So, let me turn this around: should the EU be structured so that it is resistant to corruption in member states? I mean, I’m not saying that corruption doesn’t create a problem for Ukraine – it does, and there are people with good reason to go after it. But does it make sense to precondition EU membership on it, if the EU as an institution is resistant to corruption problems in member states? I mean, Ukraine is not the only country with corruption issues; all EU members see some degree of corruption. And being outside the EU creates a number of other problems for Ukraine and probably other countries; now they’re trying to deal with corruption issues concurrently with economic challenges created by not being in the EU.
Corruption can increase; if a member country starts having increasing problems with corruption, it seems to me that the EU shouldn’t run into problems with that, and the only way it can do that is if it’s resistant to corruption in individual members.
Yes, the EU should consist of democratic and non-corrupt nations, with being a healthy democracy as the bare minimum requirement. You mentioned corruption in Ukraine as if its level were similar to that in other EU countries, but it isn’t. From my perspective, Ukraine’s Euromaidan was a significant step in the right direction, albeit just one of many needed.
The European Union already has nations grappling with issues related to the rule of law and democracy. The goal should be to promote these values and expect them from both current member nations and aspiring candidates. To be considered a part of the European Union, countries should embody these values.
I wish Ukraine and Georgia the best, but it’s not unfounded for people to point out the challenges these states face in those aspects.
So, let me turn this around: should the EU be structured so that it is resistant to corruption in member states? I mean, I’m not saying that corruption doesn’t create a problem for Ukraine – it does, and there are people with good reason to go after it. But does it make sense to precondition EU membership on it, if the EU as an institution is resistant to corruption problems in member states? I mean, Ukraine is not the only country with corruption issues; all EU members see some degree of corruption. And being outside the EU creates a number of other problems for Ukraine and probably other countries; now they’re trying to deal with corruption issues concurrently with economic challenges created by not being in the EU.
Corruption can increase; if a member country starts having increasing problems with corruption, it seems to me that the EU shouldn’t run into problems with that, and the only way it can do that is if it’s resistant to corruption in individual members.
Yes, the EU should consist of democratic and non-corrupt nations, with being a healthy democracy as the bare minimum requirement. You mentioned corruption in Ukraine as if its level were similar to that in other EU countries, but it isn’t. From my perspective, Ukraine’s Euromaidan was a significant step in the right direction, albeit just one of many needed.
The European Union already has nations grappling with issues related to the rule of law and democracy. The goal should be to promote these values and expect them from both current member nations and aspiring candidates. To be considered a part of the European Union, countries should embody these values.
I wish Ukraine and Georgia the best, but it’s not unfounded for people to point out the challenges these states face in those aspects.