Comments on: A new ENP for the new Commission?

By: Just Designer

Just Designer — Sat, 08 May 2010 08:06:41 +0000

a little view of the European Union
EU membership has now expanded far greater than the countries originators. Consensus on how broad expansion of membership can be done and how the integration can be transmitted remains a topic that interfere in the internal EU discussions. The members are still reluctant to surrender their sovereignty to the bureaucrats in Brussels (the capital city of the EU, the EU Commission in session) or provide a key policymaking position only to the two dominant countries in the EU, Germany and France. So the EU is only a customs union (customs union) because the concept of confederation be the basis of the formation and expansion. So, it is economically the EU is one economic bloc, but the political sovereignty he is still a fragmented block. Lisbon Treaty itself can be viewed as an effort to resolve existing differences by replacing unanimity voting system / intact (unanimous vote) with a majority voting system (qualified majority voting / QMV). This makes the most practical policy for the problems faced by the EU can no longer be vetoed by one member state.

By: nicu

nicu — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:50:43 +0000

Kent, yes… the rumour makes sense – the portfolios seem to be easily \splittable\, but at the same time might be too big for new and small member states like croatia and iceland…

By: Kent

Kent — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:35:33 +0000

What about the talk that this portfolio has been combined so that it can be split apart for the potential new commission post given to Iceland or Croatia once they join? There are rumors that Brussels is looking for ways to avoid the problem it had with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria which got relatively meaningless commission portfolios because there was not a lot left to cover.

On the other hand, does anyone really think that a new member state would be given either of these high profile portfolios (ENP or enlargement)?

By: nicu popescu » EUObs: A new ENP for the new Commission?

nicu popescu » EUObs: A new ENP for the new Commission? — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:43:39 +0000

[...] EU Observer, 28 November 2009 [...]

By: nicu

nicu — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:42:20 +0000

Julian, I do not think it makes any sense to double the institutions. Probably Fule will be in charge of the ENP units within EEAS (that’s my reading of the footnote above), but Cathy Ashton will be in charge of overall co-ordination of the other foreign policy dossiers + high-politics dossiers like iran, transatlantic relations, wars in the neighbourhood, summitry etc. while the technical and daily aspects of the ENP will be run by Fule.

of course Ashton might like to see institutionally the other relex commissioners (except the one for trade) as de facto deputies. but given that formally all commissioners are equal and vice-presidents of the commission are primus inter pares only, this is not necessarily going to be the case automatically. and like usually a lot will depend on personal relations.

By: nicu

nicu — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:34:46 +0000

Andreja,

well… yes, I understand that symbolically this does not send a very promising signal for the Balkans (the same goes for the bulking together of the Southern and Eastern neighbours)… In real life terms though, I would not be that worried. In real life – the main problem is not that the EU is engaged too much with the Southern neighbours at the expense of the Eastern neighbours, or with the eastern neighbours at the expense of the Balkans. The big clash is not a clash of priorities between Balkans vs South neighbours vs Eastern neighbours, but a clash between an inward looking EU, and an EU that thinks strategically and therefore develops a more ambitious foreign policy and engages more actively with the Balkans AND the neighbourhood. This is the real problem with the EU.

As for the lumping together of the Balkans and the neighbourhood – I do not see how this could worsen EU’s performance in the Balkans. The attention factor is important. But there is a huuuge attention deficit in the Eastern neighbourhood if you count the size of commission delegations or visits by high-level EU officials (for example the EC delegations in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Moldova have 1-2 diplomats. Solana has been once to Azerbaijan and Armenia, and twice to Moldova in 10 years). This is not a problem for the Balkans – they get attention, visits, money, advisors, EU missions, etc etc. The real problem lies with the states of the region themselves. It would be unfair to say that the EU underinvested in the Balkans. It could do more of course, but Bosnia’s or Serbia’s problems on their path to the EU will come not because Ukraine will be covered by the same commissioner, but for their own internal insufficient commitment to reforms, or from the fact that EU member states will be sceptical of this or that step in their accession path. and the development of nore high-politics issues like the Greece-Macedonia issue, Slovenia-Croatia disputes, Bosnia’s disfunctionality etc etc will hardly be shaped by the fact that Ukraine is covered by the same commissioner.

By: Julien Frisch

Julien Frisch — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:49:06 +0000

I am also quite interested in see how Cathy Ashton & Štefan Füle will share the work on the neighbourhood.

I suppose that there might be a doubling organisationally, so I expect Ashton to have a team on the Neighbourhood within the External Action Service while Füle will have his whole DG dealing with both, the Neighbourhood and enlargement.

The question that remains for me is who will be responsible of (which) funds…?!

By: Andreja

Andreja — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:43:12 +0000

Dear Nicu,

Coming from a Western Balkan country receiving the news about the merging of the portfolios and more importantly merging of the several regions into one post, sends out a message that raises the concerns over the future enlargement with the WB.

I am not quite sure of the capacity of the new Commissioner to deal with several regions at the same time and more importantly deal with several policies/ issues (Accession talks, Bilateral disputes, SAA, ENP, EaP etc.). The practice showed that all of the WB countries can achieve good progress only if they are under the Brussels eye and unfortunately I think this focus will now be blurred. As countries of the WB are queuing up in the line for accession the need for greater EU presence is bigger. In addition the uncertainty over Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo require double effort by the EU and not once again leaving these issues to the US to deal with.

On the other hand I am very much positively excited because the EU finally between the lines sends a signal of opportunity for the EaP countries and for their integration processes. The leaders of the countries have to now clearly understand this message and immediately start thinking about how they can use this golden opportunity for further integration into the Union.

Regards from Skopje,
Andreja