At their summit on June 27 and 28, European heads of state and government will make another attempt to finalize the personnel restructuring of the European institutions. Despite efforts by Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Emmanuel Macron during their Monday dinner, no decision was reached. This is notable since the appointment of the four top jobs at the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, and the External Action Service is not significantly disputed.
Diplomats blame the poor conduct of the negotiations for this failure. Initially, the chief negotiators from the three previous alliance partners conducted extensive small-group discussions: Olaf Scholz and Pedro Sánchez for the Social Democrats, Donald Tusk and Kyriakos Mitsotakis for the EPP, and Emmanuel Macron and Mark Rutte for the Liberals. This left the other 21 heads of state and government sidelined, which visibly infuriated Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Strengthened by her success in the European elections, Meloni refused to support the personnel package for this reason alone.
Scholz and his colleagues chose this exclusive format mainly to bypass Council President Charles Michel, whose hostility towards Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in their view, disqualified him from mediating the negotiations – a role he should have played as summit host. The idea of involving Meloni, representing the ECR party family from a significant member state, early in the discussions did not occur to the six representatives from Brussels’ traditionally dominant center parties.
Further complicating matters were last-minute demands from the EPP group, who wanted the Social Democrats to appoint the new Council President for only two and a half years instead of five. However, Christian Democrats are unlikely to let this issue derail the negotiations entirely. EPP leader Manfred Weber emphasized that the three pro-European camps “naturally want to find a compromise”. Some diplomats have described this maneuver as mere “skirmishing“.
The Christian Democrats may be aiming to secure greater influence within the EU Commission. According to diplomats, the posts of Executive Vice-President are part of the behind-the-scenes negotiations. Buoyed by their election results, the EPP could seek to claim two of the most important deputy positions.
An agreement at the end-of-June summit seems within reach. However, there are risks with the deal that is not yet finalized: Potential disruptive factors include the egos of individual heads of state and government or shifts in the balance of power within the European Parliament due to changes in political groups. It doesn’t take much to throw the EU off course in these times.
Germany and France are working on new insolvency rules for bond issuers. Both governments are currently examining how practicable a so-called 28th regime at EU level is for this specific group, as Table.Briefings learned from informed circles in Berlin and Paris. This would facilitate cross-border capital flows in the EU, they said, without having to fully harmonize the national insolvency laws of the 27 member states.
There is strong resistance to harmonization in the respective ministries of justice. A proposal by the EU Commission to harmonize parts of the national insolvency provisions is currently before the EU Council, but negotiations are making little progress. The 28th regime would be an alternative that could possibly circumvent the political resistance to harmonization of insolvency law.
According to the plans, companies issuing bonds would grant their investors a choice of law clauses in the issue prospectus: They could decide whether to proceed based on the respective national insolvency provisions or based on new EU rules if the bond debtor is unable to service its liabilities.
This should give investors legal certainty and enable them to better assess the risk of European corporate bonds. In turn, this should lead to European companies being able to raise more and cheaper debt capital to finance their investments.
Since the European Central Bank began buying up corporate bonds as part of its quantitative easing policy in 2016, the European bond market has grown by 50 percent. The market capitalization of corporate bonds that met the ECB’s conditions stood at around €1.1 trillion in 2022.
Experts are skeptical about the 28th regime for corporate bonds. Real simplification would help to boost the comparatively low level of private investment in the EU, but much depends on how a 28th regime would be implemented in practice.
Nicolas Véron, Senior Fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, is not very optimistic. “When member states tried to introduce a 28th regime in the past, it didn’t work“, he says, referring to an earlier attempt to introduce a European form of company. This is because many member states simply did not want competition with their national systems.
Karel Lannoo, expert on financial market regulation and CEO of the Brussels-based think tank CEPS, is also skeptical. For investors, the question arises as to who would protect their interests in the event of insolvency in the 28th regime. This is not yet clear and is a major obstacle given the mistrust between the member state governments and the European authorities, says Lannoo, who believes that the 28th regime has little chance of success.
According to Lannoo, the discussion about the 28th regime also distracts from the essentials. “We are constantly creating new things and thus promoting fragmentation instead of doing the things that need to be done, namely harmonization and consolidation“, he says.
