Professor at the Faculty of Economics, University Donja Gorica and negotiator for chapters 10, 25 and 26, Mr Anđelko Jopur, says that, considering the proposals which are the basis of the new methodology framework, one can conclude that this would be an opportunity for the process to become more effective and much faster.
Why do EU negotiations take so long? What was the adoption of the new methodology preceded by?
Mr Lojpur: We should bear in mind the entire period in which the negotiation process started and how it developed, starting from 21 May 2006 until 29 June 2012, when the negotiations officially started. It was the period of gradual recovery from economic crisis, when heads of governments and states concluded that strategic goals stipulated in the so called Lisbon agenda hadn’t been met.
At the same time, some radical steps were taking place at the global geo-political level. The EU was faced with a set of difficulties which seriously jeopardized its guiding idea and made objectives difficult to achieve. Great Britain’s announcement on leaving the EU aggravated the situation, along with the change in political balance leading to strengthening the right wing and France’s disapproval of the enlargement. It was clear the EU was suffering from the lack of leadership and absence of agreement on key questions.
What is the essence of the improvement of the EU accession process and what is the application of the new methodology supposed to enable?
Mr Lojpur: The document encompasses four important aspects of the process, expressed in the form of request: a) more credibility; b) stronger political management; c) more dynamic process; d) predictability, positive and negative conditionality.
The superficial introduction to the proposed solutions leads to the conclusion that this is the new beginning. This is an opportunity for valid assessment of the progress candidate countries have made. One of the key provisions is that, this time, the focus is on the “strong, merits based on the prospects for full-fledged membership of the Western Balkans”.
What is an important difference in comparison to earlier approach?
Mr Lojpur: Unlike earlier approach, trust has been emphasized. In order for the accession process to regain credibility of both sides and fulfill new potential, it is necessary that the approach is based on mutual trust and greater commitment. Apart from that, requests for stringer focus on fundamental reforms are highlighted, as well as stronger EU financial support and economic reinforcement of the aspirants.
Chapters will be grouped in clusters with the aim of monitoring progress made in the negotiations. Negotiation framework for Montenegro and Serbia won’t be changed.
Will the proposal for the new methodology be an additional limiting factor or incentive to the completion of negotiation process?
Mr Lojpur: In my opinion, there’s only one reliable criteria for the assessment of the validity of the proposed changes in the negotiation methodology and that is to what extent its consistent application will shorten the negotiation period. In other words, will the entire process will be over before 2025? Therefore, the ultimate effect of the entire process is not never fully certain al song as some country is outside the EU. Once we start functioning as part of the EU system, we will feel the real confirmation of the quality.
The EU has given hope to Eurosceptics…
Mr Lojpur: That’s true. The EU has been supporting European perspective of the WB ever since the Thessaloniki 2000 and 2003. But, the moment 2025 was marked as the “day D” for Montenegro’s accession, it wasn’t that encouraging anymore. In that context, the only logical answer that EU received from Montenegro was that we would focus more on the quality, not dates and speed.
Considering everything that took place in the application of the new methodology, is the situation in relation to the reception of new members better?
Mr Lojpur: This question became more important with the election of the new European government. Reforms in the EU should not bring into question the reception of new members, which finally resulted in the document “Improvement of the accession process- credible EU’s perspective for WB”, published at the beginning of February this year.
For example, Mrs Ursula Von der Leyen, who took over the function of the head of the EC on 1 December last year, said that she advocated for the parallel changes in the pre-accession negotiations. She stressed that the decision on failing to open negotiation process with North Macedonia and Albania was a strategic mistake.
