The Finnish Kalevi Sorsa foundation, which operates on a social democratic value base, is figured out how the possible expansion of the European Union would affect the operation and economy of the union. The research is part of the think tank’s fair ecological transition research project.
According to the report, EU expansion could cost Finland up to hundreds of millions of euros per year, but it would bring security to Finland and the whole of Europe.
Russia’s attack on Ukraine has put EU enlargement back on the agenda of the Union. If the enlargement is not implemented, the EU will have a lot of work to do to prevent its close neighbors from becoming partners with Russia or China. At the same time, the EU should prepare for security risks caused by instability, the report assesses.
– Ultimately, it is about the security of Finland and Europe. Promoting enlargement is necessary, as closing the door to EU membership would drive applicant countries towards Russia’s sphere of influence, estimates the second author of the report Matti Niemiwho has worked on EU politics both in Finland and in the European Parliament.
Nine new countries are currently seeking to become members of the European Union. Turkey is also seeking membership in the union, with which negotiations were suspended in 2018 due to questions regarding the country’s democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.
You can familiarize yourself with the EU applicant countries with the help of the map below.
The Kalevi Sorsa Foundation’s recent report aims to answer the central questions of EU policy by creating four possible scenarios for the future.
In the first scenario, the EU has expanded to nine new eastern applicant countries, so that a number of reforms within the Union have been implemented in connection with the expansion. In the second scenario, the same enlargement is implemented without fixing the old problems identified in the EU.
The third scenario would reform the Union’s structures without enlargement. In the last case, the current state of the EU has remained unchanged, i.e. decisions on both enlargement and reforms have been postponed.
According to the report, the first scenario, i.e. the implementation of both reforms and expansion, would offer the most benefits in return for the disadvantages. According to the report, when expanding the Union, the following problems should be solved:
The power of individual countries in joint decisions
According to current EU rules, the most important decisions, such as decisions regarding the budget and foreign policy, require a unanimous decision from the member states. Especially Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine has brought out the vulnerability of the system.
The Hungarian government and the country’s prime minister Viktor Orbán has often opposed joint decisions of the EU. For example, last December, Hungary single-handedly dumped a 50 billion euro support package for Ukraine.
As the number of member states swells, it would be even more important to reform the Union so that individual countries cannot in the future overturn key decisions or projects of the EU.
Ensuring the influence of member countries in EU institutions
According to the report, one of the biggest questions when expanding the Union is how the member states are represented in the various institutions of the EU.
In EU rules, even smaller member states are guaranteed six seats in the European Parliament. The size of the parliament has already swelled to 750 members, and there is probably no desire to increase the current number of representatives.
The new member states therefore require changes in the distribution of seats in the European Parliament.
However, the report raises the European Commission as a bigger problem. The current commission has one member from each member country, i.e. a total of 27 members. Even this has been considered a large number in some places and it has been feared that the large number of commissioners will slow down and mess up the commission’s decision-making.
Safeguarding the rule of law
One of the most important tasks in the EU’s expansion is to ensure that the rule of law lasts. In the EU, it is not entirely unusual for a member state to meet the formal requirements upon joining, but to slip away from them afterwards.
The EU’s tools to intervene in the internal development of the rule of law in a member state after the membership decision have been limited until now.
With the current rule of law conditionality, EU funds destined to member countries can be frozen under certain conditions. However, the mechanism’s shortcoming is that it is strictly limited to abuses concerning the EU budget. In order to sanction a member country for violations of the rule of law, the Commission must be able to demonstrate that they lead to the misuse of Union funds. German-French expert group proposes expanding and simplifying the budget conditionality.
Article 7 of the SEU, which regulates violations by member states, also needs changes, as the introduction of the sanctioning process in accordance with the article currently requires the unanimity of member states other than those subject to sanctions. That is why Poland and Hungary have together been able to prevent the procedures concerning both countries, the report states.
Climate and energy policy
The European Union has acted as a pioneer in global climate policy. According to the report, enlargement can achieve greater climate and environmental benefits, when the EU’s stricter regulation should also apply to new member states.
Extending environmental regulation to applicant countries would also make intra-European competition fairer. For example, in agriculture, part of the competitiveness of Ukrainian companies arises from lower environmental protection legislation than EU countries.
Potential member countries are large energy producers. The report estimates that the integration of the energy systems of Ukraine and other member countries into the European Union can produce significant economic benefits in the form of increased investments and improved efficiency.
Finland would pay for Europe’s stability
Enlargement also means increasing the EU budget. This would increase the financial burden on the old member countries, as the new member countries are poorer than them.
American, among other things The Brookings Institute estimates last year, that aid levels would drop significantly in the current net recipient countries, if the size and structure of the Union budget were not changed. For example, the EU funding received by Poland, Hungary and Romania would drop to less than half, while Ukraine would receive up to 40 percent of all EU funding in the future. New net paying countries would be Greece, Portugal, Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic.
The enlargement of the EU would probably bring economic growth and political stability to the new member states and prevent Russia’s advantage from growing.
A rough estimate has been made in the report, according to which the accession of all nine new applicant countries to the Union could weaken Finland’s net payment position annually by around 420 million euros, i.e. around 76 euros per citizen.
In connection with the EU enlargement debate, it would be worth looking at Finland’s relationship with the EU budget again. The report asks what would be an acceptable price for stability in the Western Balkans or Ukraine for Finns?
– Achieving stability is not free, but previous rounds of expansion have shown that the price has been worth paying. Finland and the EU as a whole would benefit economically from a wider internal market, and the value of increased security cannot be measured only in money, Matti Niemi reminds.