After Years of Dormancy, EU Enlargement Policy Gains New Momentum
Following a prolonged period of dormancy in European Union (EU) enlargement policy, the election of the new Commission presents a renewed opportunity to advance the Union’s expansion in the coming years. Both the European Parliament and the recently elected Commission are now positioned to reinvigorate the enlargement agenda and address the shortcomings of previous approaches, particularly those attributed to the European Council.
The potential inclusion of additional states from Eastern Europe and the Balkans aligns with the Union’s strategic interests, offering mutual benefits for both the EU and prospective member states. From the perspectives of security policy, economic integration, and geopolitical stability, the case for timely enlargement is compelling. The former Yugoslav states and Albania, largely encircled by EU member states, already have three NATO members within their ranks. Similarly, Ukraine and Moldova share borders with EU countries and have demonstrated clear aspirations for membership. Moreover, the accession process, alongside the harmonization of legal frameworks with EU standards, fosters significant social and political reforms, thereby strengthening democracy and the rule of law across the continent. To ensure the continued viability of the European integration project, a reinvigorated and prioritized approach to enlargement policy is essential.
The appointment of Slovenian Marta Kos as Commissioner for Enlargement marks a pivotal step toward restoring credibility and enhancing the political responsibility of the enlargement portfolio. Kos is widely regarded as determined and capable, enjoying broad support across liberal, conservative, and social democratic factions. Her leadership contrasts sharply with that of her predecessor, Olivér Várhelyi, whose tenure was marred by allegations of bias toward Serbia and close ties to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, which eroded trust among the European Parliament and member states.
Under Kos’s leadership, the Directorate-General for Enlargement will exclusively oversee the ten candidate countries, separating this responsibility from the European Neighbourhood Policy. This reallocation of duties promises greater clarity and a renewed emphasis on enlargement as a core EU priority. The forthcoming multiannual financial framework (2028–2034) presents an opportunity to allocate the necessary financial resources to support this agenda. Initiatives such as the €6 billion “Growth Plan” for the Western Balkans and the €50 billion “Ukraine Facility” represent initial steps, but further financial commitments will be required to ensure sustainable progress for accession candidates.
The engagement of EU member states is pivotal in determining the extent to which the Commission can provide meaningful support to candidate countries. Unlike the European Parliament, the national capitals of the EU have exhibited growing weariness and, at times, outright skepticism regarding enlargement over the past decade. This reluctance was exemplified in 2014 when Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker explicitly announced a “pause” in enlargement efforts.
French President Emmanuel Macron has prioritized the deepening of the Union over its expansion, effectively stalling progress for candidate countries. In 2019, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to assign the enlargement portfolio to Hungary—a government facing ongoing proceedings for rule-of-law violations—undermined the credibility of EU efforts to promote democracy and governance reforms in its neighborhood.
Despite von der Leyen’s recent assertions that enlargement remains a “top priority” for the Commission, most candidate countries face significant challenges on the path to EU membership. The Commission’s assessments, formerly termed “progress reports,” document strides in reforms but underscore persistent deficits in democratic governance, constitutional integrity, and economic development among the candidates. The Copenhagen criteria—established more than 30 years ago as the benchmark for accession—demand adherence to democratic principles, a functioning market economy, and compliance with European law. Yet, many of the ten current candidates fall short of these standards. This is compounded by the erosion of the rule of law within existing EU member states, prompting stricter interpretation of these criteria compared to previous enlargement rounds. It is therefore unsurprising that the last significant enlargement occurred two decades ago, with Croatia’s accession in 2013 marking the most recent addition.
The geopolitical landscape, particularly the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, has renewed interest in enlargement policy. Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia have applied for membership, while progress has also been made among the Balkan states. Currently, the EU is conducting accession negotiations with six countries, though these discussions are expected to be protracted. While risks of obstruction from individual member states persist, the urgency of the geopolitical context has strengthened the EU’s resolve to expand its influence. This has ignited a debate between “geostrategists,” who emphasize expansion as a geopolitical imperative, and “reformers,” who advocate institutional readiness and deeper integration before further enlargement. Reconciling these perspectives is now a central challenge.
For the EU to accommodate new members effectively, institutional reforms are essential. Unanimity within the Council should gradually give way to majority voting in key areas, particularly foreign and security policy—a reform advocated by Germany and Slovenia. Additionally, the structure and responsibilities of the Commission, along with competences such as energy policy and healthcare, must be reconsidered.
Innovative approaches to EU integration are also necessary. Gradual integration into specific EU programs, such as the internal market or the SEPA euro payment area, could facilitate earlier alignment with EU standards without compromising core values like democracy and the rule of law. Accelerating the opening of negotiation chapters could also expedite the process, provided that bilateral disputes between current and prospective member states are not allowed to obstruct progress. The European Council must address such conflicts decisively, potentially by eliminating national vetoes in intermediate negotiation phases. Unanimity could be preserved only for the initiation and conclusion of accession talks.
Encouragingly, Montenegro and Albania are progressing steadily toward accession, with European social democrats optimistic about their potential membership in the near future. Resolving longstanding bilateral disputes, such as those between Serbia and Kosovo, remains critical and will require increased commitment from EU member states. External influences, such as potential destabilizing policies from the United States, further underscore the need for EU unity and strategic engagement.
The potential accession of Western Balkan countries would honor the European Council’s 20-year-old promise in Thessaloniki, affirming that the region’s future lies within the EU. Such a move would also signal that enlargement remains a viable objective, countering skepticism fueled by political shifts within EU institutions. Ultimately, the success of enlargement hinges on the political will of governments and elites in both member and candidate states. Only through mutual commitment to meaningful reform can the EU achieve its twin goals of deepening integration and expanding its membership. The time has come to abandon inertia and embark on the necessary reforms to ensure the Union’s future.
The author Marco Schwarz works at FES Brussels. Source: IPG-Journal