The Future of EU Enlargement

Opportunities, Challenges, and Perspectives.
In the first month of the new year, it makes sense to discuss the priorities on the table. The European Union (EU) has long pursued a policy of enlargement, meaning adding new member states, as a cornerstone of its strategy to promote peace, security, and prosperity in Europe — all ideas on which the Union was founded. The process of expanding is both a historic opportunity and a complex challenge. As the EU faces renewed geopolitical pressures, particularly in the aftermath of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the future of enlargement has emerged as a critical issue. This article tackles the rationale behind EU enlargement, the progress and challenges, the current status quo, and the views of member states.
The Rationale Behind EU Enlargement
EU enlargement has historically revolved around economic, strategic, and normative goals. It has consistently been a strategic tool for fostering stability, peace, and democracy across Europe. The accession of Central and Eastern European countries in 2004, often referred to as the “Big Bang” enlargement, is widely seen as a pivotal moment that helped solidify democratic transitions in post-Soviet states. It also underscored the EU’s role as a unifying force, bridging the divides of a continent once split by the Iron Curtain. However, this narrative of unity is not without criticism. There are concerns that the rapid integration of these nations created significant disparities in economic development and governance within the EU, which continue to strain cohesion today.
Enlargement brings economic advantages, for both current EU members and candidate countries. For EU member states, the integration of new states expands the single market, providing businesses access to millions of additional consumers and creating opportunities for investment in untapped sectors. For candidate countries, EU membership offers a pathway to economic modernisation, enhanced foreign direct investment, and integration into global value chains. The Western Balkans, for example, stand to benefit significantly from simplified trade procedures, enhanced connectivity, and inclusion in EU infrastructure projects.
Nevertheless, the economic rationale is not without its complexities. Some member states fear that integrating less developed economies could exacerbate regional inequalities and place undue strain on EU structural funds. For instance, sceptics point to the uneven economic performance of some of the 2004 entrants, arguing that their integration into the single market has not always translated into balanced development. The risk of creating a “two-speed Europe,” where newer members lag behind in terms of economic and institutional maturity, is a persistent concern.
Far from merely technical, the enlargement process is dependent on political will. The EU’s political rationale for enlargement is rooted in its foundational values of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. The promise of membership has historically served as a powerful incentive for political and institutional reforms in candidate countries. For instance, the European Commission’s annual reports on enlargement have documented significant progress in areas such as judicial reform, anti-corruption measures, and governance structures among aspiring members. For example, the latest report shows that Ukraine has advanced substantially in judicial independence, while Moldova has sufficiently fulfilled the criteria for the stability of its institutions.
Yet, the EU’s track record on effectively leveraging conditionality is mixed. While the carrot of membership has driven reforms in some cases, there are notable instances where the process has stalled or even regressed. Concerns over democratic backsliding in candidate countries like Serbia and Türkiye highlight the limitations of conditionality in ensuring sustainable reforms. In fact, negotiations with Türkiye are effectively frozen due to democratic backsliding. Critics argue that the EU’s willingness to overlook these shortcomings in favour of geopolitical considerations undermines its credibility.
Additionally, the enlargement process itself is often criticised for being overly bureaucratic and slow. The revised enlargement methodology introduced in 2020 sought to address these criticisms by emphasising transparency, political steering, and a merit-based approach. One notable change was the grouping of negotiation chapters into six thematic clusters, allowing for a more structured and strategic focus, with progress in one cluster potentially unlocking advancements in others, thereby incentivising reforms in key areas simultaneously. However, its implementation has yet to fully resolve longstanding issues of inconsistency and perceived double standards. The stalled progress of North Macedonia and Albania, despite meeting key EU benchmarks, illustrates the frustrations inherent in the process. Delays often stem from member states’ internal politics, such as vetoes based on historical disputes or bilateral issues, which further complicate the enlargement narrative. With that in mind, we now turn to an overview of the positions of some current candidate states.
