To start the discussion on possible necessary future reforms it is of importance to look into the history, idea and problems of the EU.

The EU started 1958 as a project with six founding members (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Germany) in order to cooperate, create a customs union, and never have a war again in Europe post WW II.

There were the treaty on steel and coal (that was terminated for 50 years), a treaty on atomic engergy and the most successful treaty (european commercial community).

Later enlargements let the EU grew from nine, to ten, twelve, fiveteen, 25, 27 and 28 member states.

In 1968 the customs union was created and a common external was created (no duties within the EU but only on the external border).

Enlargements comprised Denmark, Ireland and the UK in 1973, Greece in 1980, Spain and Portugal in 1986, Austria, Sweden and Finland in 1995, ten countries in 2004 (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, Hungary), two countries in 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania) and one in 2013 (Croatia).

In 1993 a common market was created and the freedom of movement of goods, persons and money was created.

In 1999 a common currency was created with the Euro (introduced as money pieces and paper money in 2001) however not all member states chose to participate...

The EU has published own intention to spark a debate on the future and possible reform of the EU... One of the most influential ideas is the European Commissions White Papter of the Future of the EU-27 (after Brexit), see

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf

That paper containts possible future cooperation and up to five different approaches, e.g. a core-EU, an EU of different velocities or an EU that stops further integration or even goes the path back...

It is up to us members of the EU-27 to further discuss these matters - without the UK after its brexit...

And possibly the six weeks before the next EU Parliament elections between 23 May 2019 and 26 May 2019 are rather valuable weeks to discuss and understand the options and ideas for a better and future EU-27 cooperation...

In the long run the answer is complex but the EU needs first of all two simple fixes. Drop the political union and become a democratic confederacy.

The ever closer political union was an aspiration born out of the ruin of WW2. It is an anachronism utterly unsuited to the present form of Europe.

A return to the European Economic Community minus the CAP would be the best reform possible.

Dear Barry, thank you fou your input!

One observation of the current crisis is that rhd EU has grown strongly since 2004. And critics argue that the EU governance mechanusms are not suitable for such a big ship with so many different interests and voices...

It is also apparent that the idea of an ever closer union is possibly not the idea of most citizens. Given that in many member states populistic governments are in the government (Austria, Poland, Finland, Czech Repoblic, UK, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and others, see

https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/eu-kritische-parteien-und-populisten-54387) it must be questioned wheather the political integration should be frozen and partly returned for some states...

It is highly unlikely that the majority of EU citizens want a single political union. The desire for regional autonomy and self rule is very strong all over Europe and there is still far too much cultural diversity for a one size fits all model of politics.

A confederacy of nation states is far more realistic. It may be that such a confederation would eventually eveolve into something like a single nation but it would take many decades, even centuries. Driving this too fast is causing the wave of nationalism that is now blighting many countries in Europe.

Barry, thank you. I see your points.

However I fear many politicians are going ahead regardless what experts, scholars and onlookers say.

But I truely believe that we must hold on, analyse what is good and what is not, fix and adjust the EU (repair the EU) and go ahead...

possibly a core Europe or a EU of diferent integraation layers or orbits might be useful. In particular the Commissions White paper on the Future of the EU-27 contains up to 5 different models of how member states could cooperate in a post-brexit time...

If i can addly somethings to complete your very interesting discussion, i think we have to reconsider the history of the European Construction. (forgive me by advance for my english). Your presentation of the history of the Europe was too scolar. By example, we know actually the fact that the European construction was also created to consolidated West Europe because USSR wanted to invade Europe. We have to understand that the initiative to cooperate between some countries in Europe, was also an asking by United States and they push those countries to cooperate. Not to avoid a future war between them but because united countries broad a stronger resistance to face USSR matter. So we have to remember the fact that when we have to think about the european construction policy we can't avoid the US influence. And that they have a common enemy.

An other problem is the Common market. And when we analyse the facts, we can see that the Common Market was broken from the start. It was broken because initially it was created for 6 wealthy countries, that they had all of them an asset to defend their economy against each others but also to cooperate with their economy. The Common market is an inheritance from the treaty of steel and coal were France and Germany accorded themself for the prices and it was never a free market. That treaty was just an economic cooperation, a cartel if i can say that more precisely.

