The EU Should NOT Accept New Members. Yet. 

EU needs reform before they accept new members

As a person from a non-EU country, in Europe, I agree that we shouldn't join yet, it would be great for us in many ways but I'd rather us join when Europe is capable of letting us in than to join a Europe that WE will just use and not contribute to anything, we need to work together and we already are in many ways, half the people in my country already have EU citizenship and have proven that are worth their salt, but it needs to be more than that.

So true..We have to reform the EU before we accept new members.. The veto should stay only for issues that have to do with national security and Defence since the EU is not a military organization and also in many cases, some European states make decisions according to their national economic interests that might be against the national security of another member state.

We don't need EU, we're going in BRICS, greetings from Macedonia

I am from Türkiye and as I see things EU countries have to sort out their problems first and start accepting new members later because EU must be strong and stable so that members can benefit from it. New members will add to the chaos not to the stability of the union. But to keep candidates close, EU must continue membership process, even it is slow to keep things stable and in order. For Turkish this became an emotional process more than economical and democratic process. Turkish democracy can thrive under the influence of EU countries and depends on the relations. You all know how quickly Türkiye can slide away from democracy and far from EU and western alliance of people feel rejected. While people here feel that EU dream is over it is not too late to win them back. Erdogan will not be here forever and I think Türkiye will contribute much to union as well as union influence on Turkish democracy will be so great. It will be a politically wise decision to try to pull Türkiye towards EU rather than forcing procedures. I have lived through membership process and the Turkish decline in the last part. We need EU standards that’s for sure. As I said before EU must stay strong and stable, for the good of the members as well as for the good of the candidates therefore EU should decide for the best way even if it means prolonging the membership process. New members should not have veto rights for a time defined by major EU countries or they fulfill the criteria again defined by major members. You cannot just accept a member and give them full control over decisions. It should be done according to the EU’s best interest since candidates want membership because EU is governed right and it is the reason they want to join. Keep the club clean people and respect the older members. Remember that EU is the shining beacon of democracy and prosperity and should be preserved at all costs. Also please find a way to regulate immigration. This a real problem that is hindering all work towards progress and happiness of the people of EU. When it comes to Ukraine, remember these people are fighting and bleeding for a better future which is connected to west so they should be evaluated accordingly and fair.

As a Pole I can say that even being liberal and proeu myself, there should be a gate for a block of countries to veto decisions, for example at least 5 countries despite their size, that way the biggest countries would have to agree couse they are able to build these blocks .Strategic decisions like bringing back russia to european politics to prewar extent couldnt be done wiyhout eastern eu feeling secure with it for example.

No human rights no membership. Bye bye Turkey ✋😏

I am from Macedonia, and we are tired from EU's and our neighbor's games, pressures, hypocrisy and unreasonable conditions. Macedonian public is growing tired of and looks unfavorably towards this kind of behavior. If it was up to me, I'd quit negations and seek an alternative ally.

First of all, we've heard all of these arguments before the former Warsaw-Pact countries entered the EU. It didn't stop any of them. Secondly, they're not a member in the forseeable futur. Some - like Turkey and Serbia - make it even impossible that they ever become a member of the EU. There is also a possible life outside the EU (like Suisse, Norway, Iceland and so on).

Great video. Although I am from a candidate county and although I really want to see my country in the EU, I think you are right. There should be reform before that, even if it leads to larger waiting times. It is in the interest of the EU. It can be made a lot better. Maybe a multi teir EU is the only way to solve it, at first I didn't like the idea, but it just makes a lot of sense and plus I don't see an alternative currently. I'm going to watch that video next.

As a Bulgarian we want to LEAVE this dictator state!

Awesome video ! Not only is everything super well explained, it also highlights solutions and hypotheses for the future, instead of pointing out only the quirks in the system.

Super looking forward to the new video on multi-tiered EU! Great video by the way, I love how factual it is, and does not get lost in the sometimes overly positive mindset of pro-EU people.

