EU considers two-stage accessions

Translated by Annachiara Laino

A debate is gaining traction in Brussels that could profoundly change the way the EU expands and, consequently, its very political functioning. After years of promises, delays, and complex negotiations, the current option is gradual accession, a sort of phased entry that would allow candidate countries to become EU members without immediately obtaining the full set of decision-making rights. The idea stems from an increasingly shared understanding among member state governments: that a larger Union, built according to current rules, would risk being slower, more fragile, and more exposed to cross-vetoes on key issues such as foreign policy or security. The European Commission is therefore evaluating a model that would allow newcomers to participate in community programs, benefit from the single market, and have a seat at the European table, but with some prerogatives temporarily suspended, particularly the right to block decisions that currently require unanimity.

This proposal stems from the difficulties encountered in recent years due to the positions of nationalist and populist governments within the EU, highlighting a clear divide among candidate countries. On the one hand, there are states that see gradual accession as a concrete opportunity to escape a limbo that has lasted too long. Albania, for example, has shown itself willing to accept significant compromises in order to accelerate the European process, even going so far as to consider temporarily renouncing full representation in EU institutions. Moldova, while reiterating that the ultimate goal remains full equality with other member states, welcomes the idea of ​​gradually assuming responsibilities within the Union, participating immediately in strategic discussions. Other countries, however, are more suspicious of a "two-tier" Europe. Montenegro, which has been the most advanced candidate in the accession process for years, believes that changing the rules mid-course risks penalizing those who have already incurred high political and economic costs to align with European standards. Ukraine's position is even more clear-cut, for which joining the Union represents not just an economic prospect, but an existential and geopolitical choice. In a context marked by war, Kyiv considers full membership an indispensable political and symbolic guarantee, and fears that a reduced membership could become a permanent gray area rather than a transitional phase.

The debate also hinges on a question of internal balance within the Union. In recent years, the use of the veto on key issues has demonstrated how complex it is to make rapid decisions in a Europe that still largely relies on unanimity. Temporarily limiting the blocking power of new members is seen by some leaders as a safeguard, useful for making the EU more efficient and capable of responding to external crises, especially in an international context marked by instability, strategic competition, and attempts at interference by hostile actors. It is no coincidence that the Commission emphasizes that the urgency of reforming the enlargement process is also linked to the need to strengthen the Union's political resilience.

Critics, however, warn that this approach could undermine the principle of equality among member states. Creating different membership categories would risk fueling frustration, weakening the sense of community, and reinforcing the idea of ​​a multi-speed Europe, in which some countries remain permanently marginalized from the decision-making process. Legally and institutionally, such a reform would also require careful adaptation of the treaties and a political consensus that currently appears far from certain.

MondoInternazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2026