And the matter is that common market it is not a free market too. At least until maastritcht.

For example, when some poors countries entered in the EEC, the mediterranean countries by example, we can be witnessing the facts that the common market, the way that it works, destroy countries economy. When a country enter in EEC, he have to high his price for his food, manufacturing, etc, and the reason invoke for that is the "equilibration of the common market", because if you don't high your prices you're gonna to disturb the concurrence.

And for the greek case, when she entered in the EEC, her agriculture was too cheap for France and Italy, and they asked to Greece to higher his agricole prices, but avoiding the fact that her agriculture was not also powerfull that France and Italy. And we can see that for a very large number of case.

The Common market is original. It's a blending between economic cooperation and competition, but with very bad shape for both of them, because for now, that's benefit only for a few countries.

sorry for this long message

As political stability of any union is a matter of each member's costs and benefits and the costs are (to large extend) expressed in each member's contrubution to the union's common budget I suggested in one of my papers to set members’ budgetary payments proportionate to the willingness to pay of participating nations. In democratic setup each nation should pay to the union's budget not more that it is willing to pay, taking into account the country's benefits from the union policies. Otherwise the 'brexit' issues will arise in the future again. More details here: http://revecon.ro/articles/2015-1/2015-1-3.pdf

Dear Andriy,

thank you for contributing your paper, expertize and input.

I believe the budget must not be according to costs and benefits because that would mean that a country is only giving AS much AS it is benefitting...

Regarding the funding I do not really See huge problems - after Brexit the UK is gone and that is the second largest payer...

Allbof the remaining EU-27 must pay more. But richer countries must of course pay more than the poorer member states...

Another budget Reform idea that might get viral - how about linking compliance with common goals to budget payments...

There are many member states that take the monetary benefits but do not comply to common democratic values do not take any migrants from asia IR africa, e.g. populistic goverments in some eastern member states...

Carsten

The problem with blackmailing countries with populist governments is that those governments were elected by democratic processes and have a mandate.

After the UK has left the EU (it will be at least 2 years now) German taxpayers will be paying the whole of the EU bill. The beneficiaries of that will be the spenders of EU funds and Alternativ für Deutschland and other far right groups.

Even two people can't agree on all subjects, let alone 28 countries to agree on all topics - is impossible. At least they are still talking, so no war in sight. That was the main argument before EU was agreed on: to avoid another WWII.

The budget mustn't be according to the cost/benefits. What i was saying the payments to the budget should respect the willingness to pay of participating nations. At least if we talk about democracy. In any way any international integration project is all about making it better for people...

I didn't mean the member's direct net ballance in the common budget at all. Under benefits I meant all positive results that each participating nation (average citizen) associate with the country's participation in the EU project. Under costs I consider the contribution they (their country) pay to the EU budget to make it function.

Just to give a little more input and more ideas:

here is the current input by Président Macron of France in about 20 languages:

URL https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2019/03/04/for-european-renewal.en

Macrons first input on the reform of the European Union was made 2017 in a lecture at Sorbonne University Paris, see URL:

http://international.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2017/09/29/macron-sorbonne-verbatim-europe-18583.html

His overall initiative is nicknamed "Initiative for Europe"...

Dear all, I have posed a new question on the European Union, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_EU_when_taking_up_a_new_member_state_destroyed_the_economy_of_this_new_memberstate_Is_the_EU_only_good_for_the_old_and_strong_member_states

Do you think that a possible prolongation of the Art.50-period is helpful for an EU Reform or would a hard Brexit be better?!

If the EU does not reform it will disintegrate. The best thing to do is elect a successor to Juncker who has more vision and less obsession with an out of date idea.

If the EU replaces him with another like him then the troubles will multiply. The EU Parliament is likely to have a lot of new Farages after May, whether the UK stays or leaves. Verhofstadt and his chums will have a real tough time whatever happens.

Reform or Revolution?!