Then you’ll loose those countries to China, or even Russia even. They already lost Turkey basically

Hungary should be kicked out of EU!

Ukraine should wait some good decades to join the EU!!!

Great video and explanation, and looking forward to the next. :)

Great video I definitely agree that the veto needs to go away and change with the suggestions you showed. Sadly to change this requires everyone to agree which won’t happen. The EU is kinda broken in this field.

Definitely ,there is no place for Turkey

To sum it up, you’d like the EU to listen a bit more to the French 😂 As for this multi tiered EU advocated by France for… ever, you might have noticed it’s there already. Schengen/not Schengen, Eurozone/Not Eurozone, etc. And now an outer circle/tier with the CPE (European Political Community). Now you don’t address the main conflict in your own analysis, which results from what’s unsaid: the nature of the EU. Either it’s a union of countries, and then strategic disalignment can exist and vetoes are a valuable safeguard, or it’s a union of citizens and there’s no reason a Malta citizen holds more power than a German one. Reality is it’s both, hence this complicated voting system and a very specific way of negotiating called « package deals ». Talking about various voting systems without looking at how it would change the constitutional and political nature of the EU (or, the other way, how a change in the EU’s nature would be needed to make another voting system works) is a bit shallow. At the end of the day, institutions are just a way to organise reality, they don’t create it. Power and influence is what really matters. As far as the EU is concerned, the main event for the last two decades was Brexit and how it rebalanced power and influence across the block, not so much reduction of veto rights.

we don't even want to enter the EU. Greetings from Macedonia

I wouldnt want a multi-tiered EU, but unfortunately there is no other realistic choice. That is why I support the idea, and hopefully the more integrated part will have the other members outside of it join, just like with Schengen agreement. Maybe a third solution would be the enhanced cooperation method, but it would risk fracturing the EU more as this method is topic-based. So yes, multi-tiered should be the way to go ahead

The EU should definitely take up the rest of Europe.

Well hypothetically speaking, Turkiye's accession to EU (assuming that freedom of movement is granted) will destroy Turkish economy even further as Turkiye's blue collar workforce would instantly abandon Turkiye for wealthier Western nations. Turkiye would then need immigration from poorer non-EU nations which would bring further problems. I think from a Turkish standpoint it's a lot healthier to accept that Turkiye will never be an EU member and it has no reasons to, anyway. Europe's borders are open to well qualified individuals from all over there world and that's good enough.

A larger unified EU means only more power and stability to the continent.

You forgot about Georgia as well. Georgia, although it did not get candidate status, still applied for membership

Why is Georgia part of ruzzian in 1st map? Also isnt part of Azerbaijan considered as Europe while none of Armenia is?

Most recent polls in Serbia show that more than 60 percent of people are for joining the EU as an economic union if Serbia didnt have to give up Kosovo, less than 30 percent people are for joining if Serbia has to recognise Kosovo. Its pretty black and white, every year Serbia fullfills more requirements and EU just adds more. Serbia is the only candidate ever that EU demands them to recognise their teritory as a sovereign. I wouldnt want to join either.

The entrance of turkey to the EU would be the death of the west. it was fun while it lasted

EU isn’t US or Brazil - It’s a framework for international relations, cooperation and reconciliation, not just another empire trying to hold all the provinces together. EU isn’t a geopolitical unit in a common sense, it’s different

I like your new longer Vids. Way better than before

And how did EU accept Romania and Bulgaria in 2007,hmm? Did these 2 countries fulfill all requirements before they joined? Maybe we should talk about that.

Ireland used veto power more than Hungary or Poland in its lifespan in EU...