The EU Commission also seems to be afraid of distraction. When asked about the 28th regime, a spokesperson for Financial Markets Commissioner Mairead McGuinness said that the Commission welcomed new ideas. However, he also referred to the proposal on insolvency law harmonization pending in the Council. “The Commission encourages the Member States and the European Parliament to stick to the ambitious objectives of this text and reach an agreement as soon as possible.”
The idea of a 28th regime at EU level was put forward by former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta in his report on the single market. However, Letta had a more far-reaching approach in mind: an EU-wide set of rules for company law (European Code of Business Law). Companies should no longer have to fight their way through the jungle of different national regulations when operating in other member states.
However, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Emmanuel Macron are pushing for swift progress on deepening the Capital Markets Union. To this end, they also want to facilitate the securitization of loans. With adjustments to the current EU regulations, progress can also be made here in the short term, they said in Berlin. The two finance ministries are also working on a new European savings and investment product. A joint task force with the banking associations is driving forward work on the Capital Markets Union.
At the upcoming EU summit on June 27-28, EU heads of state and government are expected to once again push for the Capital Markets Union. “The European Council calls in particular for work on the Capital Markets Union to be accelerated to create truly integrated markets that are accessible to all citizens and businesses and benefit all member states”, reads the draft conclusions available to Table.Briefings.
Ukraine is seeking investment. The state and private, domestic companies lack the capital to keep their own economy and arms industry running – and, above all, to become less dependent on Western military supplies. “I appeal to companies not to wait until the end of the war to invest in Ukraine. Start now“, said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba at the Ukraine Reconstruction Conference last week.
Many of the German companies from the civilian sector that were already active in Ukraine before the war have remained. Some defense companies are building new plants in Ukraine. With Rheinmetall, the Flensburg-based vehicle manufacturer FFG and the drone manufacturer Quantum Systems, German defense companies have already relocated part of their production to Ukraine. Turkish drone manufacturer Baykar is also reportedly building a plant, while British weapons manufacturer BAE Systems has opened at least one office in Ukraine, according to the Ministry for Strategic Industries. Tank manufacturer KNDS is also considering similar plans.
But many other interested parties are hesitant. The constant danger of becoming a target for Russian missiles is only one factor. This risk is calculable, says security expert Friedrich-Christian Haas, Managing Director of the AKE Group. He advises companies, primarily from the civilian sector, that want to invest in crisis or war zones. Many areas in western Ukraine have never been attacked. “You shouldn’t set up your plant right next to freight stations or a power plant or other critical infrastructure, and it’s better to accept longer logistics routes”, says Haas.
The problems that cause companies to hesitate lie elsewhere: in very rigid labor law, partly still based on the Soviet era, in high bureaucracy and in human resources. “Apart from the destroyed energy networks, mobilization is the biggest challenge for companies”, says Ruslan Illichov, General Director of the largest Ukrainian employers’ association (FEU), in an interview with Table.Briefings. Around 8,000 companies are members of the association.
Hiring men of military age, says Illichov, is associated with a high risk for companies, as they could be sent to the front from one day to the next. Only arms manufacturers and operators of critical infrastructure are currently exempt from this rule.
To alleviate the shortage of skilled workers, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy concluded a “Skilled Workers Alliance” at the reconstruction conference. This should make it easier for young people and internally displaced persons to start or continue their training, which they have interrupted due to the war. Women are to be retrained for professions that were previously mainly carried out by men. According to the BMZ, more than 180,000 new skilled workers are to be trained over the next three years for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Illichov is critical of the alliance – and symptomatic of the reconstruction conference: The initiative is very symbolic, contains little that is practical and has not been agreed with anyone from the industry. No new alliance, no further seminars, and no further roundtables are necessary. Instead: “Every day, our companies train women in men’s jobs”, says Illichov. What Ukraine needs are modern training centers with new machines. Young people who learned in training centers from the Soviet era come to companies with ultra-modern machines and are unable to operate them.
And on the subject of German companies settling in Ukraine, Illichov says: “In view of the current situation, it would not be honest to say to German companies to come to Ukraine and invest.” What Ukraine needs now is cooperation between German and Ukrainian companies.
“We need to produce as much as possible in the country, with the equipment, with the involvement of German technologies, German companies. That should be a priority. Unfortunately, we see that this is still not the case”, says Illichov. In addition to the defense industry, Illichov sees potential in the automotive sector, for example. For example, the automotive industry could include production facilities in Ukraine in its entire supply chain.
