Has the Sandu administration made any noise at all about Moldova being willing to enter the EU without a veto? It would likely be politically expedient from an accession standpoint to do so. Maybe even make some noise about Romania's veto serving Moldova's needs...
Hi Benjamin, thanks for the question! Maia Sandu seemed open to that (temporary) arrangement when she was asked about the recent German proposal. Albania has also expressed openness to a phased membership. Ukraine is less open to that and (rightly) does not like the idea that they will do the dying for the bloc's defense without full membership.
Personally, it seems to me like a solution to the wrong problem. Let's say the candidate countries enter and get no veto for 5 or 10 years - what then? what are the conditions that allow a veto? is there any guarantee that Moldova will never elect a pain-in-the-ass government?
This is especially silly in the context of the rising AfD in Germany, far-right in France and Donald Trump being in the White House. They all show that no country is immune from wild political swings.
So the bigger problem is the veto itself and the need for majority voting in almost all situations. I think that 5 years for Moldova without a veto is basically 5 more years for the EU to neuter the veto itself. I'd be fine with that... but why not start with that? At least it would be the solution to the right problem.
Has the Sandu administration made any noise at all about Moldova being willing to enter the EU without a veto? It would likely be politically expedient from an accession standpoint to do so. Maybe even make some noise about Romania's veto serving Moldova's needs...
Hi Benjamin, thanks for the question! Maia Sandu seemed open to that (temporary) arrangement when she was asked about the recent German proposal. Albania has also expressed openness to a phased membership. Ukraine is less open to that and (rightly) does not like the idea that they will do the dying for the bloc's defense without full membership.
Personally, it seems to me like a solution to the wrong problem. Let's say the candidate countries enter and get no veto for 5 or 10 years - what then? what are the conditions that allow a veto? is there any guarantee that Moldova will never elect a pain-in-the-ass government?
This is especially silly in the context of the rising AfD in Germany, far-right in France and Donald Trump being in the White House. They all show that no country is immune from wild political swings.
So the bigger problem is the veto itself and the need for majority voting in almost all situations. I think that 5 years for Moldova without a veto is basically 5 more years for the EU to neuter the veto itself. I'd be fine with that... but why not start with that? At least it would be the solution to the right problem.