However difficult to sell, the EU must get bigger

Metadata

The EU is struggling to assert itself internationally. Trump, Putin and Xi set the tone and regularly present the EU with faits accomplis. However, one crucial decision remains entirely in the EU's hands: deciding who belongs in the club. And it is precisely this process that requires a fresh approach.

A familiar refrain in Brussels classic is that EU enlargement is the Union's most successful foreign policy instrument. And, as is often the case with clichés, there is a substantial element of truth in that. Previous enlargements have demonstrably contributed to anchoring democracy and strengthening peace and prosperity - at modest cost. Survival of the fittest and zero-sum thinking are on the rise worldwide. EU enlargement follows precisely the opposite logic: I am better off if my neighbour is also prosperous and secure.

Last week, there was much discussion about the potential accession of new countries to the EU: a group of six Balkan countries, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Turkey. The Commission released its annual reports reviewing the applicants' progress, and the leaders of the countries involved visited Brussels to make their case. Much of the discussion sounded familiar: the countries emphasised how much they had already done their homework and why a target date for accession - say, 2028 - was necessary to keep their publics motivated.

Previous enlargements have demonstrably contributed to anchoring democracy and strengthening peace and prosperity - at modest cost.

Many of the existing Member States, including the Netherlands, are constantly insisting on the strict conditions candidate Member States must meet, particularly in terms of democracy and the rule of law, to secure public support. Setting target dates is counterproductive, as it contradicts the idea that everything is based on merit and reforms, not on the calendar.

It often feels like a repetition of familiar moves. And there is an element of hypocrisy in all of this, as former EU Commissioner Chris Patten warned years ago : 'They pretend to reform, and we pretend we really want them involved'.

Yet things feel different now: those Commission reports are usually very dry and adept at glossing over the sore points. Not this time. Regarding Serbia, the Commission said that reforms had 'delayed significantly'. The country was also reminded of the need to make clear geopolitical choices - and thus, sotto voce, weaken ties with Russia. Regarding Georgia, it warned that democracy and the rule of law had deteriorated significantly, and that accession had thus been 'de facto halted'. At the other end of the spectrum, other countries received great praise for what they had achieved under very difficult circumstances (Moldova and Ukraine). So the EU institutions are now speaking with an admirable degree of political clarity.

Last week, the Commission also proposed a new idea: a kind of trial membership. New entrants would not only be subject to increased scrutiny regarding the rule of law for a few years, but would also face restrictions on their voting and veto rights. Experiences with several countries where democracy has been under real pressure for years, and which also eagerly use their veto to hijack EU decision-making, have clearly had their consequences. No one wants to bring in another Trojan horse or two. That is what European Commissioner Marta Kos said openly.

There is also open discussion in Brussels about gradual accession. What used to be black or white - you are essentially a member or not - is now being transformed into many shades of grey. Countries could first participate in selected policy areas (energy, defence, migration, research, data roaming) and only then in the entire package, including the internal market. This maintains momentum and fosters convergence - at a pace that both existing and acceding countries can handle.

It is good that a new way of thinking is emerging regarding EU enlargement. In the Netherlands, it is difficult to get everyone to agree on the idea that Serbia, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are in the waiting room. And that countries like Albania and Montenegro are swiftly making progress and could join in a few years' time. Even the accession of Ukraine or Moldova, despite their heroic resistance against the Russians, is considered a difficult sell. Because, opponents say, it costs a lot of money and there is too much corruption. And what about the areas of these countries held under Russian occupation?

Yet building that larger EU remains the best way to shape our own continent - ​​and not outsource it to the Russians or Americans. That is why it is good that a more realistic view is now emerging in Brussels regarding the question 'how will we actually do this?'. The new Dutch government when it takes office will also have to take a clear stand on this issue.

This opinion piece by Steven Everts was originally published in Dutch in NRC on 10 November 2025 under the title 'Hoe lastig te verkopen ook, de EU moet groter'. It is reproduced here in English with the permission of NRC.

Metadata Bottom

• Russia and Eastern Neighbours
• Western Balkans
• EU enlargement
• EU Foreign Policy