Some ideas you mention here for the EU sound like larger changes in construction and aims of the EU...

I am under the impression that most politicians are thinking and talking about smaller adjustments of the EU and possibly a closer Union, but not a confederation...

In many member states the population seems to be tired of an ever closer Union and wants less EU and more self-centered, local decisions. So possibly it is better to re-intigrate, step back and make the EU successful again AS a common market, customs Union and melting pot of common interests...

I fully agree that it will be helpful to get fresh ideas into the Diskussion, but be aware that Macrons ideas are currently the hottest New input...

And about Juncker: he will be gone in July 2019.

He is a weathered EU head of state of 20 years of experience.

Merkel has about the same experience and she will be gone shortly after. They will be missed I daresay...

And at last more ideas about Junker: his visionary white paper on the future of the EU 27 is important and readable (I shared the link above)...

It is sparking the discussuion as how we could or want to proceed with the EU in the current legal framework...

The crisis (crises) in the EU are directly traceable to its lack of democratic accountability. It much more resembles an Empire than a true union.

A return to the EEC is what is required. The ever closer union was an aspiration from the immediate aftermath of WW2. It is no longer relevant.

Dear all,

what I often see here on RG and many discussions is the lack of understanding on the legal nature of the EU and its TEU, the two written treaties TEU and TFEU.

Any changes in the treaties must be agreed on by all 27 mrmbef ststes after brexit...

The EU is a super tanker (a vessel at high speed at sea that cannit be stopped or msneuvered easily)...

I daresay that the reforms you are suggesting will not find an overall acclaim...

Carsten

Even supertankers can sink or run aground. The EU must reform or its legal nature will be its downfall.

Dear all, I fully agree that even superankers like the EU must be maneuvered good and foresighed...

And the must be adjustments...

But we cannot wreck this Supertanker because some say rowing boats might be smaller or dinghi sailing shops may be faster and leaner and so Forth. We have to navigate with this Supertanker AS it is...

Ales and Barry, since I think that you understand Herman I am sharing a background paper on the swexit: now the Brexit dilemma has led to the cacellation of Swexit, http://m.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/schweden-wie-der-brexit-den-swexit-verhindert-hat-a-1260972.html

Dear all, I am a realist and a dreamer...

AS realist I am reporting on Brexit, swexit, pexit, polexit, dexit, grexit, Frexit, Nexit, Belexit, Fixit, etc.

I am witing on EU- kritische Parteien und Populisten and on all themes around the poly-crisis of the EU...

AS dreamer I hope that the EU AS a project has a future. There are many benefits of cooperation in Europe though the common currency and no common ground on the migration issue are examples of a too close Union, perhaps...

AS a dreamer I dteam about reforms from weithin, without the Ende of the EU, a consolidation of the developments of the lasrlt 20 years...

Als, I dislike your sarcasm to linken the EU with the USSR...

I think that you are from the Baltic nations at the Baltic sea and I am sure that these small proud countries are free and much better of than AS member of the USSR...

Maybe you are too young to have experienced both systems though...

Dear Ales, I understand now that you are from slovenia...

But again AS EU member state I still believe the nations of croatia and slovenia are better of than in the shattered ruins of the Balkans...

The disquiet in several EU states indicates that people are not satisfied with the economic benefits of EU membership alone. There is no doubt that the development of the EEC made everyone in western Europe better off and that it was in large part responsible for the constant economic growth and increase in standard of living.

The difficulty is that the EU has expanded into areas that were never intended. The concept of a European Army is a manifest absurdity at best and menacing at worst. What is this army for? Is it simply a political statement of 'ever closer union' or an army of occupation? Who is in supreme command of this army? Those who control the EU are not a democracy so who is their allegiance to?

Return to the economic model. Full cooperation in trade but subsidiarity in culture and sovereignty in politics.

Ever closer union is dead. An anachronism long since unfit for purpose.

Europe works better as a set of cooperating nation states. It is not just in the UK that sovereignty matters every bit as much as economic benefits. The rise of nationalism and populism is a reaction to undemocratic and over arching supra national regimes that many, even Europhiles find oppressive.

