can be done by 2030 with the possible exception of Bosnia and Kosovo that might take longer
A country can have a partner very far away out of foolish pride. But the population only has to travel to their neighbor's house to realize that they are being foolish.
How can there be a clear timeline or a roadmap presented by the EU? It depends on the progress that these candidates make to meet certain criteria. So the only one that can translate this into a timeline or into a roadmap, is the candidate itself, because they will know how long they will take to meet all criteria and how the process if changes will look like.
When it comes to deficides in laws, democracy, equality etc., than changes can happen pretty fast, depending on the lawmaking process in that specific country and the will to follow down this path. But thresholds in terms of numbers (stability criteria for example) will need more time. Some of them are hard to achieve with multiple crisis happening one after another. There is no candidate out there - according to what I know at this point - that has met all of the membership criteria and is only sitting there and waiting for the EU to finally act.
Many people felt that the big expansion of 2004 (in particular) was a white elephant, incurring massive costs and problems on the older EU ("the fifteen") by throwing in ten impoverished and often backward former eastern bloc countries. A friend of mine commented at the time: "There is no way the EU will be able to bribe and assuage ten countries to raise them out of deep poverty, upgrade their infrastructure and schools and pour incentive cash over them the way it was done, on a somewhat smaller scale, with Spain and Portugal in the 80s/90s". And he was proved right. It became massively expensive and those countries also siphoned off a great deal of industry jobs from western Europe and Germany. Of course the business sector laughed all the way to the bank and cut gold with knives, but for ordinary people in western and central Europe it was really not a blessing. This wide enlargement happened for political reasons, reasons that were never really discussed in an open and timely way or brought to be approved by the people by debate before ordinary elections.
This time too: a huge thank you for putting subtitles, so that finally NON English-speaker well will have to give up watching the videos on your channel for the umpteenth time.
Gotta love when "skip to highlight" on sponsorblock leads to the end of the video. Nuff said.
EU can enlarge but they need a mechanism to kick members out.
"keep members out"?
Which members and out of where?
@@TheRangunaI think he means kick out like Hungary who are holding them back
@@TheRangunaHungary, Poland and soon Slovakia too.
Multi-speed EU then?
@@Real_MrDev Because they don't want to have african immigrants inside of their own borders in 2023, after countless proofs that this had been a bad idea, after countless arsons in Paris? Seriously? What's wrong with you.... I'm saying that because Poland doesn't veto anything else, only that... Have immigrants if you want but stop pushing them to countries that have seen what happened to Paris and don't want them. Poland already grants a huge number of visas to people from 3rd world countries, it's just that they come legally.
As someone who lives in Serbia, I can partially agree regarding our situation but the key factor is missing.
Although it is true that we flip flop between the EU, Russia and China, we are kind of forced to because we aren't given any solid proof, gesture of good will or paper-bound agreement on EU's behalf, additionally we aren't bound to the single market of the EU therefore we trade with whomever we like. And the MAJOR reason why we aren't pro EU (as we were in the early 2000's) is because we have been blackmailed by the EU to give up our claims on Kosovo (regarding which I personally don't really care about) in order to join the EU, however, the hypocrisy is that for example the Republic of Cyprus didn't have to give up on Republic of Northern Cyprus in order to join the EU and because of that we aren't really keen on doing much because we would give up a lot for an "oral gesture of good will" that we will join the EU, which is, honestly, not Ursula's (or any specific individual's) decision but all member states which means that unless the EU reforms, we WONT be in the EU since Croatia most likely will block us from joining. Basically we are waiting to see if a reform will happen and depending on that we might pursue membership, unless the blackmail still continues.
Let's be honest too, since we bombed you guys, you've been fuming with will of revanch, anti-western sentiments, and pro-russian ones. You're not a democracy, and the main effect of you guys obtaining a veto power in the EU would be to destroy it from within.
Because of our own faults and policies, we sadly made it our duty to make sure Serbia never enters the EU, for the sake of our union, our democracies and Ukraine. Same for the republika srpska, maybe pushing for the partition of Bosnia Herzegovina with a full backing of the bosnians both militarily and economically would be the best solution.
Its better to serbia to not have kosovo, else ask spain.
They forced basques and catalans to stay in spain and are know bkackmailing the goverment, imagine forcing albanian as a lenguage in goverment in serbia and so on
I'm hoping Serbia will be allowed to join ASEAN, that would be a true power move
Croatia is literally one of the countries that are most supportive of Serbia and other Balkan countries joining. Serbia is one of the countries we export the most to and them joining the EU economy would be a huge positive to us. Same goes with Bosnia and Herzegovina too. And that's just the biggest of the many other positives other Balkan countries joining would bring.
