Why rejecting Merz's idea would hurt Ukraine and what Lithuania and France are proposing instead

The letter from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to the leadership of the EU institutions has reignited discussions about how to rethink the approach to the pre-accession integration of candidate countries, above all Ukraine. In Kyiv, these proposals have been met with considerable scepticism, amid concerns that the new framework could become a substitute for full EU membership.

European Pravda has published detailed coverage of both the criticism of these proposals and the arguments in their defence, as well as explanations provided by the official German side.

Leading European experts Steven Blockmans and Michael Emerson explain why Germany’s ideas may, in fact, have considerable merit.

Read more in the article From Lithuania to Germany: who else is proposing a new path to EU for Ukraine and what lies behind it.

The opening of accession negotiations on the Fundamentals (cluster 1) is expected to happen by the June European Council, following technical consultations between Budapest and Kyiv, after the new Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar said that Ukraine must ensure the Hungarian minority enjoys the same rights as minorities in other EU countries.

The authors stress, however, that accession talks should commence with all 35 negotiation chapters to be opened at an early stage of the process, so that preparedness for membership can be measured across the board and be rewarded with gradually higher levels of access to the EU’s policies, institutions and funding each time average rating thresholds are met.

Support for a form of staged accession for all candidate countries that have opened membership negotiations is found in separate proposals from three member states [Lithuania, Germany and France], which have been in circulation since April.

To signal a firm determination about expanding the EU, a French non-paper talks about extending "integrated state status" encompassing gradually upscaled representative rights in the institutions and pre-accession access to EU policies and "all funding programmes which are open to third countries", subject to candidates having made sufficient progress with regard to the fundamentals and the principle of reversibility.

A German non-paper sent by Chancellor Merz to Presidents Costa, von der Leyen, and Christodoulides for discussion at the June European Council proposes "associate membership" for Ukraine, which is weaker than the French label since the candidate country already has an association agreement with the EU.

However, the German proposal goes much further in spelling out institutional access prior to formal accession, with, among others, full participation (without voting rights) in European Council and Council meetings, and the appointment of an associate Commissioner (without portfolio), associate MEPs (without voting rights), and an associate judge of the Court of Justice. Here, too, an incremental approach in stages would make sense.

For Berlin, the distinguishing feature between Ukraine and the other candidate countries lies in the "particular situation the country has been forced into" by Russia, and the time pressure the EU is under to enhance Ukraine’s position in view of the impending peace process.

Notably, neither the French nor the German non-paper mentions extending qualified majority voting (QMV) to intermediate steps in the accession process, an idea that several think tanks have been pushing for years.

A Lithuanian non-paper does make this plea, but other member states have not endorsed it so far. One concern about the paper is that it proposes that the EU set a target date for "membership within this decade".

Vilnius suggested that the concept of "acceding state". These are attractive proposals that merit serious consideration and should not be left by the wayside by the European Council and in the follow-up to its discussion.

The experts argue that having a seat at the table often matters as much as having a vote.

Candidate countries which are bestowed with speaking rights gain influence in the decision-shaping process of EU positions and legislation where, more often than not, no vote is taken. Rejecting such an offer is to underestimate the value and promise it holds.

They insist that the extension of representative rights prior to accession does not relegate candidate countries to a waiting room. It marks an important signpost on the formal trajectory towards full membership.