If Europe was ever to become a federation it would have to be after its institutions were fully democratic. That is a long way off today.

Dear all,

Ales and Barry,

thank you for your thougthful contributions and suggestions.

I still am rejecting the comparison of Yugoslavia and the USSR to the current EU.

It may feel similar in some countries with a high unemployment and high corruption, but that is not an overall description of the EU...

Concerning the example of the possibilty of a common European Army that Barry mentions it is not a current aim of the EU. Again a mistunderstanding that must be clarified:

Yes, we are living in a strongly changing world.

Yes we in the EU as elsewhere are facing new world trade and world security developments, in particular an US administration of president Trump who says that he does not want to play the world policing power and others (e.g. NATO partners) must do more. He is openly questioning the use of the NATO.

Therefore the EU must re-think its security and ideas.

Two ways have emergend in 2017/2018: The PESCO (permanet structured cooperation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Structured_Cooperation) and the European Intervention Initiative (EI2, see URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Intervention_Initiative). While PESCO is clearly aiming at a cooperation of 25 member states in military issues (cooperation in production of tanks, artillary, airplaines, technical equipment, colleges, etc.) the EI2 is possibly more - but this is an initiative outside of the EU together with the UK (with only 10 member states such as Germany, France, Belgium, UK, Denmark)...

So: yes, the world is changing rapidly, the UK happens, and Europe must rethink everything... But the EU has not founded a new EU army or is intending to do so...

Having clarified the EU position on an EU army I must admit that there are some politicians out there that are openly lobbying for an EU Army...

Here is my contribution to the Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon on the EI2, see

https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/europaeische-verteidigungsinitiative-100558

Here is my contribution to the Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon on the PESCO, see

https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/definition/eu-verteidigungsunion-54515?redirectedfrom=54514

For those readers who love and understand German: Jan Zielonka (Oxford), Die Revolution ist längst da (über die Bedrohung der liberalen Gesellschaft und die Rückeroberung der Politik durch die Bürger), see URL: https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2019-04/europa-kulturkampf-brexit-aufbruch-liberale-demokratie/komplettansicht

Edit: Barry Turner has shared an English version of the paper:

And the English translation.… 

Jan Zielonka has made rather interesting contributions to the discussion recently. Here I am sharing an interview:

"

Jan Zielonka: "The EU today is hampering integration"

Par Annamária Tóth | 15 octobre 2014

Commission européenne 📷 Pour citer cet article : Annamária Tóth, “Jan Zielonka: "The EU today is hampering integration"”, Nouvelle Europe [en ligne], Mercredi 15 octobre 2014, http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/node/1854, consulté le 13 avril 2019

In his latest book Is the EU Doomed? Jan Zielonka, Professor of European Politics at the University of Oxford and Ralf Dahrendorf Fellow at St Antony's College, analyses the future of integration in a crisis-ridden Europe. He talks to Annamária Tóth about the crisis and the way out, European integration without the EU and why the Juncker Commission should step down.

Your latest publication is an essay entitled Is the EU Doomed?. After reading it, the question seems to be a rhetorical one, as your answer is “yes”. In earlier works, you have described the EU as an empire. How did the EU move from empire to doom?

To start with, the previous book, Europe as Empire. The Nature of the Enlarged European Union, tried to look at the nature of an enlarged EU. Don't forget that I called it a neo-medieval empire. I wrote that book ten years ago. Today, we see more medieval than imperial aspects. In my latest book, I talk about a new Westphalian era or a new medievalism, referring to the rising plurality and 'hybridity' in the EU. This is characterised by overlapping authorities and sovereignty divided between different levels of governance, differentiated institutional arrangements and multiple identities. Instead of the national or European level, power and political allegiances are increasingly in the hands of transnational networks of NGOs, enterprises, cities and regions. In other words, non-state actors are increasingly gaining ground. This is why we need a new approach to integration, one that is based on genuine diversity and not so much on an “ever closer union”. This kind of integration is comparable to polyphony. I borrowed the concept from music, where it refers to two or more independent melodic lines employed simultaneously. So far, nation states have been the main actors of integration and they have only generated cacophony.