Very interesting to see more opinion videos, just like your audience requested. Either way, when reforming, the EU needs to strike a balance between giving member states the power (Intergovernmentalism) regardless of size, and giving the citizens the power (supranationalism) regardless of national origin. The current system is, in principle, the best approach: the two bodies that accept the law which everyone abides by technically have equal power; the Parliament representing the citizens and the Council representatives the member states. They both have an equal say in regards to law, and in my opinion, this is how it should be. It is important to understand that both of these approaches have some merit and advantages, therefore we ought to reach a compromise to best make use of our system; the EU is very close to achieving this. If the voting method can be reformed and the veto removed, I believe we would reach a nearly perfect legislative system. Great and informative video, as usual!

Great video, probably the most useful in this chanel.

2:46 the guys eyes, when the EU don't wanna put up with your goulash anymore 😂😂😂

Especially when there are more important things to do, like equalise economies and lower gas emissions.

EU financial balance would be unstable if we accept Türkiye and/or Ukrayina. So I think we need to make those nations rich in EU first to be contributors (like Spain) or we need either Norge or Switz to join.

anyone i know in Türkiye dont care becoming eu membership really

As Czech I empathize with almost everything said here (Orban, 1 blocking country, need for reform… etc) and generally I am very pro-EU (and wish for some federalism model in the future)…. but … but … I am almost equally torn with the proposed multi-tiered integration, especially because it is driven by France and Germany - those two countries, which vision did fail in our opinion in the East so spectacularly regarding necessity of strategic safety (Energy, Russia) while constantly reminded in the past. If those countries made a block in fully reformed EU, they would be far from supermajority… However, considering some potential core of multitiered integration - those can easily dominate anything and henceforth determine future trends by themselves. That sounds scary over-here. Macron is disappointed from decrease of enthusiasm in Eastern part of EU for further EU integration, and while I sympathize with him (I wish further integration) I recognize that his own country and his own policies are partly the reason. The disillusion from handling Russia for the last 15 years (and not listening about the influence of their hybrid influence for example in the migration crisis in 2015, where they managed to stoke panic in our populace to high degree only to be extremely chastised by both Germany and France - created partly heart ache in the hearts of liberals over here … and so on and so on, EU commissioners almost never ever travel to our country and never talk to our media or blogs, while they do to francophone ones … so it helps too to feel integration is just Franco-centric or Germano-centric prospect) If integration - than let’s overcome Hungary somehow and let’s do that together. Not with Germany/France deciding through some small core.

At 0:31 you display Georgia and Belarus as part of Russia while displaying Kazakhstan and Armenia as separate. Honestly kinda disrespectful towards those two, especially Georgia.

The next country that needs to enter is Montenegro because it has a 100 percent harmonized policy with the EU, is a member of NATO, has a small population and we use the euro as a currency, thereby giving hope to other countries that the effort will pay off 🇲🇪🇪🇺🇲🇪🇪🇺

Your proposed solution was the one which came to my mind too. It is not a new idea, so I might be influenced by prior knowledge, but it really does seem to be the only option.

Honestly, part of me thinks Hungary shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore, temporarily, not permanently, they should be given a second chance at some point. Multi-tiered EU sounds fine in theory, but in your graphics it appears to be based on geography which I think would divide us further, I don't think all countries in the less integration graphic want less integration and not being allowed to integrate further would make people more Eurosceptic and probably push them to form closer ties with the US and support them not the EU when there's a conflict of interest / opinion / international policy. More or less integration should not be based on geographical location, especially if we're still talking about Turkey joining the EU.

While I agree that EU needs to reform (not only in VETO area but to equalize the GDP and salaries between east and west EU countries, it is not ok for French or German to have 4500 EUR while Pole or Romanian have 1200 or less) but they should not wait too long becasue in those potential member states the popular support for joining is becoming less and less the times go forward. Most Turks do not support EU membership today, Serbia is on the fence and Bosnia will most likely follow. Albania or Macedonia will also lose support the more the time goes forward.

In your guys opinon if in a crazy hypothetical Norway, Iceland and Switzerland voted to join would you let them in now or wait?

