Who and why in Europe turned against Macron and Merkel
Eleven "new" and two "old" countries of the European Union took the initiative to accelerate the process of expanding the community through the admission of Albania and Northern Macedonia. Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Estonia addressed the EU Council’s appeal to launch the accession negotiations process with Tirana and Skopje as quickly as possible. This was announced on Tuesday by the EURACTIV Brussels news portal, which also quoted an unnamed diplomat from one of these countries, who explained the demarche’s meaning.
In his opinion, the EU enlargement should go hand in hand with the deepening of European integration, since both processes are not contradictory.
However, this is not all, since the other purpose of the appeal is to exert pressure on the countries of the “old” Europe, who are not enthusiastic about the prospect of accepting in the EU two poor Balkan states.
This initiative will be presented at a meeting of the EU Permanent Representatives Committee on Wednesday. If she receives the approval of the EU ambassadors, she will be considered further at the ministerial level.
The European Commission in May recommended starting negotiations with these countries. Now, this recommendation will either have to be approved or postponed in the EU Council, where the launch of the relevant negotiations is blocking a number of states from among the “old” community members, in the forefront of which are France and the Netherlands.
To intimidate these countries, a diplomat quoted by EURACTIV stated that if accession negotiations Skopje and Tirana would be postponed,
The Czech Foreign Ministry has confirmed that Prague is participating in this initiative. The head of the Czech Foreign Ministry, Tomasz Petršíček, said: "I will be an ardent supporter of turning on the green light for both countries."
And where is the logic?
At first glance it seems that there is nothing sensational in the foregoing. But there not only everything is built on logical contradictions, but there is also a “hidden agenda”, because it means not at all what is being voiced.
Let's start from the beginning: at the same time expanding and deepening the integration is impossible. To put the question differently means to consciously ruin the EU, to lead matters towards its weakening, to kindle the already very widespread Eurosceptic sentiments in the community.
Because these are two different policies - either expanding, creating a loose, unsuited association, in which it is becoming increasingly difficult to agree on something, or to integrate. You can successfully do the latter only if you are aware that there is no alternative to a “Europe of two speeds”. Since the Netherlands can not really "integrate", for example, with Albania, a semi-ardent and backward country. They can be integrated with Germany, France, comparable in terms of welfare, economic development and culture of the states.
This ambitious project requires a lot of money and money, political will, effort and resources, which leaves no room for allocating large-scale funds to the Balkan corruption swamp at the moment when the sad example of Greece is chronic problems in Bulgaria and Romania are in full view.
Therefore, attempts to drag North Macedonia and Albania into the EU will in fact mean giving up the creation in Europe of a smaller, but internally strong and homogeneous superstate in perspective. And it doesn’t matter what they call it - “Macron's Super State” or the “Fourth Reich”.
Thus, there is a desire under the guise of concern for the EU enlargement to “bury” the bold initiative of Paris and Berlin. The arguments of an unnamed European diplomat about “pressure”, pointing to the continuing split of the “old” and “new” Europe, pursue the same goal.
The logic is simply ridiculous, according to which the non-admission of problem states to the EU would become an even bigger problem than if they were taken there. Because in reality, then, the external problems of the community would become internal.
The answer to the question of who benefits from the weakening of the EU is much easier than it seems. To do this, just carefully examine the list of countries that have launched the above initiative. It mainly consists of the countries of the "new" Europe. A common place is that they orient themselves primarily not to Paris and Berlin, but to Washington and generally appeared in the EU, largely due to the pressure of the United States and are American “Trojan horses” in the community. Therefore, American ears are clearly sticking out behind this whole story. After all, the weaker Europe, the lower its geopolitical weight, the stronger the United States, the easier it is for them to impose their will on Europeans.
Meanwhile, the countries of the “new” Europe, whether for historical reasons or on orders from Washington, are ready to do everything so that large and developed European countries give them only money, and nothing more. Germany is good for them only as a “cash cow,” not as a country that gives orders. The Europe of the “two speeds”, which Berlin and Paris advocate, will inevitably lead to the marginalization of the non-root EU countries, the emergence of Europe of the “second”, or even the “third” sort. So, from their point of view, nothing should be.