The concept of integration based on polyphony is the solution you propose to current problems. Let's go back to the roots of the problem. How has the current crisis changed things?

This crisis is one of coherence, trust and imagination. First, the EU is weaker than it was. Second, citizens' trust disappeared. Finally, the EU is unable to reform itself. I wrote the book on Europe as empire at the time the European constitution project faltered and tried to explain why that happened. Since then, there hasn't even been one attempt to introduce significant reforms. The only reform politicians managed to introduce was the Fiscal Compact, which is a symbol of dictatorship of the Merkozy tandem and is considered counterproductive in certain countries. Would the Union be able to reform itself, it would overcome the crisis, but unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Nobody talks about any serious reforms at all. They act as business as usual, but look at the results of the last European elections. In two big Member States Eurosceptics won. This is something serious which nobody seems to know how to tackle. That's why I talk about the crisis of imagination.

When I wrote the book on Europe as empire, everybody was talking about building a state but my argument was that we were going somewhere else, towards a new form of empire. Today I see even more reasons for giving up the idea of a European state. The centre is now even weaker than it used to be, not just because of the appointment of Mogherini and Tusk. They will not be worse than Ashton and Van Rompuy. Simply, they are captains of ships that are on stormy waters and they don't even know where to navigate to. This is the problem.

From what I see today, federation is not possible and you cannot go back to the nationstate as Eurosceptics argue. What is the alternative? I only hear from our political leaders in recent years that there is no alternative. If you are a European as I am, you shouldn't be happy with this explanation. It turns people against the Union and unless we change the course, it will all get busted. I don't say that my alternative is more viable but I want to have a serious discussion about alternatives.

To put it simply, your argument is that federalising would centralise everything in Brussels, while nationalising wouldn't work because many fields cannot be handled on the national level. So the alternative would be to look for other levels of governance and what they can do best. Is what you are proposing already there in the principle of subsidiarity?

It's not subsidiarity. It's about reducing the grip of the nation states over the integration project, about integration through independent agencies, not through Brussels. The states are important but they are not the only ones involved in the integration project. There are also NGOs, firms, cities, regions. We can discuss whether federation is a good option but I don't think this is the right question. The question is: Is it the workable option? And in my view, it is not the workable option because the states want to use the Union for their own advantage and they are not going to commit suicide and delegate all powers to Brussels and close down nation states. It is just as naive to think that we can go to Brussels and take everything back to national capitals and act as if we were living in the nineteenth century. I want to find the European integration model which can do with the European Union or even without it. If the EU is unwilling to change and unable to adapt to reality, I rather do without it because I don't want to sacrifice integration on the altar of a dysfunctional EU. As it is today, I think the EU is hampering integration.

In its current state, the EU is unable to solve problems people want it to solve. Look at the European elections: there were three issues in different parts of Europe which were crucial: in Northern countries, it was immigration. Does the EU do anything about immigration? The answer is no. In the East, it was Ukraine and Russia. Does the EU do anything about Russia? No. In the Southern countries, it was unemployment, particularly among the youth, and economic stagnation. Does the EU do anything about that? If it does, it only makes things worse.

But then, isn't that also because those who could decide about it, namely the Council, do not want the EU to do that?

Exactly. This means that this institution, the Council, is a hostage of national interests. My point is not to put blame on anyone. The European Commission does not even have the power in the fields we've just mentioned. My point is rather to ask: where could a question be best resolved? Let's take the question of social union as an example. Which actor is best suited to deal with social issues? Global markets? States? Regions? For me, it is not clear per se which is best. This is still an open question. You can say that the states still have the democratic legitimacy to deal with redistribution. However, in the EU money, people, services and capital move freely and they are all linked to social aspects, so why not delegate powers to Brussels? Or why not cities? Most of our growth is generated by cities and this is where hospitals and schools are.

Instead of jumping into a federation, I propose to decentralise powers, put less pressure on the EU as a European institution. The first option would be to have a drastic reform of the EU but this is unlikely to happen. This is why non-state actors, businesses, firms, NGOs, will take things into their own hands. They already do this because they cooperate with each other.

