One of the major secondary impacts of Russia’s war against Ukraine has been to revitalise the conversation around EU enlargement. It’s a development that couldn’t have come too soon. Many governments are weary and wary of enlargement, feeling that differences between EU countries have become increasingly large and varied, making it ever harder to reach agreements.
Ukraine’s decision to apply for EU membership, and the irresistable moral force of a country fighting for the freedom to choose the European path, has provided an electric shock to the EU’s political nervous system. Governments that previously felt even a very small country like North Macedonia was too much of a burden have done a complete 180° turn, no longer even questioning that Ukraine (and others) will join the EU at some point. The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, has even set a fairly ambitious timeline, announcing that Ukraine should join by 2030.
Yet concerns about the impact of adding new members have not dissipated. The fear that the EU could lock up in a series of stalemates as it tries to broker agreements between 30-35 members is still common in Brussels meeting rooms.
So to the discussion of enlargement has become attached another, equally tricky issue: reforming how the EU works.
What kind of reform exactly? Well therein lies the problem. In the EU, ‘reform’ means many different things to many different people. For some, an effective reform would mean a lot more power for the EU institutions, with the EU being given the capacity to act in all areas and with the European Parliament taking a leading role. For others, it comes down to keeping everything the same but just abolishing the remaining national vetoes in foreign policy and taxation. For others still, reform means creating new kinds of membership, with different tiers of integration.
Therefore, when everyone gets together around the table and nods along to the idea that the EU must reform before it can accept new members, they’re demonstrating agreement with a very vague concept, a broad principle that disguises fundamental differences on how to prepare for these new members.
What this means is that the mantra of ‘reform to enlarge’ carries with it a major risk. What if the EU gets to 2030, or 2035, or 2040, and it hasn’t enacted these necessary reforms? Under the current conception, it would mean that the EU is not ready and therefore enlargement cannot go ahead.
In fact, worse than being a risk, it provides a perfect excuse for those who might prefer to delay or prevent enlargement - the ‘it’s not you, it’s me’ of international relations.
Far from setting the path to a successful entry for Ukraine, Moldova and the countries of the Western Balkans, the need to first reform the EU itself makes it very easy for sceptical countries to publicly declare themselves in favour of enlargement while obstructing the practical steps that are deemed necessary to make it work. Rather than successful development, the EU may be stepping onto the road to geopolitical failure.
Fortunately, there is a way to sidestep this trap. In effect, the positions of the two main issues must be reversed. First and foremost, enlargement, not reform, must be the priority. There must be a consensus that come hell or high water, if the candidate countries are ready then they will be admitted into the EU.
This new orientation would have two positive effects. One, the candidate countries would have much more confidence that their efforts will not be wasted and so will be more willing to undertake their own reforms, even when it requires facing down local special interest groups. Two, it would place the pressure on those who are sceptical of enlargement to get the EU to reform and neutralise their capacity to obstruct the process.
Tying together enlarment and reform isn’t wrong by any means - it’s a legitimate approach to the problems involved.
But while chronologically the reform must come first, politically is the enlargement that must be given priority. Only then can we be sure that the tandem will be a strategy for sucess and not an excuse for inaction.