I vehemently oppose QMV, that leads to ignoring nearly half the continent's interests. I still feel like the Supermajority would end possibly up excluding too many countries anyway. This only got so bad due to Hungary and the war. We just need high standards for admissions and mechanisms for punishing breaking them. And we basically do, the funding would be cut wouldn't it be for the dire situation in the East. The rotating presidency is a big issue indeed, what are the potential solutions except reducing the presidency to the ineffective 4 months? The Parliament seems like a relatively easy fix, add more and rebalance. The Commission is bloated anyway. Perhaps just make permament duos working on one matter each? The budget definetly could use some restructuring, especially in farming, but free trade and growth kinda offset the contributions.

I remember there was a topic of "EU Core" in like 2016-ish. I remember in slovakia the goverment expressed very strong desire to be part of it.

No, if the Netherlands can keep Romania and Bulgaria outside Schenghen even if we worked so hard to get in, the system should stay the same and should not be changed because one country doesn't vote like the "great powers" would want. Democracy is agreement of all parties involved, not just the majority. Brexit is a good example - the majority agreed on 1 thing and the UK is not handling the situation well. What France and Germany are proposing is the ex USSR model if you ask me - everybody voted for what Moscow wanted and there was not debate if 1 party disagreed. This will make the voting process into a performance art. We didn't break our economies while making the political changes just to get the same short stick. And I come from Bulgaria so I have seen these processes with my own eyes.

I agree with you, the European Union must reform its laws and that laws can be approved by a simple majority... The United Kingdom was always a burden for the European Union because deep down they did not feel part of the union and many projects were delayed due to this

Same with Schengen, Austria holding Romania and Bulgaria with only one no vote meanwhile all others voted yes

The Veto system was a huge mistake and should have never been implemented in the first place.

The original six plus Austria should leave the EU as a block, and start again as a confederation just like Switzerland.

Dear people who are in EU, what are your thoughts on Serbia as a country, and our people? Would you like to see Serbia or any other country in the EU?

We do not want other countries behaving like Hungary and Poland, on the same side to destroy the concept of Rule of Law in Europe. No, firstly we deal with this filo-Russian mentality and then we can accept new members.

Fair point. Maybe a 2 tier or... We promoting a sperate EU like organization (sharing same goals and with partner status but independent) for those waiting... Sometimes i feel like with should promote and help countries in other continents that wish to create projects similar to us, like in northern africa or in south America. I feel that mote important than to be a member/have new members is yo have psrtners, like Norway or Switzerland that ate not in but closely cooperqte with us

Well it is not entirely related to the subject of the video but I think membership of Turkey will truly test our acceptance of secularism as a core european value not only in Turkey but also in all of Europe. The arguments about turkish identity not being european enough always turns out to be religiously motivated int he end on both sides (in turkey and europe) and it is a big shame for all europeans including turks. There has to be a future for all of us where we liberate ourselves from the influence of some idiotic ancient moral codes and get together around modern, logical and benevolent shared core values. Just be open-minded and you will be surprised for sure. Those who most fervently oppose turkey and other so called muslim majority countries share the same mentality with radical islamists in those countries you see...

