Following Croatia's vote (albeit on only 44 percent voter turnout) in January to join the European Union, Macedonia for years and now Serbia too has been accepted as a candidate for membership. For Serbia, this is a 'great' reward for agreeing to a compromise with Kosovo, mediated by the EU, whereby Kosovo will be written with an asterisk at international and regional meetings to highlight the disputed status of the breakaway province.

This leaves Kosovo's future still something of a mess, especially because all the young country was offered by the EU for its agreement with Serbia was a "feasibility study" on integration. But the larger question is why the EU should want to absorb Balkan countries at all, given its troubles over Greece. More to the point, why should any country want to join the European project, which is itself in shambles?

The answer seems to be sheer desperation? The EU wants to prove that it is still attractive to someone, while Balkan countries being the 'Balkan' states they are with no self-respect, view EU members as richer and more stable than themselves, hope some of that residual wealth and stability will rub off.

And all this after Bulgarian, Slovenian and Romanian politicians have all warned their neighbors "Entering the EU was a monumental mistake, our citizens are poorer and much worse off than under communism" Ouch! With a statement like this, you'd think the rest of the Balkan countries will scratch their heads! 

Another curious case of EU membership that may soon arise is Scotland. First Minister Alex Salmond has promised a referendum on Scottish independence within the EU. This, of course, is a contradiction in terms because Scotland would become a separate but minor province of the EU under this plan rather than a truly independent state. Salmond assumes that an independent Scotland would not have to apply for membership because it is already in the EU as a part of the United Kingdom.

True, Salmond now says he wants to retain the pound sterling as the currency for Scotland and not (as until recently) the euro. Whichever he chooses, however, his independent Scotland would still have its interest rates set by a foreign bank (the Bank of England in London or the European Central Bank in Frankfurt) and would depend on Brussels for almost all policy decisions (the EU generates 84 percent of domestic legislation in Germany, according to the country's Federal Ministry of Justice). In the weighted system of EU majority voting, moreover, Scotland's mere handful of votes would count for nothing. Yet Scots will soon be offered this tartan pig in a poke.

Superficially, the EU seems to have made great progress since the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Almost every aspect of policy is now determined by bureaucrats in Brussels in combination with the European Council and the European Parliament. The EU even has its own foreign service and is struggling to create its own intelligence and federal police services. No wonder it impresses Arabs and Africans, whose own struggles for unity have, relatively speaking, gone nowhere.

The problem, of course, is that the compact needs to be ratified. And, once again, democracy is rearing its ugly head. The probable winner of France's forthcoming presidential election, François Hollande, promises to tear up the treaty. The hard-luck Irish may well vote "no" in a referendum. No one knows who will be ruling Greece or Italy within a year. The Spanish have just unilaterally rejected the latest deficit-reduction target set for them by the EU. Even in Germany, it now turns out that Chancellor Angela Merkel will need a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament -- in other words, support from opposition parties who will demand concessions -- to pass the fiscal pact. The whole initiative will likely be overtaken by events.

And here is the best part, the highest ranking EU officials are not elected rather hand picked behind closed doors by elites in Germany and France. 

This is the European Union that Macedonia and Serbia are candidates to enter. We wish them both well.