For two years now, the EU has been talking about enlargement as a top priority at all levels, and announcing the rapid accession of new members. There is mention of a "new momentum" for enlargement, growing support among citizens for it, and creating awareness that enlargement stabilizes the continent and strengthens prosperity.
However, a look at the ranking of candidate countries in the EU integration process paints a completely different picture. Only Montenegro is close to completing the process, Albania has made clear progress, and all the others are stagnating.
Montenegro has opened all negotiation chapters and closed 14 of them. About ten days ago, the EU decided to establish a working group to draft an accession treaty, which is the clearest sign that this country could indeed become an EU member in a few years.
Montenegro is in roughly the same position as Croatia was at the end of 2009, which closed negotiations in early summer 2011 and joined the EU on 1 July 2013. Today, after 13 years, it is "the youngest member of the EU". This fact tells us how contradictory the statements about enlargement as a major priority are with the real state of the process. In those 13 years, the EU not only failed to expand, but was left without one large and important member - the United Kingdom.
Rapid reforms
At this point, rapid internal reforms are being demanded of the EU in order to prepare it for the admission of new members. Candidate countries, on the other hand, are expected to accelerate the reform process.
The EU has already begun discussions on the possible impact of enlargement. The European Commission was to prepare a special report on this, specifically assessing the benefits of enlargement and the challenges it would bring to the European Union. This document was then to serve as the basis for further discussions in the Council.
However, the publication of the document has been constantly postponed, without mentioning the real reasons. First, it was said that it would be published in October 2025 together with the enlargement package. Then at the end of November as a separate report so that it would not be "lost in the forest of numerous reports". Then the end of 2025 was mentioned, on the eve of the EU summit in December, then the beginning of this year, and then April on the eve of the informal summit in Cyprus. However, that document is still missing and no one knows what its fate is.
"It has not been given up, it will be published at some point," Jutarnji List was told by European diplomatic sources.
Jutarnji list had access to an earlier working version of the draft of that report, which analyzes in detail the impact of enlargement in all areas. The picture you get after reading the working version is neither black nor white. The Commission says in the report that we should not fear enlargement, because it will have a positive impact, and then warns that the greatest impact will be visible in cohesion policy, agriculture, environmental protection and the freedom of movement of workers. It also notes that this impact will not be greater than when the EU suddenly welcomed ten new members in 2004 in the "big bang" of the enlargement of the Union from 15 to 25 members.
The document also analyses the impact of enlargement on the functionality of EU institutions, which are already finding it increasingly difficult to operate with 27 members. It discusses various ideas for reforms that would be possible without changing the existing treaties, which would otherwise require consensus among all members, which is almost impossible. Of course, the document also notes that much will depend on the scope and timing of enlargement, as there are currently ten countries in the process, with Iceland likely to join this summer.
Fear of loss
At the beginning of the document, emphasis is placed on the geopolitical context in which enlargement would now be useful and desirable.
In the history of the European integration process, enlargement has never been as important as in the current geo-global environment, the document states. It reiterates constant statements from various European Council conclusions, European Parliament resolutions and statements by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that enlargement is an investment in peace and stability.
The Commission also analyses in detail the challenges that enlargement, especially if it included a larger number of candidates, would pose for the current EU members and for the functioning of the institutions. Elements that the European Commission analyses in its draft include the size of the territory, the number of inhabitants, the level of development and the potential for a mass exodus of workers to older, more developed member states.
If the EU were to expand at once with nine new members, six Western Balkan countries plus Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, the EU population would increase by around 15 percent, the territory by 22 percent, but the total GDP would only increase by a modest 4 percent. The biggest effect would be a 9 percent reduction in EU GDP per capita. This would certainly have a significant impact on cohesion policy, as almost all EU member states, except perhaps Bulgaria, would have a GDP per capita above 75 percent of the EU average, which is a kind of framework criterion for cohesion funds. Even countries that strongly support Ukraine, such as Poland, the Baltic states, Portugal and Croatia, will carefully analyze this element because they could lose some of the cohesion funds because they would, simply, be more developed compared to the EU average. Therefore, the EU must change the criteria according to which funds for regional policy and agriculture are allocated by the next enlargement.