While you address some fair points, I really disagree with the point of now allowing new members, because: a) Promises. Back in 2003, the Western Balkans were promised a future in the EU; b) Ignoring the made efforts by the countries. While some have been backsliding (Serbia, Turkey), others have been through great efforts to become new members. North Macedonia literally changed its name to do so; c) Maintaining hope and influence in the countries concerned. The disinterested attitude of the EU pre-2022 Ukraine invasion seriously affected the attitudes of the people of the Western Balkans towards the EU. It can make them more disinterested in politics, create more opportunities for corruption and 'strong men', and leave them more open to influence of China and Russia. You can see that in some countries, democratic values have been decreasing in part because of this; d) The time it'll take to join the EU. Out of all applicants, only Montenegro is likely to join in the short term (if their politicians finally sort their own mess out). The others would be Albania and North Macedonia, and they will still take years to join. Integration into full EU membership can still take place while the EU works on reforming; e) But countering the previous point, reform in the EU can easily take a decade if not more. What you are basically saying is telling a whole extra generation that they have no chance of joining even if they qualify for membership; f) The short-term effect of countries joining. Really, what's the overal impact of a country like Montenegro joining the EU? We're talking about a country that would have the second-smallest population of the block (just above Malta) and mainly consists out of mountains. It's agriculture and economy are small, so it'll make little dent in the EU budgets. The only significant impact would be the veto right. But considering the strong EU attitude of the population and willingness to organise demonstrations for it, it is highly unlikely it'll change into the next Hungary. The 'concerning' countries (those who's membership would make the biggest impact on the EU as a whole) would really be Ukraine and Turkey. At present, Turkey is unlikely to ever join - currently nobody's taking their application seriously, even the EU itself: it isn't even considered to be part of the current enlargement program - so the most likely country that would make the biggest impact would be Ukraine. Concerning attitude it will be absolutely no issue, as its European ambitions is a reason why it is currently at war (and we all massively owe them for their efforts to keep the Russians at bay and reinvigorating the EU). The biggest impact would be on the budget, which is going to be massive. But Ukraine isn't going to be a member this year, next year or the year after. It is more likely not going to be before 2030, so there's time left for reform; g) From a selfish point of view: some of these countries have highly valuable resources, especially Ukraine (in natural gas, lithium, titanium and other resources, contribution in energy production). A country like Ukraine will be a massive contributor to the strategic independence of the EU; h) At present, the current applicants face restrains including on economic level. Keeping them away from EU membership will limiting their economic development, which will put them in a position of remaining poorer countries; i) For all of these countries, there simply isn't a plan b: none have other means of becoming the next Switzerland. They literally have no other option than to be part of the EU; j) In line with the previous points: most of these countries are depopulating because of limited economic opportunities, corruption and no visible viable future within their respective countries. Blocking any possible EU membership will accelerate this process; k) One important reason why the EU has changed its attitude towards expansion is the realisation that the current status quo is not a guarantee of maintaining peace on the continent. The best guarantees are a) EU membership (peace and prosperity between members) and b) NATO membership (the shield against outside adversaries). You can bet that because of our support for Ukraine, Russia will try to pull every possible lever to create as many crises as possible for us. For example, I for one wouldn't be surprised if there's a strong hand of Russia in the recent Serbia-Kosovo tensions, or the general destabilisation in Bosnia & Herzegovina; l) There is no equal level between the EU states and those wishing to join. The perfect example is North Macedonia, which has been going through a lot by being pushed around by Greece, France/Netherlands and Bulgaria. It would take away their ability of becoming on equal footing with other European nations. The most realistic way of maintaining peace and prosperity on the continent is to allow any country that wishes to join the EU to provide them this opportunity, provided they meet the conditions. Just because a country wants to it doesn't mean we should lower the standards, we do indeed need to take into consideration about how it went wrong with Hungary. We do indeed need reforms, such as the abolishment of the veto. But we cannot just decline other countries because of faults in the system. We cannot leave them hang out to dry, to treat them as second-class Europeans because we've made a mess and need to change things. And it isn't just for the future of these countries, it is also in our interest to have these countries be part of the EU. We therefore should not and cannot decline countries who have met the conditions of becoming new member states. It should be the other way around: with new members around the block, we need to work fast on preparing the EU for the membership of these countries.

100% on point!

i don't fully agree but i've always wanted to hear the reasoning behind this opinion

Macedonia should be the only one to join, others are quite a bit difficult with malign influences, Montenegro has large serbian/russian influence, albania is tangled in the kosovo situation, Serbia obviously large russian influence and kosovo, bosnia tangled with serbia, Turkey is too big and culturally different.

