As the trialogue process for the new CO2 regulations enters its concluding phase and amendments begin to take their final form, inconsistencies in political messaging have become more visible. Recent statements from one of representatives of the Council of the European Union, Isidora Stupar, have sent mixed signals to non-EU countries, including Serbia, raising concerns about coherence and clarity in the EU’s external communication.
The statement made by Stupar during the recent discussion raises concerns about consistency and the broader message it sends regarding Serbia’s place in Europe.
At the press conference she stated that Serbia “has far more important issues to deal with, such as crime and corruption,” and that “what is being done in the EU does not much concern Serbia” with repeating the same statement RTS got at the very beginning of the proposals from the Commissioner that “Serbia is no where near entering the EU”. This framing suggested that developments within the European Union were largely irrelevant to Serbia and implied a certain distance between EU policymaking and countries outside the Union.
However, her later remarks in the Council discussion appeared to take a very different tone. Acting in her capacity as Chair, she declared:
“I call on all countries outside the European Union to sue the EU over this, so that the Parliament can learn the rules of international trade and ultra vires responsibility.”
These two positions are difficult to reconcile.
If the EU’s internal regulatory decisions supposedly do not concern countries such as Serbia, it is contradictory to simultaneously call on non-EU states to challenge those same policies through legal action. EU legislation — particularly in areas such as climate regulation, automotive standards, and trade — inevitably affects countries that are economically and politically connected to the Union. For candidate countries and partners, these policies often shape domestic reforms, market access conditions, and long-term strategic alignment.
More importantly, such rhetoric risks sending an unfortunate signal about the EU’s attitude toward countries aspiring to closer integration. Publicly dismissing the relevance of EU policymaking for Serbia while simultaneously encouraging confrontational legal action against the Union does not project the image of a cooperative or welcoming European environment.
For countries that view EU membership as a long-term aspiration, the tone of engagement matters. Constructive dialogue, respect for partners, and recognition that EU decisions have broader regional implications are essential for building trust. Statements that appear dismissive or antagonistic risk creating the opposite impression — that external partners are treated less as future members of a shared political community and more as actors expected to simply absorb the consequences of EU policy.
If the European Union wishes to maintain credibility as a political project based on partnership, rule-based cooperation, and gradual integration, its representatives should be mindful of the signals they send to countries that may be of use or one day seek membership.
Consistency in messaging and a more measured tone would not only strengthen institutional credibility but also foster the mutual goodwill necessary for any future enlargement process.