All these data are interesting, but they also leave room for abuse by EU-skeptical populist parties on the one hand, and the interests of consumers on the other. A good example of this is food production. The Commission believes that enlargement would also increase strategic autonomy in food production. If the EU wants to have a secure supply and a sufficient amount of food, which would be cheaper for citizens, then enlargement will have a positive effect and significantly increase the EU's autonomy in food production. The EU would also become a much more important factor in the world in food production. The area of arable land in the EU would increase significantly. The production of soybeans and sunflowers in the EU would increase by as much as 150 percent. Corn production by almost 50 percent and wheat by 28 percent, because Ukraine is a huge producer with a large area of agricultural land. But this would, on the other hand, put great pressure on farmers in the current members of the European Union, who are always a sensitive topic for all European leaders. The cost of living
On the other hand, there is a visible difference between the six Western Balkan countries and Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. As for external borders, admitting Ukraine would increase the border with Russia, and the Western Balkan region is already surrounded by the EU. Kosovo is the only one of the six Western Balkan countries that does not border the EU. This is important from a security perspective.
And the cost of receiving the Western Balkan countries would be significantly lower. A report by the German Konrad Adenauer Publishing House, Belgrade office, estimated that receiving all the Western Balkan countries would cost each current EU citizen about the same as an average cup of coffee in a café.
The readiness of the candidates to take on the responsibilities of EU membership is certainly a challenge. Most candidate countries have limited capacity and experience in regional development and in managing significant amounts of cohesion funds. Too many areas, including capital cities, in most candidate countries still use coal for both heating and energy production. They are far from meeting EU environmental standards. And it will take a long time and major investments to fully align these countries with EU standards. That is why the Commission believes that we should start fulfilling the conditions much earlier so that everything is not left to be resolved after accession.
Key EU member states, particularly France, the Netherlands and Germany, are also calling for institutional reform of the EU as necessary for continued enlargement. The Commission also addresses this in its report.
"The accession process and internal reforms must run in parallel. The EU must deepen as it expands, while at the same time securing the support of citizens in both current and future member states," the document says.
The positive element mentioned is the support of 56 percent of EU citizens for accepting new members, which is the highest percentage in the last twenty years. However, there is a trap here too, as this is an average across the EU, while the majority in France and Germany remains against enlargement. France is particularly important because the decision to accept new members into the EU in France will be made either by a three-fifths majority or by referendum. The possible rise of the far right to power could also complicate the EU enlargement process.
"It is crucial that the EU is ready to accept new members while at the same time maintaining the ability to make rapid and appropriate decisions on both internal and external issues," the European Commission notes.
The biggest problem is to change the voting system in the Council and move to qualified majority voting instead of unanimous voting. However, the Commission believes that there is room for change in the existing treaties without amending the basic treaties. They mention the possibility of using a passerelle clause, according to which a decision by the Council or the European Council could switch to qualified majority voting in some areas and abolish the right of veto. The EU is often blocked in decision-making, including in the enlargement process, due to the veto of one member. This is currently the case with North Macedonia, which is blocked by Bulgaria, and with Ukraine, whose opening of the chapter was blocked by Hungary until recently. At least the lifting of the veto in some transitional steps in the enlargement process is mentioned.
Reforms through accession treaties, which have the force of treaties because they must be signed and ratified by all member states, are also mentioned as a possibility.
As Montenegro is likely to be the next new EU member, its accession treaty becomes a test and template for future treaties. Of course, if Iceland decides to reapply for membership in a referendum this summer, it could also quickly join the EU. Possibly together with Montenegro.
The proposal to establish a working group to draft an EU accession treaty with Montenegro has been on the table of member states for a long time, but there was resistance to it, not so much because of Montenegro, but because of the discussion on internal reforms in the EU.
The most skeptical about this decision to establish a working group were France, Germany and the Netherlands, but now all member states have agreed to it. Jutarnji list learned from EU diplomatic sources that some countries supported this decision with the understanding that the EU will discuss all elements of future enlargement in parallel with the drafting of the membership treaty for Montenegro and that this treaty will also introduce so-called safeguards, with which the new member could be sanctioned if it regresses in respecting the fundamental values of the EU. Likewise, some countries supported the idea of imposing some restrictions on Montenegro's right to vote in the EU during a transitional period, as the first to have a so-called new-generation accession treaty.
Montenegro's membership in the EU, with a population of just over 600, is not a challenge, neither financially nor institutionally. In fact, Montenegro's accession can serve as proof that enlargement is possible and realistic.