Pretending like it's just the Kosovo situation and a Croatian "veto" that wouldn't even ever happen that's stopping you rather than your government being one of the most corrupt out there is kinda silly.
Sure, there is still some animosity between Croats and Serbs since the war, but they're a minority and most people in Croatia would be more than happy with other Ex-Yu countries joining EU - and as for politicians, many have already made steps towards helping Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina join EU and publicly said multiple times that they want to work further towards that goal.
I am all for EU reform and I think there needs to be one before EU expansion, but not because Croatia or any other country would veto new member states - as that definitely wouldn't happen if the state is ready to join, but rather because the time to make any meaningful decisions is already insane and there needs to be a better system in place so corrupt countries like Hungary can't hold so much power over important decisions.
I think the first step Serbia can make towards possibly joining is finally removing Vucic from power who is, much like Lukashenko, Putin, and Orban as other examples, pretty much just a step away from being a full-on dictator due to the amount of power he has and the amount of time he's been in office.
It doesn't, fix inside, only then expand.
Turkey should never be allowed into the EU.
Same with Ukraine, Georgia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Albania, they aren't ready too!
@@herluisalvarado8366actually georgia is ready.
Why exactly did you say "not ready"?
@@samimamedov Georgia is not ready to accept EU politics which can affect then like the Refuguees relocation from Africa & Middle East, the aceptance of Gay Marriage from Western Europe to their conservative country, and the loss of judicial Independence to Brussels. They need some years of liberalization and adaptation prior join on EU.
Im not a EU citizen but I strongly believe that the EU needs to resolve its current internal issues before they can expand. Otherwise they are trying to build ontop a poor foundation with will eventually cause massive issues.
i think the title is quite opinionated. i think something like "does the EU need to expand?" could be better
They have to say yes to ukraine and once ukraine enters it wiol be really difficult to say no to other countries
Because the channel is pro eu.
@@jonC1208westerners don’t like the authoritarian traits of Poland and Hungary, but would be ok with Ukraine that is much worse in every aspect? I doubt it.
Why you think people want to join EU? I would like to be part of south America😂
@@pomorackotor because it's a good deal? like no tariffs, better freedom to roam for citizens, better economic growth and stability, etc. it's also a great opportunity for co-operative growth and bringing europe together as a whole
EU expansion is a great idea. The sooner it expands, the sooner EU collapses.
as a Serbian i say, thanks but no thanks to the EU, the government wants it but if you ask the population a lot more dont want to join
I second that. Wouldn't mind Schengen or free trade agreements though.
@@atanasijesimic4651 You won't pick and choose. That's not on the table
The feeling is mutual, we have enough problems with Hungary and Poland.
@@trthib You don't get to pick and choose either. If Serbian EU membership is on the table who are you to say trade agreements arent? Dumbass
@@trthib why not, in the end the people are the country and they should decide what they want
Expanding is something empires do.
You need to ASK in order to enter EU, something Empires don't do when they annex other countries. Don't embarass yourself by looking stupid.
They want to join voluntarily, EU doesn’t point a gun at their heads and forces them to join. They may join and if they don’t like it they may leave just like UK.
You put Kaliningrad in the EU in your thumbnail
EU should start by not replacing Europeans by Africans and Arabs and support native European population to have more children.
There are also Asian immigrants, many immigrants from East Asia and South Asia.
I don't know how they'll do it, but if they manage to get the QMV as the new standard, everything will start moving from there. But well, convincing Hungary and Poland to give up veto powers seems impossible. Honestly, this probably should've happened before 2004, and now everyone's paying the price for letting in those two troublemakers.
Make an option for "EU Frontier States". Basicly, partial EU membership. Free trade, loads of assistance, but limited influence and an easier path to leaving (or expulsion).
They tried that around 2000, and NATO did the same, to achieve a belt of "associated friends" who would not have to be in the inner rooms and have a say on the wider deals of these blocs - but the eastern European states in question saw it as demeaning, as being "invited with the elbow", and the US also wanted them to become full members and lobbied for it. Actually I think most of what the EU has been up to over the last 25 years has been misguided and overambitious.
Brexit viewpoint was its all about big control from that central assembly room ( although there may be a few spare seats now ). So 'partial' anything isn't really in the Brussels mindset. Surely anyone can see when tracking the progress of the project over time is that its about super-federalism first & foremost.
personally, i don't think some countries from the East and Southeast of the EU have the same standards as some other countries in the West and North of the EU; i don't think they have the same level of human and civil rights, the same level of democracy and i don't think it is the same model of life.
it is possible to have high levels of cooperation with all of the countries named in the video, in various areas, without them becoming EU member states; imho, the EU needs to be reformed, decision-making depends on consensus between states that don't share the same view and don't have the same level, of human and civil rights or democracy, enlargement would make that even worse imho.