Balkans should be give priority in EU membership

The Eu should throw out Hungary and let no other country in that doesn't meet the necessary level of democracy and stability. No poor countries that need their own people to build up their country. But those candidate countries should be helped with fighting corruption and education. Turkey is aa Asian country and should never be let in. The small part in Europe says nothing and their treatment of minorities is just another reason to keep them out. Not saying we shouldn't work with Turkey where we can but the people already here aren't really intergrating and a danger to our democracy. Not all of course but too many.

Especially not Serbia for this generation, since it is Russia's trojan horse.

Agreed

very good video, definitely some challenges in the EU’s future for a geopolitical world in need for a stronger Europe and its values

I think the European Union needs to recruit new members urgently. Many Americans think that because of the aggressive behavior of Russia and China, the European Union will live its past history again. damn It seems like a second Marshal aid is on the way.

Removing the veto would cause cohesion issues tho... There are upsides to it as well.

At this point I expect Hungary vetoing care packages meant for itself.

In my opinion, the EU should focus on fixing its economy by being innovators and independent on china and the usa instead of adding new poor country, cuz they will not able to help economically in the future.

A federation could be an excellent option with a simple mechanism of accession and adaptation, as there would be a single legislation and there would be no need to adapt local to European, but only to translate existing European laws into the language of the new member

Okay but wasnt EU unanimity vote for union that had like 3countries ?

The core issue in case of Hungary is one of culture. While the hungarian population at the collapse of the iron curtain had a genuine desire to adopt western institutions, and western way of life, in 2022 the majority views these with slight detest at best. Economically it is vital for the country to be part of the EU, but otherwise the people want to do nothing with it. Since there is no procedure to kick out a country against it's will, this is kind of an impossible situation, casue Hungary will indeed block any reforms which in the long run may force it to change it's current radical right-wing authoritarian system. The only viable way for EU leaders may be to pick on the country until it leaves voluntarily. The anti-eu propaganda of the government over the years had already planted some kind of HUXIT sentiment in the fanatic government supporter strata of the population.

Neither the EU nor the candidate countrys are ready. The EU will be lucky to continue to exist considering the challenges to EU authority being brought by existing EU member states. The EU must either pursue greater fiscal, legal, and military unity or face collapse.

As someone British who voted for Brexit,and No I don’t regret it either the countries that want to join the EU will be net recievers,not net contributors. And I think with the withdrawal of the U.K. my feeling is that the EU cannot afford new members. And note that no country has joined to replace the U.K.

Hungayri - biggest problem

The way I see it is that we need this multi-tier EU, with one side aiming to become a European federation. We wouldn’t be able to thrive otherwise between the US, Russian and Chinese interests. The remaining countries can decide if they want to give up more independece and join the federation or not. Ofc, the electoral system of the federation would need to be designed to force politicians to represent all people within.

We should also never accept multiple states all at once. Have a period of e.g. 5 years between admissions. The "big bang" expansion of 2004 was a mistake in retrospect as we've accepted multiple states that simply were not ready to be accepted.

The unanimity principle with country vetoes is broken, but the supermajority as proposed here does horrible job addressing the points raised by the smaller states. 80% population requirement means that large state like Germany (who already almost has the 20% of EU population necessary to block anything) would effectively retain its veto while everyone else loses it. It's still a huge shift of power from the smaller states to the larger ones. Lets look at it this way - larger states naturally form a "voting block" of its citizens, with disproportionately more weight than independent smaller states. If NATO had a voting system, United States would totally dominate in the voting over larger but more disunited Europe. So to fix that the Supermajority QM voting it could be more like 75% member states with 70% population (=requiring greater percentage for number of states and less percentage for population), meaning that Germany together with either France or Italy can still block everyone else, but so can a coalition of 7 smaller states.

5:16 this makes sense. Not sure of the ramifications, I am not an expert, but to me as a layman it seems like something that could work in the long run.

