Icelanders have just voted against starting accession negotiations with the European Union. Is the EU less attractive to others than you think, Commissioner?
Our attractiveness is very high. I would measure it not only by how many countries want to join, but also by how many countries have signed a new trade agreement with us. Even the UK and Canada want to maintain good relations with the EU. I regret what happened in Iceland. Because it would be great if it were also at the table when we discuss our European future and defend European values in this geopolitically tense situation. Of course we have to respect the decision in the referendum.
Can Europe learn something from this?
We cannot ignore people's concerns. It is not enough to just talk about security in Europe, where Iceland plays an important role. We also need to address fears and what is important to them. That is the lesson I draw from the referendum in Iceland.
See F.A.Z. articles more often in your search results
F.A.Z. prefer on Google
There are also fears in the member states about enlargement. How to prevent another Hungary from joining and potentially destroying the Union from within?
This is indeed an experience from which we must draw conclusions. We must effectively ensure that new members consistently adhere to our rules and values. That is why we are talking about new protective clauses that must be anchored in the next accession treaties.
Germany, France and the Benelux countries have proposed introducing temporary restrictions on voting rights in enlargement, the Union budget and foreign and security policy. Do you support that?
There are different ideas about how we could proceed. An effective decision-making process is important for the European Commission as the Union grows larger. That is why we have also proposed qualified majority voting in the area of security and foreign policy. We should also talk about the consequences if a country violates the principle of sincere cooperation. Hungary, for example, initially allowed Ukraine to be admitted as a candidate country, but then blocked concrete negotiations - and held us all back.
There is great concern about Serbia at the moment. Why did you cancel a visit to Belgrade for the funeral with state honors of former general and convicted war criminal Ratko Mladić?
How can you honor someone convicted as a war criminal? If I were to go to Belgrade in this situation, in which so many people - and I'm not just talking about the politicians - are glorifying a war criminal, I would never be able to look the mothers of Srebrenica in the eyes again. I met them many times and they told me: “We can forgive, but we will never forget.” Coming to terms with the past is one of the most difficult issues we have to contend with in the Western Balkans. The war in Bosnia and Hercegovina was 31 years ago. It is the responsibility of political leadership to heal the wounds of the past rather than continually adding salt.
European unification began with reconciliation between Germany and France. . .
. . . Germany learned a lot after the Second World War. I know that the German Minister of State for Europe will soon travel to Kragujevac because of the atrocities committed by Germans there during World War II. So we cannot glorify those who have caused suffering to so many people. It's not just about those who were killed. It's also about the others who are still alive, who were raped and who lost family members.
Is Serbia still a suitable candidate for membership?
After the events of the last few days in Serbia, we need to sit down and clarify this very important question. Serbia is at a turning point. They know that the accession process requires coming to terms with the past, real reconciliation. It is also about the rule of law and the strategic direction of a country. We have to check to what extent Serbia is still serious about the European path.
Who exactly needs to discuss this?
I will first discuss this with the President of the Commission. Our report on the Union's preparation for new members will come at the end of September and could then be a very good basis for the discussion in the European Council in October.
Could the accession negotiations be effectively frozen, as is already the case with Turkey and Georgia?
I am ready to try everything to ensure that Serbia stays on the European path. But that is also in Serbian hands. Not only in those of their politicians, but also in those of their people, and elections are coming up there soon.
What can the EU offer those countries that share its values but need more time to negotiate?
Geopolitical imperatives are forcing us to move away from the old “all or nothing” logic. This means that a country can only become a member if it has met all the requirements. We have already introduced some elements for candidate countries in the past, such as the SEPA payment system or roaming. But now we want to go one step further, for example in strategic sectors such as energy, transport and critical raw materials. We are already helping Ukraine and Moldova to become completely independent of Russia in terms of energy policy by the end of 2027.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz has proposed associate membership for Kyiv, including advisory participation in councils and a commissioner without a portfolio. What do you think of it?
We want to apply gradual integration to all candidate countries, especially those who need more time. And obviously Ukraine will need more time than Montenegro. But it's not just about them. I really appreciate Germany’s commitment. What the other member states say about this will be crucial.
Would it make sense to enlarge the Commission?
The Lisbon Treaty offers the possibility of reducing the number of Commissioners and rotating the membership of the College between States. Some states reject this, others are already saying who could represent them. The European Council must lead this debate.
What else does the EU have to do to become absorbent?
We have to assess the concrete impact of further accessions on the Union. And where these effects could be detrimental to our Member States, we must act. We will present a paper on this at the end of September.
Next year there are important elections in Europe that will shape the political environment for all future enlargement decisions. How great do you think the risk is that enlargement will be put on hold afterwards?
The election success of the Eurosceptics, which we also observed in Germany, makes enlargement considerably more difficult. At the same time, we see the enormous progress made by our candidate countries. It is in all of our interests to help them become members. Eurosceptics are also calling for more stability, better management of migration and better prospects for economic development. A stronger Europe means better protection of the interests of our citizens. The enlargement process offers us a great opportunity to discuss ourselves too.