Personally I would move all my country Montenegro to south America and not care about Europe
no. from the title with zero watched. It doesn't need to expand. It want's to but it is not needed.
Good luck because that list of countries seems absolutely fraught with problems to me.
The big eastern expansion of the EU twenty years ago (ten new member states in 2004/05, most of which also joined the Euro currency) was seen as a white elephant by lots of common people across the "old EU", and actually criticized by not a few politicians, but the criticism was suppressed and hushed down by the Euro elite who forced through the expansion. Much the same thing happened with the attempt at the same time to give the EU a federalized constitution - well, it fell through due to wide criticism and failed referendums in France and the Netherlands, but much of the content was revamped a few years later by the Lisbon treaty. I think both of these "grand expansions" in scope beg the question: did these leading politicians jump (of their free will, against so many sound critical arguments) or were they pushed (by the US and others)? From today's perspective, it's easy to see the parallel with NATO moving eastwards, which had become an American wish rather than a western European. And the Ukraine war has made it clear that NATO and the EU, as parallel blocs, are more closely entwined than ever before.
High time for Armenia to join the EU too.
The unanimous voting requirement is absolutely stonewalling EU development. I agree with EU leaders that significant reform must take place before the next enlargement. Bureaucracies must also evolve with the times to remain relevant and effective.
True. First it was the UK and now Hungary always f-ck up EU development.
@Embassy_of_JupiterBut the EU IS democratic. 💀
EU basically has become a country of its own.
even some region in some countries has more autonomy than countries inside EU.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 Let's not overshoot it mate. It's a de facto Confederation, not a de facto country.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here we are, a British guy explaining Europe
Stupid remark. Younger UK generations are massively pro-EU and some of the most left leaning in the world. Furthermore, this is about current affairs, an export the UK has done exceptionally well for many decades. Ever heard of the BBC?
@@marccarpentier2398 bro that was a joke, guess I'm not good enough at English to communicate irony
Dude fire the spellchecker.
The EU is a bit of a clown show in this regard and Im not even sure how they can reform given the catch-22 theyve managed to make: They need unanimous votes to sort out the issues with the union, but the people causing the issues have absolutely no intention of giving the EU their votes to sort out the issues with the union.
E.g. there are apparently clauses that can switch to majority voting over treaties, but take a wild stab in the dark what kind of vote you need to activate the clause in the first place...
Is the actor to blame for the screenwriters' idea? "Competent" bureaucrats are not screenwriters, this is anarchic chaos allowed by the screenwriter. Divide and conquer!
Problem with EU is that some countries want more integration and some don’t and it’s gonna be hard when adding more countries who can veto shit
No country will be added as long as the veto exists.
Countries against integration can leave freely
Expansion/inclusion of certain countries has become "a moral imperative" okay so it's not gonna happen. Well, I appreciate the candor, and I'm sure plenty of people will be understandably relieved.
As long as they all meet the criteria: economy, rule of law, democracy, separation of powers, corruption etc. no preferencial treatment.
Check for competent wisdom of decisions: minimum energy expenditure, maximum result.
The best Balkan country to join is Montenegro, support is high and they already use the Euro! 🇲🇪🇪🇺
I think the EU should first solve it's problems with the veto system and then start a multi-speed europe. After that shure every country that trully wants to enter should be let to.
Exactly. It's waiting for Poland's next national election, really. If PiS is kicked out, the gridlock will finally be broken, and we can get around to reforming the EU's legislative processes to stop one ever forming again. That's when we will be ready for new members.
Those countries don’t meet the criteria and that is it. EU should not lower its standards and must mind their own children before getting more in to mess around.
Did Bulgaria and Romania met the criteria back in 2008? Don’t talk shit. As a someone from Serbia we don’t need the EU If we will look like nowadays Bulgaria 15 years after joining it.
@@nemanjaxBugari i Rumuni so ratni plen Amerikanaca nakon hladonog rata. Srbija nikada nije pala niti ce pasti. Eu je samo nova Austrougarska, znamo kako to zavrsava.. Nikada Srbi nece uci u Eu.
The EU must expand to eleviate the issues caused by the previous expansions.
We have to get rid of the unanimity principle first otherwise the EU will become totally dysfunctional.
@@BlackWater_49 The EU has been dysfunctional for many many tears.
@@BlackWater_49 The EU is already dysfunctional, just they cover it up well. Thats what a large bloc does, it allows politcians to bury decades and even generations of financial abuse of citizens. The bigger the ponzi the longer it can be ran without being recongised as a ponzi.
