How long accession realistically takes
Every enlargement has taken longer than the candidate hoped and less time than the sceptics predicted. The variables that decide the length are known.
The question everyone asks first is when. It deserves a real answer rather than either a date or a shrug, and the historical record gives one.
The precedents
Recent accessions have taken roughly a decade from candidate status to membership, with wide variation. The fastest were small, administratively capable states with few contested chapters. The slowest were countries where the fundamentals chapters stayed open for years.
The stages that consume the time
Screening: a systematic comparison of national law against the whole body of EU law, chapter by chapter. It is mechanical, long and unavoidable.
Opening and closing chapters, each requiring unanimous agreement of member states, which is where political questions enter a technical process.
Implementation, which is the part candidates underestimate. Adopting a law is fast; building the institution that enforces it is not.
And ratification of the accession treaty by every member state, which takes a year or more on its own.
The variables that matter most
Administrative capacity — the number of trained officials who can draft, negotiate and implement simultaneously. This is the binding constraint in almost every case.
The fundamentals cluster, which gates the rest.
And the political appetite of member states, which is not something a candidate controls and which is why no honest observer gives a date.
An honest range
Years rather than months, and a range rather than a date. What shortens it is work done before it is formally required, which is exactly what the standards, procurement and judicial reforms represent.
The variables that set the length are the same ones that set a project's delivery date: scope, staffing and the speed of decisions. Planning, I always use the same method — take the optimistic estimate and extend it by half. Knowing the honest range is more useful than believing the short one, because investment decisions are taken against the reliability of a schedule rather than against the schedule.
Share this analysis
Comments