And several companies describe another stumbling block: Ukraine takes a very close look at new settlements and investors in order to avoid Russian influence and corruption. The bureaucratic hurdles are correspondingly high, which in turn partly encourages undeclared work.
Everyone has probably seen a romantic comedy in which a couple’s relationship is coming to an end until an unexpected twist suddenly rekindles their feelings. This story is similar to the enlargement of the European Union.
For years, Brussels’ enlargement policy consisted of a mixture of vague messages and lukewarm support for the candidate countries from the Balkans. In return, they turned the EU’s demands into half-hearted reforms.
Brussels pretended that enlargement still mattered, while the candidate countries pretended democratic reforms. As in a romantic comedy, the turnaround was initiated by the one character no one had in mind – Russia. The invasion of Ukraine has caused the Union to rethink its role in Europe and the world and has put enlargement back in the spotlight.
However, the door to enlargement is not yet wide open. The Franco-German proposal rightly states that the Union must first find an answer to the question of how the EU can remain governable with 30 or more members. Judging by recent statements from EU officials, however, it seems to be open enough for the smallest applicant – Montenegro – to scurry into the EU club.
The European Commission recently presented a positive interim benchmark assessment report (IBAR) for Montenegro for Chapters 23 and 24 and forwarded it to the Council Working Party on Enlargement and Accession Countries (COELA) for adoption.
This bureaucratic language has a deeper meaning than one might initially conclude from a simple Commission statement. If the EU Council confirms the proposal this month, Montenegro could begin closing the negotiating chapters, the final step in a long and arduous accession process.
Montenegro’s Prime Minister Milojko Spajić visited Berlin and Paris a few months ago with one goal in mind – to pave the way for the country’s accession to the EU by 2028. Whether justified or not, Montenegro is focusing on these two EU members because it believes that they are “the gatekeepers of enlargement” and with their support, the country can receive the invitation during the next Commission term.
Encouraged by these trips, Montenegrin officials believe that their country can join the Union under the given circumstances, as membership would not entail any changes to the current decision-making, the most sensitive issue in the EU. In this case, almost three decades after the EU/Western Balkans summit in Thessaloniki in 2003, where the region reeling from the violent break-up of the former Yugoslavia was promised EU membership, the first Western Balkan country could finally join the EU.
It may be less than expected for enlargement enthusiasts, but it is not too late. The prospect of EU membership has served as a catalyst for democratic change and remains Brussels’ most powerful “currency“. When the goal is clearly defined, the reaction of a candidate country is in line with expectations. The case of Montenegro confirms this. The prospect of closing the negotiation chapters prompted Montenegro to carry out the necessary reforms in order to obtain a positive opinion from the Commission. With the Montenegrin example, Brussels is signaling that the efforts will ultimately pay off, even if recognition only comes after years of waiting.
For the skeptics, Montenegro has not yet met the necessary criteria to be seriously considered. In their view, the Western Balkans aspirants have done little to prevent state capture, curb endemic corruption or prevent the violation of media freedom. The region is experiencing a resurgence of chauvinism, historical revisionism and genocide denial, fueled by unchecked nationalism.
I can only agree that Montenegro must continue with its reforms. However, the model of the future Union currently under consideration is broad enough to accommodate new members like a small Balkan country. Enlargement has been and will remain a political process.
Political motives have been decisive every time the EU has accepted new members, and this was not only the case with Bulgaria, Romania or Cyprus. Greece’s application for membership was grudgingly accepted, while the Commission warned that “Greek membership could pose a serious threat to both Greece and the Community”. Similar arguments were heard when membership was granted to Spain and Portugal, then emerging democracies struggling with the autocratic ghosts of their past and their outdated industrial and agricultural sectors.
Although it takes time and effort to welcome new members, none of these decisions have proved detrimental to the EU project. In retrospect, every decision to enlarge, no matter how difficult the integration process, has proven to be the right one.
Some may see Montenegro’s potential membership as “too risky” and “ill-timed”, but it can also be argued that the decision to open the door to Podgorica underlines the legitimacy of enlargement and proves the vitality of the EU. If the EU is about to “sail on the high seas”, as the Franco-German working group on institutional reform suggests, Montenegro can be a safe starting point for enlargement.