@@JeanDeaux-uj5cg Yeah, sort of but I mean totally dysfunctional i.e. get nothing at all done.
NORTH MACEDONIA IS BULGARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE BULGARIA WILL INVADE MACEDONIA JUST LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because von der Leyen needs more money to sponser the pharmaceutical companies.
Cos it's screwed without the UK! Glad I voted to leave and would do again.
I'm glad you voted to leave. Please do it again, if there's ever another referendum.
We can do without your EU membership just fine.
5:25 - This is where the REAL AGENDA lies. The "Brussels Junta" wants to move to Qualified Majority so that it can run through certain decisions despite protests from any member state, especially in accession of breakaway territories (such as Catalonia). If Spain cannot block Catalonia from joining the EU because accession is changed to only require Qualified Majority, the EU will proceed to balkanize certain member states to increase the power of Brussels, since smaller member states are easier to boss around.
That is just bullshit. A qualified majority is needed, yes, but not because of Catalonian separatism but because of Hungary and Poland blocking vital reforms
Im from Bosnia and Herzegovina, in my opinion privileged partnership is way better option than full membership, and could happen way faster. I cant imagine EU with Balkan leaders and their veto, but also some states were accepted in worse situation than Balkan countries now, and it works well so far.
Anyway, even if Western Balkans never join EU, young people will, for studies, for work or both together.
West Balkans countries like Albania Serbia Bosnia... will cease to exist in the future so why not accept them ASAP
They won't exist in the future so at least let them die while being EU members
Cheers to you from Serbia my dude. You know how our politicians are, especially Serbian ones (currently). Until this bs is resolved , we're not moving forward. Expect bots to reply to my comment xd
@@karzan995 I am a Serb as well, but from BiH 😁 and generally, I agree. However I am in doubt if we can recover, we lost so many people and it keeps increasing, Жив био! 😁
@@vllllll7 Sve najbolje, držite se, proći će i ovi bolesnici, valjda će nekad doći pošteni ljudi :(
@@karzan995 problem je mentalitet, političari su posledica, ne uzrok.
More money to be taxed from the people of Europe to pay for this without anybody asking the people if they want it.
agreed, the eu is only a true democracy if it is backed by the people who pretty much don't have any say whatsoever.
"Why the EU Needs to Expand" remeber when the same people saying this cried crocodile tears about past expansionism? 'expansionism for me not for thee'
There's no hypocrisy like European hypocrisy...
4:55 "Importnat"?
4:01 “ELSEHWERE” .. sometimes the huge font makes it harder to see the typos.
Inviting someone like Serbia to the EU when we already have Hungary? What a great idea, I can't see any problems with literally smaller russia being inside the block.
@kristofmolnar7106 It is already bad, but there's no need to make it worse. And I wouldn't call apologizing your own made genocide, supporting occupants and terrorists and belittling human rights as "differing views" :)
*1. Promotion of peace and stability.*
*2. Economic Benefits.*
*3. Democratic Values and Humans Right.*
*4. Security and Defense.*
*5. Culture Exchange diversity.*
*6. Geopolitical influences.*
*7. Fulfillment of Aspirations.*
*8. Strengthening Regional Cooperation.*
*9. United with all European Countries INC Balkan.*
*10. Never let Ruzzian and belearus inside the Union until the government is restored to democratic value.*
Its belarus bruh, also ukraine ain’t a democracy too
@@No-wr2pb *proceede to democratically elect a candidate*
People that don't like Ukraine be like: "Clearly not a democracy"
Camoan man, you can't compare Urkaine to literally Belarus or Russia.
I would put your number 3 as number 1.
Actually Belarus has a chance to join EU, but how many years will it take (we belarusians need to get rid of russian influence and lukashenko)
The question is wheather or not EU is sort of an....empire? The nature of empires is to grow an expand. Once they stop expanding, they go into decline and die. Sure, it's doing it the peacefull way - probably first one of one of the few existing empires - and with new members wanting to join and working hard to adapt, but is it the same or not? EU will despearatly need miliions of people - new manpower in a couple of years or decades. One way is a complicated migration system, other is anexing new countries.
No that's not the question at all.
The question is some day we will have to answer to the candidates that ask to join
No its not. And Empire is one state with a central goverment which the EU is not
The EU 💶 does have a central government. It has weak authority, but it is there.@@stc3145
The eu wasn't so peaceful when its president and foreign affairs commissioner went to Ukraine in 2014 to support the coup against their democratically elected government... How did that turn out for the people of Ukraine??
