Why advancing "EU laws" in Ukraine is becoming increasingly problematic

With less than three weeks remaining until the end of June, it’s already clear that Kyiv will not open EU accession negotiations with the first clusters in the first half of 2025 due to Hungary’s veto.

However, judging by the discussion held during the "Eurointegration Kitchen" forum, this is far from the only challenge facing the negotiations.

European Pravda has observed a closed-door discussion on the state of the Fundamentals cluster at Kyiv’s Eurohub.

Read more about the obstacles to Ukraine’s EU integration raised during the discussion in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko and Yurii Panchenko, European Pravda's editors: The Eurointegration Kitchen: shedding light on hidden challenges in Ukraine’s EU accession talks.

The "Eurointegration Kitchen" became a venue for a difficult but open conversation between MPs, officials and experts.

Government representatives acknowledge that progress on adopting "EU laws" is becoming increasingly difficult.

MP Serhii Demchenko (Servant of the People) explained that "resistance to bills in parliament is usually due to the draft being flawed." Some speakers, including MPs, agreed to be quoted by name.

MP Vadym Halaichuk also pointed out that a lack of communication slows the adoption of certain bills. Many MPs are simply not properly informed about the content of EU-integration legislation.

In an unusual step to involve lawmakers more deeply, the government has decided to include parliamentary representatives in future negotiation groups.

Demchenko also highlighted a lack of trust.

Some EU requirements are indeed questionable. For instance, the demand to pass a law on lobbying was added partway through fulfilling the EU candidate criteria. This demand drew justified criticism from Ukrainian experts, who noted that lobbying is not even consistently regulated across EU member states. In Ukraine, during a phase of intense legislative transformation, such a law could actually hinder necessary advocacy efforts.

Nonetheless, the EU remained firm and did not clearly explain the rationale behind the lobbying requirement.

At the same time, the EU has shown a willingness to be flexible in talks with Ukraine, even in how it formulates its requirements.

"There are times when we explain that a certain draft law won’t get enough support in parliament, and the EU side responds with concessions," said Vadym Halaichuk.

This flexibility is particularly evident in the Fundamentals, which includes democracy, rule of law and related areas. These fields are not governed by many hard, one-size-fits-all rules in the EU itself.

But how should this flexibility be interpreted? Does it mean Ukraine should lower the bar for reforms – or raise it?

For example, Demchenko believes the reform "roadmaps" agreed between Ukraine’s government and the European Commission should be made less demanding. However, several other participants argued the opposite: the requirements should be made even stricter.

The government stresses that these roadmaps already represent a compromise between civil society, the state and the European Commission.

Still, there’s concern that EU flexibility could be abused by bad actors within Ukraine’s system.

"We are increasingly seeing attacks on anti-corruption tools and attempts to restrict or undermine institutional independence," one government representative admitted.