EU Commission Proposes Sweeping Reforms to Accelerate and Secure Enlargement

The European Commission on October 6 presented a comprehensive set of reforms designed to revitalize the EU’s accession process, aiming to integrate candidate nations while safeguarding the bloc’s institutional efficiency and democratic integrity. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos described the initiative as a long-term investment in Europe’s security and prosperity, noting that several countries, including Albania, Montenegro, Moldova, and Ukraine, are currently leading the queue for membership.

Among the most significant proposals is a shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) for key procedural decisions, such as opening negotiation clusters. Currently, any of the 27 member states can veto progress, a mechanism that has historically stalled talks. The delays caused by Hungary blocking Ukraine’s negotiation进程 were cited as a primary example of why this change is necessary. However, the proposal faces a circular dilemma: adopting QMV itself requires unanimous agreement from all member states, a threshold that some experts doubt can be met.

“I have some reservations as to whether there will be unanimous agreement from the member states to move to qualified majority voting,” said Tinatin Akhvlediani, head of the enlargement program at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). She highlighted that previous attempts to alter voting rules had been rejected by member states.

To incentivize reforms, the Commission is introducing a system of “gradual integration.” This would allow candidate countries to access certain EU benefits, such as participation in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), before they formally join, provided they meet specific criteria. Commissioner Kos emphasized that this is an accelerator for enlargement, not a substitute for full membership, and stressed that access would be strictly merit-based. Nina Vujanovic, a research fellow at Bruegel, noted that early rewards could motivate candidates to maintain their reform trajectories.

Strategic alignment with the EU has also been introduced as a new condition for these early benefits. This reflects a broader geopolitical strategy to keep candidate nations within the European sphere of influence and away from Russian orbit. Heather Grabbe, a senior fellow at Bruegel, pointed out that this directly targets leaders in countries like Serbia who have been seen promoting Russian interests. Vujanovic added that economic dependencies, such as trading gas with Russia, are viewed as incompatible with building trust in the EU.

Addressing concerns about democratic erosion, the Commission proposed a 15-year probationary period for new members. During this time, the EU would have streamlined mechanisms to sanction new states for breaches of democratic values, such as cutting financial support or restricting voting rights. This provision is widely interpreted as a response to the rule-of-law conflicts experienced with Hungary and Poland. Commissioner Kos told media outlets that the EU has “learned its lesson” and that quicker mechanisms than Article 7 are needed, stating, “No more Viktor Orban.”

Critics argue that a two-tier system creates inequality within the union. Heather Grabbe questioned why Montenegro might face different conditions than Slovenia decades after joining, calling it inherently unfair. Akhvlediani countered that many candidate countries are fragile democracies, making such safeguards justified. Grabbe acknowledged the difficulty of applying uniform strict rules to all members, noting it is “very hard to get turkeys to vote for Christmas” when existing members would have to agree to stricter oversight on themselves.

The European Council is scheduled to discuss these proposals on October 15–16. The outcome of those talks will determine the pace and scope of the Commission’s new enlargement agenda.