#Ukraine_Moldova_Georgia_EU: I read the opinion of the EU Commission on the candidate for membership. Here are some conclusions: 1) The data relied upon by the Commission comes primarily from the questionnaires completed in April and May by the three applicant counties.⤵️
Given the socio-economic difficulties that the three countries are going through, it is difficult to understand why the Commission praises so confidently the macro-financial stability (which is actually very unstable because of the Russian aggression etc.);⤵️
2) The Commission speaks of good foundations for reforms (which is partly true). Depending on the sector and the country, some reforms started some time ago (time-tested) or recently (the case of Moldova or Georgia). So, the long-term dynamics of the reforms is difficult to⤵️
predict given the Russian aggression, but the Commission bets on the political will in the three states. 3) Last but not least, to me, it looks that the Commission signals the potential candidate status for the three countries in two different ways. ⤵️
In the case of Ukraine and Moldova, the status of potential candidates is soft, with certain steps to be taken by both countries, but rather as additional conditions, not as a precondition. The latter is, on the other hand, requested for Georgia. Check this out👇 
Read more about the benefits of the candidacy, on the one hand, and the non-candidacy scenario, in my today’s piece 👇
https://twitter.com/eesc_lt/status/1537739819736092672
It is confusing when the EU publishes the opinions in the EU candidature application of Ukraine, Moldova & Georgia using, together with Ukraine & Romania, the Russian language. Perhaps it is worth making an effort & using Georgian, treating all 3 countries on an equal footing?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