With all these networks of cooperation, what would make the EU any different from another region of the world? After all, these networks could also work on a global level.

In my view, who is part of a network is not the important aspect. The important aspect is that things work properly and that they solve the problems we have. Some of these solutions would have to be global, others would have to be regional, and yet others would have to be local. The idea that Europe is the optimal unit to solve these problems is just not true.

The new Commission wants to put an emphasis on leading Europe out of the crisis and focusing more concretely on what European citizens want. If you could give Jean-Claude Juncker an advice, what would it be?

Step down. Let the new generation run Europe. Enough of the old gatekeepers there. Now it's time for other people to do things differently. You have to stop talking to people about Europe in the language that the old generation does. I'm not even the best for this. Let the young people talk about it. Let's start talking about Europe in different ways. Let's start to have plan B, C, D and not to be told by Mr Juncker that there is actually no alternative.

Just to clarify one thing: I have nothing against individuals, against Juncker, or Ashton, or anyone else. They are doing their best. But the system doesn't work. We have to face the truth. We are losing the integration project as the EU is now. Look at the results of the European elections. We haven't even started a discussion yet on involving people into decision-making. All the EU is about the elites. Where are the people? Show me NGOs fighting for integration which are not being funded by the European Commission. There are many fighting for environmental protection, human rights, and many other issues. But not for the European cause. How come? Because we lost citizens' trust, as I explained before.

Even the elite isn't thrilled about the integration project anymore. I don't know any politicians who are going with joy to European Council meetings. A lot of my students are looking for jobs in Brussels, but I've never seen them being happy there. There are things which are working fine in the EU and things which clearly don't work and we need to find fix those issues. We have to start talking openly about those things because otherwise are losing the game and the xenophobes are winning. No-one wants to live in a Europe run by Farage, Wilders, Le Pen and so on. But this is where we are going.

Of course, I exaggerate my point. I understand that you cannot achieve everything at once. I understand that it's not so easy to find solutions in a complex situation. But I do not accept a situation in which we're not even allowed to say that we think differently because we are called Eurosceptics, anarchists, or simply out of mind. Those who say so are out of mind because they refuse to accept the reality around us and that there are different options. I don't want to say that my options work in this short book but I want to have a discussion about alternatives.

To go further

On Nouvelle Europe

• October 2014 thematic

To read

• ZIELONKA, J., Europe as Empire. The Nature of the Enlarged European Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
• ZIELONKA, J., Is the EU Doomed? Polity Press, 2004"
• Source: http://nouvelle-europe.eu/node/1854

Zielonka is right. Old goats like Juncker should have been put out to grass a long time ago. Anyone who constantly asserts that things must remain the same, that there is no alternative and things cannot be changed is obviously obsolete.

Here I am sharing a video interview with @Jan Zielonka on the "Future of the EU", see URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzh2kHpwpx0

About the political cost of Brexit: here is a graphic on the loss of confidence in the conservative party and labour party in a possible general election according to YouGov, see https://www.statista.com/chart/17633/voters-abandoning-conservative-and-labour/

Sebastian Kurz, Austria's Chancellor, is suggesting an EU-reform, a new treaty with sanctions for countries that do not care for refugees or simply let them through... see, URL: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/kurz-eu-105.html Well, for any EU reform one requires unilateral agreement between 27 member states...

Kurz is being ultra cynical. That would place more pressure on countries with external EU borders to retain 'refugees' who are travelling through them to get to more proseperous parts of the EU. Austria is of course surrounded by such countries, four of them Visegrad.

He know they will never agree to such nonsense but can gain poloitical capital from it anyway.

Dear all,

we are debating here on the future of the EU27. Here I sharing the new EU-Study and EU-Programme on the Future of the EU27.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/comm_sibiu_06-05_en.pdf. That is a highly interesting read. It also shows the commitment of the member states to the EU...

Tottenham Hotspur FC!

Tottenham Hotspur FC!

The EU28 is often seen AS one uniform entiety... All member States alike...