The multi tier EU could be a Pandora s box we do not want to open. I dont agree with it at all

I believe that EU should decrease amount of their members. Not in the litteral sense of kicking out existing members, but through integration of current members into a federations with united representation in EU. Of course considering current geopolitical state of EU it might be a bit impossible, but at least I could humour myself believing that maybe someday such prospects would be possible.

I am sorry to say but the EU should only invite those which really wish to join. Bosnia&Herzegovina is very tricky since forever in history, not only EU but also Russia and Turkey wish to be politicaly present in BiH so it would be a very hard to have a stable political cooperation with BiH. Serbia is so much divided on the question of joining the EU, some wish to be "free" (as they believe to join is actualy to become ocupied), some wish to be almost something as a member of the Russian federation, and the least of people actualy wish to join the EU. Turkey if it joined would become a "Hungarian problem" forever. A much better EU policy would be to keep tight(er) ecnomical cooperation with those countries and maybe making it easier for their people to travel to EU, something like for the EU countries outside Shengen, but it should also finaly let Romania and Bulgaria into Schengen or those countries might replace the feeling of being 2nd class EU citizens with the feelings of maybe being better off with some other "alliances" (history should be a teacher for the EU bureaucrats!)

It shouldn't matter for size of population of smaller or bigger countries if it is measured in percentage. For veto to work shouldn't work on one country but rather at a minimum of 5 or so. This way they still can veto but can't force their way.

With such small populations, there would be no negative impact to the EU if Macedonia and Montenegro were allowed to enter the Union tomorrow.

Turkey firstly must convert to Christianity. Then European Union must accept Turkey. Before the accpetance there must be trial period like 5 years. The trial process must include integretion with 1 European Union country. This European Union country must come Turkey and teach everything.

Supermajority seems like the way to go personally... It protects smaller members while also keeping it reasonable since imho most things should still be passed on unanimity, but one or two countries fucking with the system is fucking insane. The fact Hungary could just fuck all progress because they got punished is insane.

I'm not a political scientist but I could imagine a sort of "emergency veto". In such a system any member state can veto any decision but if they do they won't be able to do so again for a certain time period.This way members will really only use their veto if they consider something to be extremely serious for them.

As a Serb i hope that we wont join the EU due to many different reasons.

Multi Speed EU is the only practical solution till the old national chains were broken.

I don't like the idea of "multi-tiered EU", it sounds very discriminating calling new member states e. g. "third-tier EU members" compared to "first-tier" Belgium or Netherlands. It's better to improve cooperation and support for candidate states before they join - less threats and blackmailing and more help. And when they finally join - treat them as equals, that's what the idea of a Union is about. Also, some decisions can be made with supermajority but in my opinion suck key aspects as funding third countries and supplying weapons should only be decided unanimously.

Turkey aint european they just own a little land in thrace lmfao

As a Serb i would like to see my country in the EU 🇷🇸🇪🇺

Turkey did with NATO exactly what Hungary did with EU, pretty much blackmail...

Turkey shouldn't be in the EU at all. Period.

As albanian i dont trust anymore EU. I must say thank you for all to Italy 🇮🇹 our best friends ❤

As a Ukrainian, I can say that Ukraine does not really have the liberty to wait till the EU solves its internal problems with its inability to make decisions. Supermajority and qualified majority voting is the only way to move forward for the EU. Veto mechanism is obsolete already. And it will be even more obsolete when more countries will join. However, I do no think that supermajority or qualified majority voting shall depend on the population numbers of each country. If we are concerned about smaller countries being weaker represented than bigger countries when making important decisions, we simply have to not take population into account. For supermajorioty voting: one country - one vote. No veto. It will solve everything. For less important decisions a qualified majority voting with taking population into account is better. Thus we have proper representation without decision blocking.

what did you do to Georgia?

We should become a Federation then accept new members Perhaps Ukraine should be the only exception

You forgot Kosova they submitted their application this year 2023