Not the Perfect Moment after all

Imagine a Union with different economies, values, political beliefs and inequalities, not able to cooperate. Doesn’t sound like a Union after all, does it? Well, ladies and gentlemen that would be the European “Union” that the affirmative team proposes, if enlargement process continues in the next decade. What we are proposing on the other hand is a more gradual and step by step shifting towards an integrated European Union, that focuses on the solving of its internal problems and upheavals. 

Firstly, our team has already proven that EU is unable -at this point- to fully cooperate due to internal and external issues. The fact that EU was unprepared when the economic and migration (external) crisis emerged, speaks for itself. Another clear evidence of its incomplete integration of the current members, which in fact is a disintegration and territorial spill-back, is the upcoming Brexit (internal). So, the enlargement process must freeze until EU is on its feet again.  

Secondly, there is a difference between proximity and continuity. How could EU possibly manage to achieve coherence when there is no mainland continuity with some of the Eastern Partnership Countries?   

Thirdly, let us explain again the differences between a system and the society;  

The Society is about the culture of common values, principals, purposes and political traditions.  

The System is more general than the society. It has to do with states that have basic economic, mercantile and diplomatic relations acting in the same wider area.  

WB6 and mostly Eastern Partnership Countries, still belong to the System and not the Society of EU. There may have been some steps towards entering to its Society, yet there is much more to be done.  

Moving on, it is obvious that Turkey is a unique case and therefore your argument is a generalization. Its anti-EU views came from its completely discrete political structure with the army involved as overseer and regulator of the government. If a country is so prone to dictatorships, means that its democratic foundations are unstable, thus it should not enter EU since it does not correspond to EU values. Besides, it is interested only in the customs union and no accession as this means quitting from its claims in the Aegean and occupied Cyprus. These facts correspond to none of the other candidate states, thus your argument is invalid.  

EU stroke a deal with Turkey in 2016 that dropped the number of migrant arrivals (more than 85% in Greece -eastern route- that then follows the WB route) from approx. 1mil in 2015 to 100k in 2018 (UNHCR). In 2019 is now evident that the eastern corridor is shutting and losing popularity as the arrivals through the erst unpopular western route have surpassed those of the other two combined. So, we see that not only are the WB6 unnecessary to handle migration, but if they do enter EU, they will increase frictions, since more stakeholders will enter the game contributing to an absent consensus and a disproportionate burden sharing among the existing member states.  

In brief, even if those countries want to enter EU, we insist that there is no motivation for the EU itself to continue the enlargement process for the next decade, since 9 of 10 Least Developed Countries of Europe belong to WB6 and Eastern Partnership Countries and their accession would mean an economic, political and social discontinuity. EU is not shutting doors to future possible enlargements, but these countries are not a direct threat for EU, thus it is not urgent for it to solve external problems since it has not even solved its internal ones.  

M1-R4 Winner: Right Now For the EU
I thank both teams for this final debate! This was a tough debate to judge, with the affirmative team taking a more principal stance, whilst the opposition team focused on the more pragmatic aspects of the motion. But in the end I sided with the affirmative side, team Right Now For the EU. To sum…