That is certainly not true... Here I am sharing a background paper on the economic and social differences, See, URL: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/europawahl-2019-wie-sich-die-eu-staaten-wirtschaftlich-unterscheiden-a-1268769.html

Today the commission has announced that Albania and North-Macedonia have progressed well enough for being granted EU accession candidate status, See https://spon.de/afuwU

In a comment Der SPIEGEL online ponts out that Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission President elect, must learn from the vision of the Moon mission of the USA and its NASA, see URL: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ursula-von-der-leyen-was-sie-von-der-mondlandung-lernen-kann-a-1278942.html

And here U. von der Leyen explains her view, why the EU must hold its hands outstretched to Albania and North-Macedonia (EU Admission applicants) for opening EU Accession negotiations as is proposed by the Commission after all progresses made yet, see

URL: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-beitrittsgespraeche-mit-albanien-und-nordmazedonien-a-1278070.html

Well, I doubt that Albania and North-Macedonia have a history in the rule of law... And now about Poland and Czech republic and all the others???

Albania & North Macedonia have no such traditions as the rule of law in any sense that the EU would recognise. It is absurd that the EU should expand anymore before serious reform.

The accession of these two countries will further weaken the EU and it is dangerously weak now.

Poland and Hungary have embarked on a path towards authoritarianism and are now both incompatible with EU values. That the EU can do nothing about this indicates how flawed it is as a political system.

In the revised TEU we require a rule for the case that the rule of law is in danger in a member State such AS Poland, Czech Republic or in future Albania...

On a lighter side - here I am sharing a cartoon depciting Brexit... Look closely, England, Wales and Scotland leave earth, but not the united Ireland... Six counties do not really make a problem or do they???

If we strip away all of the nonsensical hyperbole we might be able to return to the purpose of this and similar discussions. There is no point in talking about 4th Reichs or gloating over the economic demise of the UK since neither is going to happen.

In spite of the rise of AfD Germany is not under any circumstances going to act like the Nazis or its Imperial predecessor. What is the biggest problem is that a Germany moving to the right will see the centrist parties take up more right wing views in order to get the vote back. That is already happening because it is typical reactionary politics.

It achieves nothing positive in the end. Germany's success is due to its liberalism and embracing of market economics, the dream ticket of a modern state. Nazism and Imperialism were abject failures and colossal disasters not only for Germany's victims but for the German people too.

The UK economy will be hit by a no deal Brexit as will that of all of our trading partners, not just those in the EU. Nevertheless we now have to start being pragmatic about the UK's future relationship with the EU. It now appears impractical for the UK to remain a member and it is likely that in doing so that the animosity of certain groups and individuals towards that idea would cause huge political and consequent economic damage to all if we did. Farage's party sees its role as solely destructive in the EP and should the UK stay would cause immense trouble constantly.

It is obvious that the UK is not a willing partner in the federalist dreams of others in the EU and cannot go down that route. If they continue to do so our remaining in the EU would cause endless trouble. It is of course eminently possible that the EU without the UK still will not be able to achieve this odd desire because of rising nationalism in other states anyway.

The important thing is that both the EU and the UK will have to work together after Brexit because it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the two economies could operate without each other. This is a symbiotic relationship and we need each other.

We can do without the silly political ideological pipe dreams of federation but we cannot do without trade. Trade is far more important than any of the ridiculous political posturing on both sides of this destructive debate. Trade is always about compromise. You do not 'win' trade deals you negotiate them. While this stupid confrontation continues no one will 'win'.

https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/denk-ich-an-bruessel-in-der-nacht-ld.1500870

https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/united-states-of-europe-zukunftsmusik-oder-schon-auf-der-tagesordnung-ld.1491154

France, the Netherlands and Denmark are blocking the opening of accession negotiations with Albania and North-Macedoniaon the EU council in October 2019, which was proposed by the EU Commission, See

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/frankreich-eu-nordmazedonien-101.html

Adding further basket case economies to the EU is pure insanity. Albania and North Macedonia would be just another drain on resources.

It sometimes looks like the clowns in the Commission are working for Nigel Farage.

