Author: Nata Koridze, UGSPN Senior Research Fellow
The European Union is set on taking steps towards the next round of enlargement. The European Commission’s Communication, Pre-Enlargement Policy Reviews: Preparing for a Wider Union, unveiled on October 6, sets out the strategic approach to this process. Having in mind the four countries expected to be part of the next wave of enlargement (Albania, Moldova, Montenegro and Ukraine), it provides a framework for reforms on the path to EU membership and proposes measures to ensure that candidate countries comply with their commitments.
Importantly, it also recommends reforms within the Union itself to prepare for the admission of new members. The underlying principle is that candidate countries cannot be expected to do all the adapting: the Union must also streamline its procedures, improve its capacity to manage an enlarged membership and learn from the challenges of previous enlargements, addressing the institutional, political and financial difficulties of the process. The document is based on the pre-enlargement policy reviews, which the Commission says show that the Union can accommodate a larger membership through targeted adaptations of the existing Treaty framework and accession treaties. Stemming from the past enlargement experience, the aim of the communication is to propose a number of measures, which would ensure the smooth enlargement process and fewer setbacks.
Although it is unclear to what extent the proposed measures will be adopted by EU member states, the communication suggests that changes to EU enlargement practices are imminent. These changes demonstrate that the Union is open to a more fine-tuned and controlled approach to enlargement and indicate a rethink of the EU’s role as a global player.
What Does the Communication Tell Us About the Next Enlargement?
Gradual integration: Bringing the benefits of membership forward
The Communication set out a process of gradual integration that would create a more predictable and structured path to membership. Candidate countries would be able to access parts of the EU single market and participate in selected policies and programmes prior to formal accession. The progressive association with the Union’s institutions and working structures would also help candidate countries to build relevant administrative capacity and experience. As the document notes, this would also allow the EU’s institutions to test cooperation with future members.
The priority areas for deeper integration include the single market, competitiveness and economic security; benefits for citizens and businesses, including the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), Roam Like at Home, Horizon Europe and Erasmus+; and cooperation on energy, transport, digital connectivity, security, defense and resilience.
To refine this process, the Commission proposed annual dialogues with candidate countries to assess progress, address outstanding gaps and identify further opportunities for gradual integration.
The observer participation for candidate countries in key Union meetings is another envisaged aspect. Moreover, greater observer participation in expert groups and various agencies’ activities “would contribute to policy preparation and operational cooperation, without taking part in Union decision-making”.
The general approach is intended to give candidate countries and their citizens tangible benefits before accession, strengthening incentives to pursue membership. It could also help address one of the recurring problems of prolonged accession processes: enlargement fatigue, which can emerge when countries wait years for membership without a sufficiently clear prospect of progress.
Decision-making: Addressing the limits of unanimity
The Communication also sets out plans for institutional and policy reforms within the EU. One of the main criticisms of the EU is the tardiness and inefficiency of its decision-making process, which is often due to the requirement for unanimous voting.
Moreover, although unanimity traditionally lends extra political weight to EU decisions, it can leave common policies vulnerable to individual member states using their vetoes to pursue bilateral disputes. Hungary’s threat to veto the EU’s €90 billion loan to Ukraine in February 2026 illustrates this challenge. It is therefore unsurprising that streamlining decision-making is the central issue, including reducing the number of areas in which unanimity is required.
The Commission therefore recommended extending the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in selected areas. One possible route is the use of the so-called passerelle voting, legal mechanisms that allow a change in the applicable decision-making procedure without a formal amendment of the EU Treaties. These clauses can enable a shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in designated policy areas.
In particular, the Commission recommends using QMV for decisions on opening negotiating clusters and for intermediate decisions during accession negotiations. Such changes could help prevent individual member states from obstructing the enlargement process and make negotiations more efficient.
However, it remains uncertain whether member states will agree to activate the relevant mechanisms, given the political sensitivities surrounding the loss of national veto powers.
A proposed additional tool for more efficient decision-making is enhanced cooperation, which enables a group of at least nine Member States to pursue closer cooperation in a specific policy area. This format has already proven useful in several cases, and the Commission has said that it will identify additional areas in which enhanced cooperation could help to overcome persistent blockages. The Commission said the review would assess the compliance of such a measure with the Treaty conditions and the readiness of potential participants.
Financing: Preparing the EU budget for enlargement
The Commission also addressed the financial implications of enlargement, particularly through the proposed 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which is currently under discussion within the EU. The proposed framework includes tailored pre-accession support through the new Global Europe Instrument and a revision clause intended to address the potential accession of new members.
Ukraine presents a particular challenge because of the size of its agricultural sector and the potential implications for EU agricultural spending and market arrangements. The Communication therefore proposed targeted arrangements that would significantly limit financial support and market access for sensitive agricultural products, while also helping Ukraine regain access to its traditional export markets outside the EU.
These proposals reflect the need to reconcile the Union’s geopolitical commitment to enlargement with the budgetary and sectoral consequences of admitting new members.
Values, Safeguards and Preventing Backsliding After Accession
Another key recommendation is to link early access to EU benefits with strategic alignment with the Union. Based on past cases where member countries disregarded the Union’s founding principles and political alignment, this recommendation highlights the importance of alignment as a foundation of trust between the EU and candidate countries.
The proposed safeguards in future accession treaties would seek to ensure that compliance demonstrated during negotiations continues until accession and afterwards. Drawing on previous experience, the EU wants to reduce the risk that new members backslide on its values and principles once they have joined.
Particular attention is given to the rule of law, as well as fundamental rights, anti-corruption measures, democracy. These issues form part of the fundamentals cluster- the core area of negotiations with prospective members.