Where on the path are candidate countries?
In October 2024, the European Commission adopted its annual Enlargement package, which provides a comprehensive overview of the progress made and challenges faced by candidate countries and potential candidates. This section delves into the current state of the accession journeys of two pivotal regions, the Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership Trio (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia).
Western Balkans: Persistent aspirations amid challenges
The Western Balkans have long been at the heart of the EU’s enlargement strategy, given their geographical proximity and intertwined histories with member states. In recent years, the region has seen renewed momentum, driven by the EU’s strategic commitment to stabilise its southeastern flank. This was deemed essential for maintaining European security, countering external influence and managing migratory flows while addressing humanitarian concerns along the “Balkan Route”. Significant progress has been made in accession negotiations, particularly for Montenegro, Albania, and North Macedonia. These countries have achieved important milestones in judicial reforms, anti-corruption efforts, and alignment with EU norms, illustrating the transformative potential of the EU’s conditionality-driven approach.
However, the region remains plagued by persistent challenges. Political instability, democratic backsliding, and governance issues often undermine progress. In Montenegro, while the rule of law reforms have advanced, political polarisation continues to stall broader governance improvements. Similarly, Albania and North Macedonia face obstacles tied to regional disputes and internal political dynamics, despite completing significant reforms. The legacy of vetoes, particularly against North Macedonia, has dampened public enthusiasm for the EU by exposing the susceptibility of the accession process to political blockages unrelated to the Copenhagen criteria. An analysis of the public opinion shows that many Macedonians believe that Bulgaria is unfairly using its veto right to pursue its own agenda on historical and identity-related issues, which are not connected to the benchmarks of the accession process. And the fact that the EU allows that is undermining the credibility of enlargement altogether. This has delayed progress and eroded trust in the EU’s fairness, emphasising the need for mechanisms that insulate enlargement from the political agendas of individual member states.
Another issue, remaining a central impediment, is the stalled normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. The core of the dispute lies in Serbia’s refusal to recognise Kosovo’s independence, declared in 2008, which has fueled recurring political and ethnic tensions. These unresolved issues manifest in periodic flare-ups, such as border incidents and disputes over the rights of Serb communities in Kosovo, threatening regional stability and undermining both countries’ progress toward EU membership. Moreover, Serbia’s inconsistent alignment with the EU’s foreign policy underscores the complexity of balancing domestic political considerations with EU expectations. This is particularly visible regarding the sanctions against Russia. While Serbia formally aspires to EU membership, its historical ties with Russia, reliance on Russian energy, and public opinion sympathetic to Moscow have led it to resist joining EU sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This divergence highlights the tension between Serbia’s strategic orientation and its domestic and geopolitical realities, complicating its accession prospects.
Despite these challenges, the Western Balkans are increasingly integrated into EU initiatives, such as the Growth Plan for the region, which aims to bring tangible socio-economic benefits even before formal membership. This pragmatic approach signals the EU’s commitment to fostering integration while addressing the region’s unique hurdles.
Eastern Neighbours: A geopolitical imperative
The EU’s eastern enlargement efforts have gained urgency in response to Russia’s aggression, with Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia navigating distinct but interrelated paths toward integration. Ukraine has made significant progress since the opening of accession negotiations in 2024. Despite the immense strain of war, reforms in governance and anti-corruption measures have advanced, supported by substantial EU financial aid, including the €50 billion Ukraine Facility. Similarly, Moldova’s accession bid has gained momentum, underscored by the manifested public support for constitutional amendments to anchor the country’s EU aspirations in a nerve-racking referendum in October 2024. However, both nations face daunting challenges in modernising institutions and addressing governance gaps, which demand continued EU engagement and assistance.
