In the new proposals, only formal, but not essential, changes have been made, in relation to the previous proposal (which the Government has not published, writes Malinka Ristevska Jordanova in анализа of the French proposal and the reasons why it should not be accepted.

On June 23, Prime Minister Kovacevski in Brussels said the historic "no" to the then (unpublished) French proposal, citing five red lines.

After exactly one week, the "compromise French proposal" was published, for which the Government announced a positive attitude. At yesterday's press conferences and the Prime Minister's statements, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Vice Prime Minister for European Integration presented several theses in favor of "yes". What has changed in this one week?

Let's clarify: the new one French proposal consists of a package of three documents:

• proposal of conclusions of the EU Council on general affairs;
• common position of the EU on the political meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on the accession of North Macedonia to the European Union;
• general position of the EU for the Ministerial meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference which ends the opening of the negotiations for the accession of North Macedonia to the European Union.

In the new proposals only formal, but not substantial changes, in relation to the previous proposal (which the Government has not published). The biggest, but still completely formal, change was made with the mechanical division of the first intergovernmental conference into two parts – a political meeting and a ministerial meeting – and the two together constitute the "opening phase of negotiations" (proposed conclusions of the Council).

We briefly refer to the theses presented by Macedonian officials regarding the new or "modified" proposal.

"Negotiations (do not) open immediately"

The negotiations are opened after the ministerial conference and after the amendment of the Constitution, which satisfied the Bulgarian request. The political meeting is invented as an overture for the Government of Macedonia to be able to present this as the opening of negotiations.

However, this is not the key issue. The key thing is that the Government focused only on the opening of the negotiations, but not on their course and completion.

Macedonia does not provide any guarantees for the completion of the negotiations.

"Guarantees that (there will be) no further conditions from Bulgaria"

There are no guarantees in the proposed documents that there will be no further Bulgarian conditions. On the other hand, with this package, Bulgaria secured its guarantees in advance - its requirements become fully part of the accession process and receive a legal basis in the EU package of documents.

According to the proposed conclusions, in which otherwise they are not even mentioned The Copenhagen criteria, the main importance is given to "achieving concrete results and implementing in good faith the bilateral agreements - Prespa and the one with Bulgaria". The conclusions immediately refer to the Protocol of the second meeting, evaluating it as "a significant step for good neighborly relations and regional cooperation", which remain "essential elements of the enlargement process...".

Thus, the implementation of the Agreement with Bulgaria, as defined in the Protocol, becomes a key condition in the process.

From there, the Government not only has to publish the text of the Protocol, but also has to hold a reasoned debate on it.

"The Protocol (is) not part of the Negotiating Framework"

In The general attitude (which includes the Negotiating Framework) the reference to Article 12 of the Agreement with Bulgaria is clear - through "annual review and measures for its effective implementation..." in accordance with a series of documents, including "other conclusions of the Council".

The attempt to hide the protocol in the Negotiating Framework is transparent.

"History is (not) part of the negotiating framework"

History becomes part of the negotiating framework through the introduction of a reference to Article 12 of the Treaty of Friendship and the contents of the Protocol, which the Government has not published (therefore we refer to the text published from the Macedonian editorial office of Deutsche Welle).

History in the Protocol is not only represented in the provisions relating to the work of the Joint Commission on Historical and Educational Questions, but also in the provisions relating, for example, to hate speech (including monuments and textbooks), and rehabilitation of victims of communism.

Additionally, a number of limiting elements are introduced in the work of the Commission (although the term is "encouragement"), but also an assessment that it has so far given "unsatisfactory results".

"The Macedonian language (not) is clear in the negotiating framework"

In the proposal there is a wording that in view of the translations of acquired in the Macedonian language, the EU "took into account" the unilateral declarations for the Macedonian language. With this, Bulgaria essentially puts a "reserve", which will be able to refer to in the further course of the negotiations.

In the new documents, as well as in the previous ones, there is no other element of protection of the Macedonian identity. By including Bulgarians in our Constitution and Bulgarians in the Law on Minorities in Albania, Bulgaria is expanding its "ethnic territory". On the contrary, according to the already asymmetrical bilateral agreement with Bulgaria, we confirm in the Protocol the position that we will not interfere in the internal affairs of Bulgaria, including the rights of citizens who are not our citizens, although in international law the exercise of human rights is over interference in internal affairs.

"There is no separate chapter on relations with Bulgaria" (but there are other stronger mechanisms)

There is no separate chapter, but the substance of the Bulgarian demands has been secured through two inputs and several additional mechanisms:

• The introduction of a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the Treaty of Friendship – Article 12 (which we have already elaborated).
• The incorporation of the Bulgarian demands into the Foundations cluster, through the change of the Constitution, the implementation of which will become a key benchmark(s) for progress in the entire process, taking into account the content of the Protocol in relation to the position of the Bulgarian community.

"The negotiating framework (is) not similar to other countries"

It's not. We have an additional action plan for minorities and an additional mechanism for monitoring the implementation of bilateral agreements.

Our action plan will have to include the implementation of the new provisions of the Constitution for communities.

None of the countries in the process changed their constitutions to introduce a minority at the request of an EU (Member State). This was only possible with the consent of the Macedonian government.

"European proposal" (only with our consent)

This is a proposal of the French presidency, which is based on our agreement in the negotiations we conducted in Bulgaria, that is, on our concessions made so far, which will become a "consummated act" for other member states, which they have yet to adopt. For them it will be the departure, (for now) of an unpleasant issue from the agenda.

"Last Chance" (?)

Government officials see this proposal as a "last chance", referring to the new circumstances – the new political community, without any assessment of how those new circumstances will affect our accession process.

In any case, the new EU documents, in the conditions of an increasing number of candidates, emphasize the integration capacity of the Union and do not provide a guarantee for the accession of none from the candidates.

"Comprehensive hearing" vs. one-day PR

There is no need to rush. The Government's haste is only to prevent a reasoned debate and to hastily adopt the proposal, which will have a decisive impact on our future.

Extremely irresponsible and extremely harmful!

*Dr. Malinka Ristevska Jordanova has been engaged in the EU integration process since the end of the nineties, holding high positions as part of the public administration in the Macedonian parliament and government. As a State Counselor at the Secretariat for European Affairs, she chaired the MK-EU SAA Subcommittee on Justice and Home Affairs from 2002-2008 and the SAA Committee from 2008-2010 and was the coordinator of the national program for the adoption of EU law. She made a special contribution to her country's candidacy for joining the EU, the fulfillment of the recommendations for the beginning of the accession negotiations and the realization of the benchmarks established in the roadmap for the liberalization of the visa regime. Dr. Ristevska – Jordanova is the founder and former director (February 2011 – February 2017) of the Macedonian think-tank Institute for European Policy – ​​Skopje, where she is now a non-executive member of the board. In her research, Dr. Jordanova focuses on the application of EU conditionality policy in the region of Southeast Europe, as well as on the transposition of EU law.

**Blog published as part of ResPublica Digital Citizenship Initiative and taken by www.respublica.edu.mk.