@@stc3145 There is an elite layer within the EU which aspires to become the basis for a half.official "Euro government", which would be able to push around most smaller or mid-sized member countries. This elite exists both in Brussels and within national governments/political classes - people,who get into politics these days often want to have long careers, longer than they are likely to get on the national level, so therefore they learn to align their goals and their thinking with Brussels long before they might actually be based there. Juncker for example probably had twice as long a career as he could ever have had if he'd been constrained to Luxemburg, a tiny country that's had an influence out of all proportion to its size on the EU political scene.
Note: I'm from Scandinavia, so I am not making these points out of a typical UK Brexiteer perspective, but from an anti-federal, anti-"United States of Europe" perspective. The EU level in itself is not democratic, even though most of the member states are democracies.
I say, get rid of the central court, make it a trading union and a joint military.
I am very much against Serbia joining. That country is so disgustingly pro-Russia. EU values need to be required for joining EU.
The European Union should not expand but become smaller again. The EU was at its peak when it consisted of 11 countries. EU citizens were much more involved and there was more unity. Since enlargement, the EU is no longer what it used to be. History shows that every time an empire or union expands, decline also begins.
Great video. Just, why does the EU need to expand? Is it because of Brexit? My last point, aren't these countries in the waiting room so long so to speak, only they're not very democratic are they?
Ukraine is fighting for freedom of EU so EU owes membership to Ukraine. Let's change Hungary for Ukraine!
Not exactly, Ukraine is fighting for its survival, and prospecting eastern europe at the same time. I'd gladly see Hungary out, but Ukraine would bring its own problems to the EU, no, not now at least.
My bet is Moldova will be the first of the bunch to join the EU. Possibly together with Montenegro.
Kaliningrad is part of the EU in the thumbnail...
They voted in the referendum to join the EU. 😅 Cause they prefere free travel and better standard of living.
The EU should consider Caucasus countries joining their structure. And later they should integrate some Eurasian countries such as Kazakhstan, Tajikistan an others.
Why not the world world? Why not add iraq and Syria? Got to love Globalist government run by elites and no one gets a say in how its run
It’s called EUROPEAN UNION, is Tajikistan and Kazakhstan and whateveristan in Europe?
@@mr.clanni9930 Thats like saying BRICS will only be Brasil Russia India China and SouthAfrica
@@rafaelrobello9895 BRICS is just alphabets, it’s nothing but heads of states gathering once a year. European Union is an economical and political union. First of all, it’s called EUROPEAN union, not Asian, as far as I know Tajikistan is in Asia. It is supposed to be a union of countries that share a lot and have the same cultural, economical and political goals. There is nothing that a Finn or a Swede share with a Kazakh. These countries can never be a part of something like EU. They are too different.
One day my friend. the first steps to at least economic cooperation were done last year. Very important step, economic partnership will drastically increase over the next years!
As a Turk I just can’t understand how eu is considering to accept a war thorn country in to EU while not accepting Turkey in.
Bizi sevmiyorlar. Besides that fact, our population is to big. Türkiye would have the most voting power in the EU if it would be a part of it. The only way Türkiye would be able to join is to brake it apart with a independent Kurdistan, leave Cyprus and maybe lose East Thrace. Türkiye's way forward is together with it's brothers and sisters (Türk kardeşlerimiz) and not with the leeches that'll drain your countries capabilities and brains.
EU is club of liberal democracies.
99% of Turkey's territory is in Asia
We have hopes that a war torn country won't blackmails us EVERY EFFING TIME!
Turks can literally destroy EU withing 1-2 months.
Divided south cyprus, is alsoin asia. Without stragic turkey waiting since 1955. european union cannot be aworld power.
I can't say for the rest of the Balkan countries, but given the situation between Serbia and Kosovo, I can't see either becoming part of the EU anytime soon, regardless of my belief that Kosovo is its own independent country.
Also, as much as I'd like to see Georgia become part of the EU, its integration would be nothing short of a logistical nightmare, especially as Turkey has become more and more zealous and extremist over the last few decades.
Kosovo is a NATO military base.
Your publisher needs to be fired. Inportnant isn’t a word
Anyone who wants passive expansion is immediately worrying
Because it's the Fourth Reich, offspring of the Third Reich, and as its predecessor it's exactly as imperialist, exactly as fascist and it equally needs Lebensraum. The sooner it breaks down the better for all European people.
As a Croat I can only say that since joining EU we're worse off than before,we lost around 500000 workers to Germany,Austria etc. Also,the corruption is higher than ever,the money from EU funds is used mainly to build unnecessary things like a kindergarten which they build in my town,even though we already had a perfectly good one ,and the only reason they built it was to skim money from it,they actually said that building it cost 900000 euros which is ridiculous because the real figure is around 350000-400000 euros....all in all our EU membership brought us more bad than good.
