Threating the E.U. or U.S. as
a club and thus as having members rather than states is as erroneous as
it is arrogant. Even though the E.U. states are members of the European Council
and the U.S. states are members of the U.S. Senate because both federal bodies
represent states rather than federal or state citizens, nether the U.S. nor the
E.U. has members per se; rather both unions have states because those
unions have federal systems. Nor is either political union a “bloc,” as
the latter is actually a temporary group of sovereign countries rather than a
federal government of semi-sovereign states or even just an alliance. Linguistic
semantics matter because they can impact expectations; less is expected of a
bloc than a federal union of states. For one thing, the latter, which is
theoretically permanent, involves more of a bonding between the polities. To be united, states cannot not be so opposed to each other that passing federal law and regulations faces insurmountable
ideological opposition in the chambers in which the
states are represented and thus are the members, especially if each one wields a veto! Two words: Viktor Orban. The E.U. is justified,
therefore, in insisting on general agreement with the E.U.’s foreign and
military policies before approving the accession of a candidate state.
The full essay is at "Foreign-Policy Alignment in E.U.-Enlargement Decisions."
