The European Commission has published its pre-enlargement policy reviews on 6 October 2026, setting out how the EU should prepare for future enlargements. With gradual integration, possible safeguards in future accession treaties and reforms to the EU’s decision-making rules all under discussion, the reviews put the focus on both the path to membership and the changes needed within the EU itself. We discuss the latest proposals, key reforms and the upcoming European Council summit with MEP Thomas Waitz (Greens/EFA), Chair of the European Parliament's Delegation to the EU-Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Parliamentary Committee.
1. Now that the pre-enlargement policy reviews are on the table, what is the most important message they send about the EU enlargement process and what do the proposed safeguard mechanisms in the accession treaties foresee?
The process shows that the EU is willing to learn, progress and improve for the sake of enlargement. This alone shows how highly the EU values enlargement and how determined it is to bring in new Member States. At the same time, the European Commission is not being naive. In the past, democratic backsliding and foreign influence in some Member States have caused significant problems, chiselling away at the EU’s ability to act quickly and decisively, or in some cases even at all. The proposed safeguard mechanisms are an answer to this. They will have to strike a fine balance between upholding the EU’s ability to act while not creating second-class members.
2. Last week, the European Commission proposed a more gradual form of integration, including earlier access to parts of the Single Market and EU programmes, while keeping full membership as the ultimate goal. Could this accelerate the path to membership or is there a risk that gradual integration could become an alternative to full integration, leaving candidate countries in a kind of “second-class membership” indefinitely?
Gradual integration is an old concept, tried and tested both with partner countries like Switzerland and with candidate countries. It is sensible to evaluate where this concept can be applied more liberally and where further integration could help accelerate the enlargement process. However, the door to full membership must remain open. Full membership is in the interest of both sides: candidate countries will want to be part of the decision-making, while Member States want more opportunities for their citizens and businesses, a stable and secure neighbourhood and a stronger voice on the world stage. All of this is only guaranteed through membership.
3. The European Council summit next week is expected to discuss not only how candidate countries should prepare for membership, but also how the EU itself must change to function with more members. What are the most important EU-level reforms needed to unblock the enlargement process and prevent the EU’s own decision-making rules from being an obstacle to further enlargement?
Currently, the enlargement process is slowed down by the fact that every decision is made in agreement with every Member State, under the so-called unanimity principle. This was never intended by the treaties, which foresaw unanimity for a limited number of essential votes. What often happens is that highly technical matters become politicised, with individual Member States using their veto to postpone decisions. Member States will have to be convinced that this approach is creating too many inefficiencies, leaving the Union unable to deliver on its promises and pursue its own interests.
The views and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union | Global Dialogue.
