How realistic and effective are the strict criteria of the 100% Union?
Gaining EU membership is almost a mission impossible compared to ten years ago. In order to meet the standards of the European Union current accession states have to implement painful reforms in the field of the rule of law, anti-corruption, the judicial system and their governance structures. As the EU demands a 100% perfection the criteria are set constantly higher. Is the EU a moving target? And will member states themselves meet all the criteria or does the EU raise double standards?
In order to answer these questions two case studies were presented: Bulgaria, which is still involved in post-accession conditionality under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is struggling with the EU demands on the rule of law and corruption. What can we reasonably expect from these countries? What do these countries think of the 100% Union?
These questions were tackled in a debate on Thursday 22 November with:
Thomas von der Dunk (University of Amsterdam and Volkskrant columnist)
Read here the full column on EU double standards that Thomas von der Dunk presented during the debate.
Philip Gounev (expert on corruption and organized crime, Centre for the Study of Democracy Bulgaria)
Read here the interview that was held during the debate with Philip Gounev on the case of Bulgaria.
Lejla Ibranovic (expert on the rule of law and corruption, Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Read here the interview that was held during the debate with Lejla Ibranovic on the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Jaap Werner (Director Europe Department at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Jan Marinus Wiersma (Senior Visiting Fellow The Clingendael Institute)
To listen to the interview of BNR on potential accession of Bulgaria to Schengen, please click here>>
Frederique de Jong was the moderator of the event.