Georgia, in contrast, has seen its EU trajectory stall. After receiving candidate status in 2023, the process effectively froze in 2024 due to mounting concerns about democratic backsliding. Parliamentary elections in October 2024 were marred by irregularities, including voter intimidation and procedural inconsistencies, further eroding public trust. Controversial legislative changes restricting freedoms and weakening judicial independence compounded the EU’s concerns, halting progress on negotiations. For more on recent events in Georgia, I suggest hopping over to this article.
The eastern neighbours’ experiences underscore the EU’s strategic imperative to balance robust support for reform with a firm stance on democratic principles. While Ukraine and Moldova exemplify the potential of geopolitical urgency to drive integration, Georgia’s stalled progress reflects the limitations of conditionality in the absence of strong domestic commitment. The EU’s approach must adapt to these realities, ensuring that the promise of membership fosters both reform and stability in this critical region.
Views from the EU capitals
The heading of this section takes inspiration from a 2024 book titled “Enlargement and the Future of Europe: views from the Capitals,” which I recommend to all enlargement geeks. The perspectives of current EU member states on enlargement are deeply influenced by their historical experiences, economic interests, and geopolitical calculations, resulting in a complex and often fragmented stance. Broadly, member states fall into three groups: strong advocates for enlargement, cautious pragmatists, and sceptical voices. Germany and countries in Central and Eastern Europe, for instance, often view enlargement as a strategic priority for securing Europe’s borders and fostering stability. For these states, the integration of Ukraine and the Western Balkans is seen as essential to countering Russian influence and addressing historical inequities in European integration. These countries argue that enlargement strengthens the EU’s collective resilience, bringing both economic opportunities and a broader geopolitical reach.
In contrast, more cautious member states, including France and the Netherlands, emphasise the need for internal EU reforms before admitting new members. Concerns about decision-making efficacy in a larger EU, potential strains on cohesion policies, and the risks of democratic backsliding among candidates underpin their measured approach. This caution is compounded by public scepticism in these countries, where enlargement is often framed as a source of economic competition and security concerns, particularly in relation to migration.
Southern member states like Italy and Spain, while generally supportive, are increasingly vocal about ensuring that enlargement does not divert resources or attention from their own regional priorities, such as addressing migration flows across the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, sceptics, including Austria and parts of Scandinavia, often point to unresolved disputes in the Western Balkans or governance challenges in Eastern Europe as evidence that enlargement risks compromising the EU’s standards and values.
Adding complexity to these positions is the divergent framing of enlargement within member states. As seen in domestic media, some governments use the narrative of enlargement to bolster their EU credentials or domestic standing, while others employ it as a scapegoat for broader EU discontent. The resulting discourse reflects not just national interests but also competing visions of what the EU should represent: a political and economic union of shared values, or a looser alliance of nations.
This patchwork of perspectives highlights the inherent tension between the EU’s geopolitical aspirations and its internal constraints. Enlargement is widely recognised as a strategic imperative in the current global climate, yet its realisation is hindered by a lack of consensus on the Union’s future structure and capacity. Bridging these divides will require not only technical solutions but also a compelling narrative that links enlargement to a shared European vision, balancing ambition with procedural realities.
Challenges in a nutshell
The enlargement process faces interconnected challenges, both within the EU and among candidate countries, that must be addressed to ensure its success.
Internal struggles shape the institutional readiness to integrate new members. Decision-making mechanisms, particularly the unanimity requirement in areas such as foreign policy, are increasingly seen as incompatible with a larger and more diverse EU. Budgetary constraints also loom large, with questions about how to equitably distribute funds while maintaining support for existing member states. Policy alignment in critical areas such as migration and the green transition remains a pressing concern, further complicating enlargement efforts.
Candidates’ issues related to democratic backsliding, corruption, and weak governance continue to impede progress. These structural deficiencies undermine the EU’s ability to credibly advance negotiations and highlight the uneven implementation of required reforms. Bilateral disputes further complicate the process, such as Kosovo-Serbia normalisation efforts and North Macedonia’s struggles with minority rights and historic tensions with Bulgaria.