That seems more like you are electing the wrong people in your country. Th fact your goverment mis uses EU funds is not the fault for the EU. Croatie has deffo grown economically because of the EU
At least you get to take out money...
It s tax payers from my country that are funding this...
Very few countries are net contributors, most are just leeching on us.
I don't know where you're from but Croatian tax payer money also goes into EU funds...@@etienne8110
We definitely elect the wrong people but only someone who doesn't live in Croatia can say that we have grown economically lol...tourism is basically the only thing that keeps us afloat,production of almost everything has dropped massively... for example,the region I live in used to produce food for 15 million people and now we can't even feed ourselves.
As someone who lives in Croatia, my life has been much better in the last 10 years, full support for the EU
I few questions regarding a possible expansion to the east:
1. Is it really a good idea to invite more members into the EU with weak economies? We have done this before and the result was a mass import of relatiively cheap labour, which brings down the salaries (or at least stops the salaries from growing) for the existing workers in the developed countries. Also, there was a brain drain in the countries the workforce came from. Neither of these are great scenarios.
2. As a Dane and a country which is part of the Frugal Four (The Frugal Four are 4 countries which all are in the top 5 of the contributors to the EU per citizen. All small countries, so they don't get much political power in return), I have to ask; Who is going to pay for this?
The weak economies are probably not going to be net contributors. Meaning either we redistribute the funds we are already working with, or we are going to ask the net contributors to contribute even more, and most likely not get anything in return.
3. The political leanings of these nations, as with most eastern european nations, are mostly conservative and therefore not progressive. If the EU wants to instill progressive culture into the member nations. Is it then really a good idea to invite new members in, who have contradictive veiws?
I am aware that being progressive is all about diversity. But as we also know, the diversity that progressivism refers to is only about race, gender and sexuality. Diversity of political views is heavily frowned upon.
The expansion of EU is now about preventing Russia from getting foothold in Europe rather than economy or ideology
The war in Ukraine changed everything and there's no going back
I don't think racial diversity, sexual diversity is going to make progress, it's just going to make the country fall behind.Europe is in decline because of Immigration and race diversity. If you look at China and Japan, do they have racial diversity?
As part of the pigs, I agree with you.
I love the diversity of political views and I hope we can be better. My biggest goal is to be able to become net contributors soon, take some wight off your shoulders and keep our governments more responsible.
(ok, not happening yet, but we are better)
Interesting how you completely disregarded Turkey's candidacy status with paused negotiations. I wonder if it's to push a particular agenda of your own or to avoid controversial reactions.
There is one key reason, and it's not political, it's economic. Demoliden are becoming expensive. Europe needs cheap "untaxed" labour. Not immigrants, but localized labour that takes low wages.
And to think Brexiteers still believe the EU is doomed 😂
The EU is a slow motion crash. Doomed.
It is. What about this video says otherwise? Moldova and Montenegro might join? Oh shit, well that’s sure told us 😆
Italy and Germany are in terminal demographic decline and Germany is also well down the road to deindustrialising. It’ll become an economic shell of its current self in a few years. Spain and Poland aren’t exactly in the best shape demographically either. The only country in the EU with any real significance that has decent demographics, is France. If you want to be ruled by the French, good luck with that but I’m glad we’re out.
The EU needs to federalise or it will die and good luck getting all members to agree to that path.
As an American, many Americans don’t understand just how useful the EU is to us ideologically and economically. It’s highly demanded reform and future expansion is nothing but good news.
As a Canadian, I've always viewed the EU as a potential good influence on the United States... a friendly competitor on the same team, showing the States what's possible. Like Lou Gehrig keeping Babe Ruth from getting slack and soft on the Yankees.
LOL I just realized nobody in Europe is going to know what the hell I'm talking about. :D
@@loneprimate Yeah, the problem is the only thing the EU has been competing in with the US is regulation. The EU has been progressively more stagnant since 2008 and the gap in innovation happening between the US (and China) and the EU is only growing wider and wider. At some point the EU needs to wake up, otherwise we'll become completely irrelevant.
US wealth has feet of clay; Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc. They can go the way of Messenger or Yahoo in the blink of an eye.
As an American you need to work on your critical thinking skills! Why do you think the UK left? The EU is ideologically MORE corrupt than the USA.....and reform has been a conversation that has been happening from the beginning and NOTHING has changed! BTW, they are very anti American business because they cant compete so they keep trying to "shoplift' from us. The Brussels boys are no different from Xi in China!
@@kacperwroblewski3716We say this a lot, but to be honest, the state of the R&D is fairly good, and often excellent in Europe. We don't lack the brains, nor the educated population. Hell, we're also often ahead in terms of advantages in pays and living conditions.