Germany's parliament has voted with a large majority for accession of Albania and North-Macedonia...

There are strong fears that Russia, China and Turkey will Engage in all these countries and Fill the gaps which are in the middle of the EU member States...

See URL

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/eu-frankreich-blockiert-verhandlungen-mit-balkanstaaten-a-1291744.html

Keeping Russia and China out of the Balkans is a strange motive for wanting North Macedonia and Albania in the EU. This rather endorses the Russian view that the EU is in fact a political hegemony acting against Russia's interests.

Surely if North Macedonia and Albania wish to engage with Russia that is a matter for their governments rather than the EU. In any case where is the evidence that this is the case.

Neither of these two states is yet fit for accession as corruption and flagrant disregard for the rule of law is a major problem there. France, The Netherlands and Denmark are right to obstruct this silly move made for ideological motives rather for any good it will do.

Looking back: do you think Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic and Cyprus and all the other have ever Been fit for accession?

The Commission has reported so in every single case!

Aleš Kralj the accession to the EU is governed by Art. 49 TEU...

The basis of accession therefore is that the cadidate countries respect the values of art. 2 TEU (and applies them)...

One of these is the rule of law...

Here I am sharing both norms:

Article 49

(ex Article 49 TEU)

Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account.

The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Article 2 TEU

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

"Looking back: do you think Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic and Cyprus and all the other have ever Been fit for accession?"

I am not saying that these countries do not have a sound rule of law...

But I am saying that I am doubtful that all critiera have been met...

We all know, that Hungary and Poland and Romania and Bulgaria and the Czech Republic have clearly problems to respect human rights of minorities and refugees, other countries have problems with the free press and even murders of journalists have been committed...

One of the lapses of the TEU is that the text has been laid down in the good faith that countries that have been admitted tot the EU will continue to develop the common velues...

And it contains no consequences for offending countries and member states...

But the history of the last 15 years clearly show that some countries do not develop accordingly but take many steps back, most notably the PiS government in Poland that was re-elected in a strong democratic result last weekend....

"We all know, that Hungary and Poland and Romania and Bulgaria and the Czech Republic have clearly problems to respect human rights of minorities and refugees"

They also have a serious problem with the idea of the rule of law. If the EU want a rules based system it is time they started enforcing the rules.

As a necessary reform as Barry Turner has voiced correctly, the TEU must be adapted in a way that the rule of law (and all other princeples of Art. 2 TEU) in can be enforced in the member states - sort of an emergeny rule which allows the EU to stup funding and possibly takes voting rights from non-compliant member states up to the (temporary or permanent) exclusion of the EU...

However such changes of the TEU require full consent of all member states (unlikely currently)... The EU is engaged in its own system...

Art. 2 TEU is effectively useless in dealing with recalcitrants and law breakers. Since the sanctions can be vetoed by any state with a similar view, such as Poland and Hungary all that is necessary to defeat the effective policing of EU rules is to ally with a fellow law breaker.

Law breaking or more accurately disregard for the law now seems to be de rigueur in several states the UK included. Politicians are even heard excusing or even advocating it. This is pure madness. If the legislators will break the law then there is no law.

We will undoubtedly see early this week whether the UK courts regard Boris Johnson's petulant sending of an unsigned letter is compliant with The European Union (withdrawal) Act (No2) 2019. We already know that the letter of the law often falls short of the spirit of it.

@Ales, we have a common court, the CJEU but many EU stateheads do not Care about its rulings...

Dear Anastas Ivanov Ivanov

thank you for giving first hand examples out of the view of Bulgaria!

One cannot expect the EU to have similar standards of living considering that rather rich and rather poor countries are forming one union (say Luxembourg and Romania) but I wholeheartedly agree that there must be an annealment of living standards and the options of economic growth must be taken...

It is very sensible to have good diplomatic pathways to important neighboring countries such as Turkey!

In 2012 I was on an official EU mission to the Turkish customs administration and we also spoke about the EU outer customs border between Bulgaria and Turkey...

Regarding the VW investment decision for Turkey - it has been widely criticised in Germany and Who knows, it may be revised...