Public perception remains a crucial factor. Scepticism about enlargement is high in both member and candidate states, fuelled by media narratives that often emphasise its risks over its benefits. This erodes public trust in the process, making political leaders more hesitant to champion expansion. Overcoming these challenges requires not only technical solutions but also stronger political will and a coherent vision to restore credibility and momentum to the enlargement agenda.
The path ahead
The EU’s enlargement process is at a pivotal crossroads, characterised by a mixture of forward momentum and structural challenges. While recent initiatives, for example, the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans and the initiation of accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova demonstrate a renewed strategic focus, significant obstacles remain. These challenges demand both a critical reassessment of the EU’s approach and innovative solutions to ensure the process retains its transformative power.
Internally, the EU faces institutional challenges that threaten to derail enlargement’s progress. The current unanimity requirement for decision-making is increasingly incompatible with a larger Union, as highlighted by proposals advocating the adoption of qualified majority voting for intermediate stages. Without reform, an enlarged EU could face governance paralysis, undermining its ability to act decisively. Proposals like the staged accession model offer a way to bridge the gap between institutional readiness and the needs of new members. By providing incremental benefits to candidates as they meet benchmarks, this model mitigates the risks of overextension while maintaining momentum.
Candidate countries face equally significant difficulties. Governance challenges such as corruption, democratic backsliding, and political instability remain endemic. These systemic issues are often compounded by inconsistent EU engagement, which risks making reform seen as a technocratic obligation rather than a meaningful step toward integration. For example, while the promise of membership drives reforms in Ukraine and Moldova, the stalling of Georgia’s accession highlights the fragility of this dynamic when domestic reforms falter. The staged accession approach offers a pathway to restore trust, enabling candidates to gradually access the EU’s institutional and economic benefits while incentivising deeper alignment with EU values.
Public perception further complicates the enlargement narrative. In member states, scepticism about enlargement stems from fears of migration, economic disparities, and potential governance risks, as reflected in the framing of enlargement debates in countries such as France and the Netherlands. In candidate countries, frustrations over delays and perceived EU ambivalence fuel disillusionment, weakening public support for reforms. Overcoming this requires a renewed narrative that clearly articulates the mutual benefits of enlargement, positioning it as a catalyst for shared security, economic growth, and democratic resilience.
The EU’s geopolitical landscape underscores the urgency of enlargement as a tool for strategic stability. Integrating Ukraine and Moldova, for instance, not only supports their democratic aspirations but also enhances the EU’s security architecture against destabilising external influences, namely Russia. However, this geopolitical urgency must not compromise the rigor of the accession process. The EU’s commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law must remain unwavering, ensuring that new members genuinely align with those rather than producing models of “fake compliance.”
Looking ahead, the EU must reconcile its strategic goals with its structural limitations. Reforms to decision-making, such as expanding qualified majority voting, and innovative mechanisms like staged accession, provide the tools to navigate this complex process. Financial support, including enhanced pre-accession funding, should be both generous and conditional, creating tangible incentives for reforms. At the same time, the EU must prioritise transparent communication, reinforcing public trust in the process by demonstrating how enlargement serves both member states and candidates.
Lastly, the future of EU enlargement depends not only on bridging the gap between ambition and action but also on shifting the discourse surrounding integration. The narrative must move to one that resonates with the aspirations and concerns of citizens in both member states and candidate countries. This requires empowering local actors in candidate nations to take ownership of the reform process, ensuring that it is not merely imposed from Brussels but reflects local needs and priorities. Reconciling public perceptions will involve fostering a dialogue that highlights the mutual benefits of integration while addressing fears and frustrations on both sides. Ultimately, by embracing a more inclusive and localised approach, the EU can reframe enlargement as a shared project of progress, strengthening its foundation as a Union of inclusivity in diversity and opportunity.
Iva Dzhunova holds a BA degree in International Relations from the University of Groningen and an MA in European Policy from the University of Amsterdam.
Image: Shutterstock