At their summit on June 27 and 28, European heads of state and government will make another attempt to finalize the personnel restructuring of the European institutions. Despite efforts by Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Emmanuel Macron during their Monday dinner, no decision was reached. This is notable since the appointment of the four top jobs at the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, and the External Action Service is not significantly disputed.
Diplomats blame the poor conduct of the negotiations for this failure. Initially, the chief negotiators from the three previous alliance partners conducted extensive small-group discussions: Olaf Scholz and Pedro Sánchez for the Social Democrats, Donald Tusk and Kyriakos Mitsotakis for the EPP, and Emmanuel Macron and Mark Rutte for the Liberals. This left the other 21 heads of state and government sidelined, which visibly infuriated Italy’s right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Strengthened by her success in the European elections, Meloni refused to support the personnel package for this reason alone.
Scholz and his colleagues chose this exclusive format mainly to bypass Council President Charles Michel, whose hostility towards Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in their view, disqualified him from mediating the negotiations – a role he should have played as summit host. The idea of involving Meloni, representing the ECR party family from a significant member state, early in the discussions did not occur to the six representatives from Brussels’ traditionally dominant center parties.
Further complicating matters were last-minute demands from the EPP group, who wanted the Social Democrats to appoint the new Council President for only two and a half years instead of five. However, Christian Democrats are unlikely to let this issue derail the negotiations entirely. EPP leader Manfred Weber emphasized that the three pro-European camps “naturally want to find a compromise”. Some diplomats have described this maneuver as mere “skirmishing“.
The Christian Democrats may be aiming to secure greater influence within the EU Commission. According to diplomats, the posts of Executive Vice-President are part of the behind-the-scenes negotiations. Buoyed by their election results, the EPP could seek to claim two of the most important deputy positions.
An agreement at the end-of-June summit seems within reach. However, there are risks with the deal that is not yet finalized: Potential disruptive factors include the egos of individual heads of state and government or shifts in the balance of power within the European Parliament due to changes in political groups. It doesn’t take much to throw the EU off course in these times.
Germany and France are working on new insolvency rules for bond issuers. Both governments are currently examining how practicable a so-called 28th regime at EU level is for this specific group, as Table.Briefings learned from informed circles in Berlin and Paris. This would facilitate cross-border capital flows in the EU, they said, without having to fully harmonize the national insolvency laws of the 27 member states.
There is strong resistance to harmonization in the respective ministries of justice. A proposal by the EU Commission to harmonize parts of the national insolvency provisions is currently before the EU Council, but negotiations are making little progress. The 28th regime would be an alternative that could possibly circumvent the political resistance to harmonization of insolvency law.
According to the plans, companies issuing bonds would grant their investors a choice of law clauses in the issue prospectus: They could decide whether to proceed based on the respective national insolvency provisions or based on new EU rules if the bond debtor is unable to service its liabilities.
This should give investors legal certainty and enable them to better assess the risk of European corporate bonds. In turn, this should lead to European companies being able to raise more and cheaper debt capital to finance their investments.
Since the European Central Bank began buying up corporate bonds as part of its quantitative easing policy in 2016, the European bond market has grown by 50 percent. The market capitalization of corporate bonds that met the ECB’s conditions stood at around €1.1 trillion in 2022.
Experts are skeptical about the 28th regime for corporate bonds. Real simplification would help to boost the comparatively low level of private investment in the EU, but much depends on how a 28th regime would be implemented in practice.
Nicolas Véron, Senior Fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, is not very optimistic. “When member states tried to introduce a 28th regime in the past, it didn’t work“, he says, referring to an earlier attempt to introduce a European form of company. This is because many member states simply did not want competition with their national systems.
Karel Lannoo, expert on financial market regulation and CEO of the Brussels-based think tank CEPS, is also skeptical. For investors, the question arises as to who would protect their interests in the event of insolvency in the 28th regime. This is not yet clear and is a major obstacle given the mistrust between the member state governments and the European authorities, says Lannoo, who believes that the 28th regime has little chance of success.
According to Lannoo, the discussion about the 28th regime also distracts from the essentials. “We are constantly creating new things and thus promoting fragmentation instead of doing the things that need to be done, namely harmonization and consolidation“, he says.
