“Enlargement is a priority for the EU, and if our candidates deliver results, we must also deliver results,” Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos said ahead of a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels earlier this month.
As evidence that the EU is moving beyond rhetoric, Koss pointed to the fact that for the first time in 17 years, in April the bloc established a working group to draft an accession treaty for a candidate country: Montenegro.
“There is no clear indication that the EU sees Montenegro as its next member state,” Strahinja Subotic, program manager and senior researcher at the Center for European Policy (CEP) in Belgrade, told DW.
Enlargement: a geopolitical and security issue
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 brought the topic of enlargement back to the center of European politics, turning what had long been a technical process into a geopolitical and security issue.
“The geopolitical necessity of enlargement is recognized by all member states,” said Steven Blockmans of the Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS).
“But this is always linked to two things: on the one hand, the merit-based approach, whereby candidate countries are assessed on their reforms and where no shortcuts are offered, and on the other hand, the need for the EU to change its policy and governance methods,” he told DW.
Is the current access model fit for purpose?
Therefore, the debate in Brussels focuses not only on enlargement, but also on whether the bloc’s traditional access model is still fit for purpose.
Commissioner Marta Kos acknowledged that the EU is still using a methodology developed four decades ago.
“We are now discussing with member states whether the gradual integration principle, which we are mainly using in the single market, can be taken to other areas, especially security,” he said.
New models for gradual integration into the EU are on the table
In a recent proposal on EU enlargement, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for opening all negotiating groups with Ukraine and proposed a form of “associate membership” that would tie Kiev more closely to the EU even before full accession, including greater participation in EU institutions and foreign and security policy.
Also, Merz suggested giving the Western Balkan countries and Moldova privileged access to the EU single market, observer status in EU bodies and gradual integration into decision-making processes to accelerate their path towards membership.
Such ideas have been circulating in Brussels and European capitals for years.
Model of phased EU accession
Steven Blockmans, one of the authors of the “staged accession” model, told DW that elements of that approach have gradually entered mainstream EU thinking through the EU development plan for the Western Balkans and proposals circulated by countries including France, Germany and Lithuania.
“You see elements of a more phased approach, whereby benefits are being offered for reforms in the earlier pre-accession stages of the process,” Blockmans said.
Opposition to some proposals for Ukraine
At the same time, Blockmans pointed out that some of the more ambitious proposals for Ukraine have already met with resistance.
Among them was the idea of so-called “reverse enlargement”, supported by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and parts of the European Commission, under which countries such as Ukraine would formally enter the EU first and complete reforms later.
This idea was immediately rejected by member states.
A taboo idea is no longer completely taboo
Merz’s proposal has also revived one of the most sensitive questions related to future enlargement: how much decision-making power the new member states should have from the outset, especially in areas where EU decisions still require uncertainty.
That debate has drawn renewed attention to one of the more controversial ideas circulating in Brussels, namely the possibility of temporarily limiting veto rights for new member states after accession.
The proposal was developed as part of a phased accession model by CEPS researchers, including Steven Blockman and CEP analyst Strahinja Subotić.
‘No second class membership’
According to Subotić, the goal was not to create “second-class membership”, as some critics say, but to reassure skeptical member states that expansion would not paralyze the Union. He argues that sanctions can be limited in both time and scope.
“It may apply only to one or two policy areas and not necessarily in the same way or for the same period for each candidate country,” Subotić said.
Legally, Blockmans says, such mechanisms could be included in accession treaties. However, politically the issue remains highly sensitive as it involves sovereignty and equal rights between member states.
Nevertheless, several Western Balkan countries have already signaled openness to the idea.
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia have all suggested they would accept temporary veto limits if it helped unlock access.
Montenegro as a test case
However, Montenegro does not want delays or transitional arrangements.
Analysts say it is likely to be the last country to enter the EU under the bloc’s existing rules before any deep institutional reforms take place.
At the same time, both Blockman and Subotic believe that Montenegro’s accession could serve as a testing ground for some of the new enlargement mechanisms currently being debated in Brussels.
Subotic hopes the EU will use Montenegro’s accession treaty to introduce stronger post-accession monitoring tools than in previous enlargement rounds, particularly in areas such as the rule of law and democratic backsliding.
“One can hope that Montenegro will become a guinea pig to explore the limits of transitional arrangements and security provisions,” Blockmans told DW. He said that the accession treaty currently being prepared could become a template for future expansion of the union.
Edited by: Angiel Flanagan