Montenegro as a precedent
But diplomats warn that using the fact that Montenegro is small and can easily be "absorbed" into the EU as an argument could later be used against Ukraine, which is almost 100 times larger. But there is no doubt that the size of the candidate country is already taken into account when assessing the impact of enlargement on current members.
In the meantime, the idea of a "reverse enlargement process" has emerged, meaning that a country would be admitted to the EU with numerous restrictions, and would continue to meet the conditions after admission. This is the opposite of the current process in which the fulfillment of the conditions is evaluated and, when it is determined that they are met, the candidate is admitted. This idea emerged because of Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement with Russia. However, it did not receive support among the member states. Some insist on continuing the current modality, while others demand that the same criteria apply to all candidates so that in the event of a rapid admission of Ukraine, all other countries would also be admitted. The idea of "gradual integration" is also somewhat more serious, and is being partially implemented. This involves the inclusion of candidate countries in as many areas as possible in the EU even before membership. Examples include participation in EU programs, meetings and consultations of the EU with candidates at the level of ministers, heads of state or government, involvement in joint procurement, in projects in the energy sector, transport, etc. But still, with all the ideas, the process continues according to the existing rules until they are changed by agreement.
Regardless of all the challenges, the majority in the EU believes that it must expand soon, in two, three or four years, at least to some candidate countries. Because if this does not happen, then confidence in the enlargement process will be lost, and all the nice words about it being a strategic interest, that it strengthens European security and prosperity, will no longer make sense.
How are the candidate countries doing?
Montenegro
It is leading the enlargement process, having opened all negotiation chapters and closed 14. However, in order to conclude the negotiations, Montenegro must meet the closing benchmarks for all remaining chapters, which is quite a challenge, as there are still 19 remaining.
Albanija
After Montenegro, it has made the most progress in the process. Last year, it opened all chapters, but has not yet closed any. Albania is awaiting the adoption of a report on the fulfilment of interim benchmarks in the area of the rule of law as a condition for starting to close the chapters.
Northern Macedonia
After Turkey, it has the longest tenure of candidate status. It has been blocked for years due to disputes with its neighbors, first with Greece over its name, and now with Bulgaria. It has been 17 years since the European Commission recommended opening the chapters, but this has not yet happened due to a blockage in the Council.
Serbia
It was ahead of Albania until last year. But it has not opened a single chapter for more than four years. Although the European Commission gives the green light, Serbia is being held back by some countries in the Council, mostly because of relations with Russia, dialogue with Kosovo and the rule of law.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
It has received candidate status and a conditional decision to open negotiations. But it does not yet meet the conditions for opening negotiations, mainly due to the failure to reach a compromise between political parties. As a result, it is losing significant funds from the European Growth Plan for the Western Balkans.
Kosovo
It has submitted an application for EU membership, but it has not yet been put on the Council's agenda. The main obstacle is the five EU member states that have not yet recognized Kosovo's independence. The EU is considering legal options to open the procedure with Kosovo, which is the only one without formal candidate status.
Ukraine
It was granted candidate status after the start of Russian aggression. According to the European Commission, it has met the conditions for opening the chapter, but this has so far been blocked by Hungary in the Council. Now, the green light is expected after Viktor Orbán's defeat in the recent elections.
Moldova
It has candidate status, there are no obstacles to opening chapters, but the EU does not want to open those chapters until it starts with Ukraine. Once it starts opening chapters, Moldova can move quickly in the process. The EU has a special interest in preventing Russian influence in this country.
Gruzija
It has been granted candidate status, but in the last two years it has regressed on the issues of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms as the government increases repressive measures. In Brussels, they now say that Georgia is a "candidate in name only," but it is increasingly moving away from the EU.
Turska
It opened negotiations on the same day as Croatia in the fall of 2005. However, those negotiations have been frozen for a long time. No one in the EU seriously believes that Turkey could become a member, and even less so in Turkey. However, the EU wants as close a relationship with it as possible because it considers it an important partner.
Iceland
It was in the process of enlargement and was expected to join the EU together with Croatia. However, it unilaterally gave up on that and broke off negotiations. Now Icelanders could decide in a referendum on renewing the process. In that case, Iceland could quickly join the EU because it is already deeply integrated.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