The EU Commission also seems to be afraid of distraction. When asked about the 28th regime, a spokesperson for Financial Markets Commissioner Mairead McGuinness said that the Commission welcomed new ideas. However, he also referred to the proposal on insolvency law harmonization pending in the Council. “The Commission encourages the Member States and the European Parliament to stick to the ambitious objectives of this text and reach an agreement as soon as possible.”
The idea of a 28th regime at EU level was put forward by former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta in his report on the single market. However, Letta had a more far-reaching approach in mind: an EU-wide set of rules for company law (European Code of Business Law). Companies should no longer have to fight their way through the jungle of different national regulations when operating in other member states.
However, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President Emmanuel Macron are pushing for swift progress on deepening the Capital Markets Union. To this end, they also want to facilitate the securitization of loans. With adjustments to the current EU regulations, progress can also be made here in the short term, they said in Berlin. The two finance ministries are also working on a new European savings and investment product. A joint task force with the banking associations is driving forward work on the Capital Markets Union.
At the upcoming EU summit on June 27-28, EU heads of state and government are expected to once again push for the Capital Markets Union. “The European Council calls in particular for work on the Capital Markets Union to be accelerated to create truly integrated markets that are accessible to all citizens and businesses and benefit all member states”, reads the draft conclusions available to Table.Briefings.
Ukraine is seeking investment. The state and private, domestic companies lack the capital to keep their own economy and arms industry running – and, above all, to become less dependent on Western military supplies. “I appeal to companies not to wait until the end of the war to invest in Ukraine. Start now“, said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba at the Ukraine Reconstruction Conference last week.
Many of the German companies from the civilian sector that were already active in Ukraine before the war have remained. Some defense companies are building new plants in Ukraine. With Rheinmetall, the Flensburg-based vehicle manufacturer FFG and the drone manufacturer Quantum Systems, German defense companies have already relocated part of their production to Ukraine. Turkish drone manufacturer Baykar is also reportedly building a plant, while British weapons manufacturer BAE Systems has opened at least one office in Ukraine, according to the Ministry for Strategic Industries. Tank manufacturer KNDS is also considering similar plans.
But many other interested parties are hesitant. The constant danger of becoming a target for Russian missiles is only one factor. This risk is calculable, says security expert Friedrich-Christian Haas, Managing Director of the AKE Group. He advises companies, primarily from the civilian sector, that want to invest in crisis or war zones. Many areas in western Ukraine have never been attacked. “You shouldn’t set up your plant right next to freight stations or a power plant or other critical infrastructure, and it’s better to accept longer logistics routes”, says Haas.
The problems that cause companies to hesitate lie elsewhere: in very rigid labor law, partly still based on the Soviet era, in high bureaucracy and in human resources. “Apart from the destroyed energy networks, mobilization is the biggest challenge for companies”, says Ruslan Illichov, General Director of the largest Ukrainian employers’ association (FEU), in an interview with Table.Briefings. Around 8,000 companies are members of the association.
Hiring men of military age, says Illichov, is associated with a high risk for companies, as they could be sent to the front from one day to the next. Only arms manufacturers and operators of critical infrastructure are currently exempt from this rule.
To alleviate the shortage of skilled workers, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy concluded a “Skilled Workers Alliance” at the reconstruction conference. This should make it easier for young people and internally displaced persons to start or continue their training, which they have interrupted due to the war. Women are to be retrained for professions that were previously mainly carried out by men. According to the BMZ, more than 180,000 new skilled workers are to be trained over the next three years for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
Illichov is critical of the alliance – and symptomatic of the reconstruction conference: The initiative is very symbolic, contains little that is practical and has not been agreed with anyone from the industry. No new alliance, no further seminars, and no further roundtables are necessary. Instead: “Every day, our companies train women in men’s jobs”, says Illichov. What Ukraine needs are modern training centers with new machines. Young people who learned in training centers from the Soviet era come to companies with ultra-modern machines and are unable to operate them.
And on the subject of German companies settling in Ukraine, Illichov says: “In view of the current situation, it would not be honest to say to German companies to come to Ukraine and invest.” What Ukraine needs now is cooperation between German and Ukrainian companies.
“We need to produce as much as possible in the country, with the equipment, with the involvement of German technologies, German companies. That should be a priority. Unfortunately, we see that this is still not the case”, says Illichov. In addition to the defense industry, Illichov sees potential in the automotive sector, for example. For example, the automotive industry could include production facilities in Ukraine in its entire supply chain.
