The expansion of the EU, an extremely controversial issue. More speed or greater guarantees?

Translated by Martina Ravasi

The European Union is at a strategic crossroads. On one hand, pressure for accelerating the entry of candidate countries – especially the western Balkans, Ukraine and Moldova – is increasing. On the other hand, some member States ask for new protection measures to avoid that future expansions will engender institutional tensions and other issues concerning the rule of law.

These two positions have strongly stood out over the last few weeks and represent an increasingly central debate for the future of Europe. The President of the European Council, António Costa, has relaunched the need to make the accession process quicker and more efficient. In particular, he proposed a simplification of decisional procedures that are currently slowing down the expansion of the EU. The aim is to go beyond some mechanisms based on unanimity allowing a single member State to counter the progress of accession negotiations.

Costa’s declaration was put forward on the eve of the summit in Montenegro between the EU and the western Balkans, where European leaders stressed the geopolitical importance of expansion. Indeed, in a political context marked by the Ukrainian war and the increasing international competition in the Balkans, Brussels considers the integration of candidate countries as an essential tool to reinforce European stability, security and influence in the region. In this case, Montenegro and Albania are currently the candidates whose accession process is more advanced.

However, while talks to accelerate the accession process go on, five countries of the EU – Germany, France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg – have put forward an opposite standpoint, namely introducing stricter guarantees for future members. This idea can be better illustrated if we look at Hungary during Viktor Orban mandate over the last few years. Indeed, Hungary often was at odds with Brussels on several issues, such as the independency of the judiciary, freedom of the media and the respect of the rule of law.

According to a document proposed by those five member States, the EU should be equipped with more efficient tools to take action rapidly in case of democratic regressions by new members. Among the options on the table, we have permanent monitoring systems and the possibility to limit some rights to vote temporarily in the most delicate areas, such as foreign policy, European financial reports and all decisions concerning future expansions.

This confrontation underlines a fundamental issue - how to match the need to expand the EU while preserving its decisional capabilities and pillar values. On one hand, the countries supporting the acceleration of the access process believe that Europe can’t leave pending those countries that consider Brussels as a political and economic benchmark. On the other hand, those countries asking for more guarantees are worried about the fact that a too quick expansion may increase the risk of institutional paralyses and internal conflicts.

These two visions aren’t necessarily incompatible with each other. Indeed, an increasing number of analysts believe that it is possible to find a compromise based on a gradual integration of candidate countries, through a crackdown on the respect of democratic principles. In this scenario, the expansion of the EU will remain a strategic priority, but it will be combined with some tools able to prevent future political crises.

For Brussels, the challenge is to find a balance between openness and prudence, which may reshape Europe for the next decades.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2026