Where we seriously lack is, in a dumb way, in the realm of the economical and financial tools, I'm especially thinking about venture capital. We constantly bloom with small startups ideas and technologies. But for too long, we have allowed them to be bought by the US, and let's face it, China. It's how they got their hands on the german solar panels for example. Venture capital is growing, and becoming increas8ngly attractiv. But yeah, it's *really* hard for european companies to get the funancing to become anything else than promissing startups.
The problem with the Austrian FM's speech is that "freedom" and "democracy" aren't commodities. There's a large number of people who do not care for such things; they want stability, social hygiene and money, and they believe authoritarianism is the answer.
It can be considered a commodity. A valuable one. Social "hygiene"(?), and stability aren't commodities any more or less than freedom and democracy.
aahh yes I wonder what social hygiene means for the country that gave us hitler.
Thank you for ditching the stash. Thank you.
Charles Michel is wrong, plain and simple. There is no need to expand the EU in order to survive. No country has a right to join the EU either, candidate or not. If you are worried about Russia, join NATO instead. The main goal of the EU is to keep the peace between member states. That's it. All the rest has been developed to ease tensions between memberstates. That includes Schengen, the Single Market & Customs Union, the Euro, the ECJ and so on. Of course, there is an ambition to build an ever closer union between memberstates, but the reason why is simply peace. Rushing an expansion threatens that peace.
Apparently this can be overlooked even by European politicians.
Further enlargement would be make or break; it'd either make the EU the true third global power, or cause its collapse. Changes to the voting sounds great, but unanimity ensures each country doesn't feel held hostage to bigger/more influential players. And those proposed countries have average political and social culture vastly different from the progressive ideals of the Netherlands (for example). Could be a recipe for division. But we might have to take the risk on it.
Most EU countries have been taken hostage by Hungary and Poland for years....
Did they actually answer *why* the EU needs to expand?
No not at all...
Before any expansion the EU needs a lot of reforms. I mean even Romania and bulgaria still can't join shengen, so we still have work to do with existing members.
All the countries who are candidates to join have serious problems who need to solve them before joining or else they'll bring headache to the EU
- Ukraine had a war with Russia
- Georgia has two regions occupied by Russia
- Moldova has a breakaway state (transnistria)
- North Macedonia had problems with Bulgaria and Greece
- Serbia has problems with Kosovo
- Kosovo isn't even recognized by 5 EU members
- Bosnia isn't stable and can fracture anytime
- I don't think Greece would be happy to let Albania join
Only Montenegro has a chance to join the EU. And forget about turkey it's impossible.
I'd argue that the issues mentioned above regarding Albania and Northern Macedonia could be overcome... not really with ease, but I can see that happening.
And I think the main issue with Ukraine (after the war ends) is that the countries with most influence in the EU as of now won't want a new big influential player to deal with. Ukraine would take a lot of seats in the European Parliament, and while I don't see an issue with that, leaderships of those big countries likely will see an issue.
All this rush to have as many members as possible is akin to a marriage barely working and the couple intending to fix said marriage by having children, not realizing that's an additional burden on the relationship itself.
@@liborkundrat185 exactly. Ukraines big population and its state after war won't make it easy for them to join
you forgot about occupation of Belarus/dictatorship
The 2004 expansion and the following 2005 Constitution referendum fiasco should serve as a cautionary tale. Reform before expanding.
Reform before expansion. Without reform, there wouldn't be a point to expansion
Gotta keep the Empire growing!
all empires eventually dramatically collapse as history has proven time and time again.
@kristofmolnar7106 every empire eventually collapses and when it does it leaves devastation behind. We found out how uniited the eu is during the covid crisis when eu countries unilaterally closed their borders and were fighting over vaccines. So when the shite hits the fan again, thats when you'll see genuine stresses on the eu and I don't think it will survive.
I think that in the long run it would make the EU stronger to increase its size.
@@vanbalzup6481weird reply lmao
@@vladpoofin1759 A salty brexiteer :D
The Soviet union thought the same.
But taking away peoples democracy and self determination never ever ends well... As the Soviet union proved!!
More authoritarian countries to join, and making EU decision making even more challenging
The EU is not like the USA (for instance, no common first language and little sense of having the same shared history)
Reform foes need to happen before any kind if enlargement. Brexit and the rise of the far right has revealed cracks in the EU. I personally think the comissions should be directly elected by EU citizens but that is a controversial opinion that i know many are cautious of. But removing veto powers would go a long way to improving things. EU countries also need to understand that can't just pick and choose what laws and policies they can follow. If they refuse to follow them then they should be punished. I think we all know which countries im referring to here
Removing veto just means smaller states become irrelevant.