And several companies describe another stumbling block: Ukraine takes a very close look at new settlements and investors in order to avoid Russian influence and corruption. The bureaucratic hurdles are correspondingly high, which in turn partly encourages undeclared work.
Everyone has probably seen a romantic comedy in which a couple’s relationship is coming to an end until an unexpected twist suddenly rekindles their feelings. This story is similar to the enlargement of the European Union.
For years, Brussels’ enlargement policy consisted of a mixture of vague messages and lukewarm support for the candidate countries from the Balkans. In return, they turned the EU’s demands into half-hearted reforms.
Brussels pretended that enlargement still mattered, while the candidate countries pretended democratic reforms. As in a romantic comedy, the turnaround was initiated by the one character no one had in mind – Russia. The invasion of Ukraine has caused the Union to rethink its role in Europe and the world and has put enlargement back in the spotlight.
However, the door to enlargement is not yet wide open. The Franco-German proposal rightly states that the Union must first find an answer to the question of how the EU can remain governable with 30 or more members. Judging by recent statements from EU officials, however, it seems to be open enough for the smallest applicant – Montenegro – to scurry into the EU club.
The European Commission recently presented a positive interim benchmark assessment report (IBAR) for Montenegro for Chapters 23 and 24 and forwarded it to the Council Working Party on Enlargement and Accession Countries (COELA) for adoption.
This bureaucratic language has a deeper meaning than one might initially conclude from a simple Commission statement. If the EU Council confirms the proposal this month, Montenegro could begin closing the negotiating chapters, the final step in a long and arduous accession process.
Montenegro’s Prime Minister Milojko Spajić visited Berlin and Paris a few months ago with one goal in mind – to pave the way for the country’s accession to the EU by 2028. Whether justified or not, Montenegro is focusing on these two EU members because it believes that they are “the gatekeepers of enlargement” and with their support, the country can receive the invitation during the next Commission term.
Encouraged by these trips, Montenegrin officials believe that their country can join the Union under the given circumstances, as membership would not entail any changes to the current decision-making, the most sensitive issue in the EU. In this case, almost three decades after the EU/Western Balkans summit in Thessaloniki in 2003, where the region reeling from the violent break-up of the former Yugoslavia was promised EU membership, the first Western Balkan country could finally join the EU.
It may be less than expected for enlargement enthusiasts, but it is not too late. The prospect of EU membership has served as a catalyst for democratic change and remains Brussels’ most powerful “currency“. When the goal is clearly defined, the reaction of a candidate country is in line with expectations. The case of Montenegro confirms this. The prospect of closing the negotiation chapters prompted Montenegro to carry out the necessary reforms in order to obtain a positive opinion from the Commission. With the Montenegrin example, Brussels is signaling that the efforts will ultimately pay off, even if recognition only comes after years of waiting.
For the skeptics, Montenegro has not yet met the necessary criteria to be seriously considered. In their view, the Western Balkans aspirants have done little to prevent state capture, curb endemic corruption or prevent the violation of media freedom. The region is experiencing a resurgence of chauvinism, historical revisionism and genocide denial, fueled by unchecked nationalism.
I can only agree that Montenegro must continue with its reforms. However, the model of the future Union currently under consideration is broad enough to accommodate new members like a small Balkan country. Enlargement has been and will remain a political process.
Political motives have been decisive every time the EU has accepted new members, and this was not only the case with Bulgaria, Romania or Cyprus. Greece’s application for membership was grudgingly accepted, while the Commission warned that “Greek membership could pose a serious threat to both Greece and the Community”. Similar arguments were heard when membership was granted to Spain and Portugal, then emerging democracies struggling with the autocratic ghosts of their past and their outdated industrial and agricultural sectors.
Although it takes time and effort to welcome new members, none of these decisions have proved detrimental to the EU project. In retrospect, every decision to enlarge, no matter how difficult the integration process, has proven to be the right one.
Some may see Montenegro’s potential membership as “too risky” and “ill-timed”, but it can also be argued that the decision to open the door to Podgorica underlines the legitimacy of enlargement and proves the vitality of the EU. If the EU is about to “sail on the high seas”, as the Franco-German working group on institutional reform suggests, Montenegro can be a safe starting point for enlargement.