The proposed responses to backsliding could include postponing accession and, in severe cases of rule-of-law breaches, suspending voting rights in the Council. The Commission also proposes making use of existing legal instruments, including infringement proceedings, budgetary conditionality, incentives under the Multiannual Financial Framework and Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (a mechanism that allows the European Union to suspend certain rights (such as voting rights in the Council) of a member state that persistently and seriously breaches the EU’s founding values. The Rule of Law Report would regularly track the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.
Under the proposed approach, new member states could face a probation period of up to 15 years, during which the EU could suspend voting rights or cut funding in cases of serious backsliding on the rule of law, democracy or the principle of sincere cooperation. This would provide a faster, complementary mechanism to the existing Article 7 process. Taken together, these proposals indicate that the Commission wants future enlargement to be accompanied by stronger mechanisms for ensuring continued compliance with EU principles, rather than relying primarily on the conditions imposed before accession.
Some experts, however, point to an inherent asymmetry that the 15-year safeguard mechanism to protect against democratic slide in the future creates within the EU. While recognizing the importance of safeguarding democratic principles following accession, they question the fairness of maintaining two distinct enforcement regimes for countries bound by the same EU obligations. New members would be subject to more stringent safeguards, whereas existing members would continue to be governed by Article 7, whose demanding voting thresholds could hinder effective action. While some asymmetry may be justified during the initial transition to membership, experts are concerned that extending it for 15 years could lead to the institutionalization of unequal treatment without addressing the underlying weakness of EU-wide enforcement. They argue that safeguards should be accompanied by reforms to strengthen the Union’s common mechanisms, ensuring that democratic backsliding can be effectively addressed in every member state, regardless of when it joined.
October 15-16 European Council: Enlargement and Reform on the Agenda
The Commission’s Communication “Preparing for a wider Union” formed an important basis for the EU leaders on enlargement and European reform meeting of the European Council on October 15–16. Among other key issues discussed were the budget, European defense and security, Russia’s war against Ukraine, Middle east and others.
The conclusions of the meeting stressed that “both future member states and the EU need to ready at the time of accession.” They also reiterated the need for the aspiring members to deliver reforms, “notably in the area of rule of law” and called on the EU Council to take analyze the Communication and take work forward towards the preparation for the enlargement.
What’s Next? From Strategic Vision to an Accession Roadmap
The next major step is the presentation of the 2026 Enlargement Package, announced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in her State of the Union address on September 16. Scheduled for October 28, the package is expected to include roadmaps towards membership for the most advanced candidates: Albania, Moldova, Montenegro and Ukraine. Other candidate countries, Georgia, Serbia, Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and North Macedonia, are not included in these targeted action plans due to concerns over democratic or judicial backsliding
These roadmaps are intended to provide a clearer and more structured path to accession, including relevant timelines, while offering political assurance from the EU side regarding the prospect of membership.
In addition, the package will provide an in-depth assessment of EU policies in the context of future enlargement, identifying the changes and safeguards needed to prepare the Union for additional members.
Conclusion: Enlargement as a Test of the EU’s Geopolitical Ambition
The Communication by the Commission and the proposed initiatives demonstrate that the EU is serious not only about making timely progress with enlargement, but also about rethinking its own role in the global arena. The changing geopolitical landscape, the evolving Euro-Atlantic security architecture, and the erosion of long-held security assumptions have prompted the EU to reconsider its role beyond that of an economic giant and a champion of human rights. It recognizes that, in a world shaped by competing superpowers, its ability to preserve its influence and security and defend its interests depends on its ability to develop into a geopolitical power in its own right.
A key dimension of this transformation is the EU’s changing approach to defense and security. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the EU has taken significant steps to strengthen European defense and security, moving from broad strategic ambitions towards greater readiness, investment and coordination. The Strategic Compass established common priorities, while subsequent initiatives have sought to address critical military capability gaps, expand defense production, encourage joint procurement and reduce fragmentation across national defense industries. This effort accelerated in 2025 with ReArm Europe/ Readiness 2030, which aims to mobilize up to €800 billion in additional defense spending. The EU has advanced four European Readiness Flagships: Eastern Flank Watch, a European Drone Defense Initiative, a European Air Shield and a European Space Shield, alongside measures to strengthen Europe’s capacity to respond to military, cyber and hybrid threats. Together, these developments reflect a broader strategic shift: the EU is assuming greater responsibility for European security and seeking to build the industrial, military and political capacity needed to act more effectively in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical environment.
Enlargement is another essential dimension of this broader geopolitical ambition. It offers the prospect of extending stability and prosperity across Europe while strengthening the Union’s strategic reach. Yet this ambition comes with significant constraints. A larger Union must remain capable of making timely decisions, financing common priorities, projecting both soft and hard power, and upholding its fundamental principles. It must also ensure that the prospect of membership remains credible for candidate countries without compromising accession criteria. While the Commission’s proposals seek to address these challenges, their effectiveness will ultimately depend on the political will of member states to implement them.
The next enlargement is therefore about more than admitting new members. It is also a test of whether the EU can adapt its institutions, policies, and decision-making mechanisms to the new geopolitical realities it faces. Developing into a geopolitical power will require the Union to move out of the comfort zone, re-invent itself and move beyond the institutional and strategic constraints that have long limited its capacity to act. The Commission’s Communication suggests a growing recognition in Brussels that without such adaptation, the EU risks losing its capacity to remain geopolitically relevant and to shape its own strategic environment. Enlargement may therefore not only extend the European project but also provide impetus for the transformation of the Union, bringing the vision of a “Europe free, whole and at peace” closer to reality.