Or they could be selected from MEP’s like most other governments.
EU basically has become a country of its own.
even some region in some countries has more autonomy than countries inside EU.
"the rise of the far right has revealed cracks in the EU"
Haha, how clueless can you STILL be and not link the rise of right wing people with the most stupid decisions EU has been enforcing, including turning Paris into a ghetto of burnt cars and destroyed buildings, and r*pe capital, and having Berlin as a dangerous place for women to celebrate Christmas or New Year. STAY CLUELESS, amigo. If you lived one day next to a ghetto neighbourhood with african immigrants you would turn "far-right" too.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 That's bollocks
Serbia has been a candidate for 20 years already and it closed only two accession chapters (both provisionally).
Before all of you jump on Macron's integration idea, you have to carefully think of the implications. The potential members will again be treated differently just because they are out of the EU, whereas countries like Poland, Hungary, Slovakia are in while they themselves wouldn't have entered if they were judged by the current criteria. If done so, it will reinforce the belief that the EU is hypocritical and that some Europeans are lesser than others.
Most candidate countries are poor and corrupt, but keeping them out for so long just creates frustrations and breeds more corruption. The EU should either start integrating them, or just tell them they won't be integrated at all.
Eu enlargement can only be succesful if the eu is willing to change dramatically.
I personally think the EU is at serious risk of failure unless drastic changes are made. Which is unfortunate because I like the idea of the EU.. so much so that Im currently applying to become a citizen of the union. But it would not surprise me if it all collapsed.
It would surprise me if it didn't collapse.
It's been a slow-moving trainwreck since Greece joined.
@@thearpox7873 you can say what you want, but the EU is Romes true successor! A European Empire.
Ironic, Europe unites finally after foreign powers overtake Europe.
@@TwitterAccount-st4vg And that is supposed to be a case for its longevity because...?
ohhhhhh...so now that labor is supposed to become more expensive with the shortage of qualified people around, NOW we need to expand?.....right, need to continue wage-dumping...
Yup, reforms then expansion. Go EU, NATO, go WEST!!!
my PERSONAL prediction on the expansion of the European Union:
By 2030:
-Internal reform and overcoming the unanimity mechanism
-Entry of Montenegro, Albania and North Macedonia.
By 2035
- Entry into the EU of the French overseas collectivities (Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Barth, Wallis et Futuna, French Polynesia and 50% of which could include New Caledonia) and of all 6 Dutch overseas territories (Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, Saba, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten).
- Entry of Ukraine, Moldova and Bosnia Herzegovina.
By 2040
-Return of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.
-Entry of Belarus (only in the event of the collapse of the regime with a change of pro-Western government.).
-Entry of Serbia and Kosovo (only if the issue is resolved).
-Entry of Iceland (After the EU changed the law on exclusive fishing rights to allow the Nordic countries to join).
-Cypriot reunification
By 2045
-Entry of Switzerland and Norway.
-Entry of the British overseas territories (Bermuda, Cayman, Turks and Cacois, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, Falklands, St. Helena-Ascension-Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn).
By 2050
- Entry of Cape Verde (allowed for Portuguese sponsorship and for the completion of Macaronesia, As well as for its strategic position in the Atlantic).
- Entry of Georgia and Armenia.
- Entry of Greenland and Faroe (as independent nations and outermost territories).
By 2055
- Entry of Türkiye and Azerbaijan (but only in case of secularism and achievement of the rule of law)
-Unification of the microstates (Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Vatican, Andorra, Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands).
Nice, that’s detailed and quite realistic. But I think 2040 is the point when the whole continent should be united to face the obstacles and problems of a crumbling world (that is getting closer and closer to Dark Ages 2.0 dystopia).
I think that is overestimating the EU 💶, assuming no major crisis happens to crisis shock it into progress.
Though in that event major reforms could pass, such as:
• Gaining union territory (run by the EU itself) for the EU
• Centralisation of adoption (the world is pretty pathetic on this issue right now)
• Removing the democracy restriction on member states (especially if the USA becomes undemocratic, meaning the EU has no real reason to keep it and a lot to gain by not)
• Adding in a military constitution that among other things prevents waging unprovoked holy wars to convert the world to humanitarianism, which also nigh certainly means peace ☮🕊 Russia 🐻
• Creating an unlanded state for the EU's military (probably a small thing, mostly to deal with internal issues and coordinate member state militaries)
• Economising the EU's military and having it do stuff for the EU
• Gaining eminent domain powers over member state's land
• Gaining some pro-patriotism things like having a public broadcaster or making a unified European history cirriculum