Brussels – Somewhere a start had to be made, and the European Commission decided to do it in grand style. The first EU Enlargement Forum, held on 18 November 2025, represented a major effort to push the dialogue within and outside the European Union on one of the main priorities for the 2024–2029 mandate. However, it is perhaps somewhat naïve to view this event as a definitive turning point.
The 2025 EU Enlargement Forum was, ultimately, a huge exercise in style. This is not to diminish the substantial organisational effort or the commitment to conveying a message that too often remains confined to the EU bubble. Yet, the high-level discussions clearly showed only the need to reiterate well-known concepts – perhaps with a little more emphasis – without major novelties that could give an unprecedented boost to the process.
In short, the event was more a demonstration that something has been set in motion compared to just a few years ago – however fraught with difficulties, impasses, and uncertainties – to solidify an institutional and social dialogue that can positively influence the next steps of the EU enlargement process. It was also a networking moment among stakeholders across all levels, capable of fostering not just debate, but also tangible policy development within both member states and candidate countries.
A summary of the EU Enlargement Forum
“We want this debate, and we want it now, because this process has gained a new momentum” said Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos, as she opened the 2025 EU Enlargement Forum, setting out a message that was immediately unmistakable: “Candidate countries take time to reform, and sometimes our member states take time to decide. Time which today’s world no longer grants us.”
Not by chance, the title of the first panel was The geopolitical imperative for enlargement, signalling that security and defence would dominate the day’s discussions. “EU enlargement is not necessarily a natural phenomenon but a geopolitical imperative,” EU High Representative Kaja Kallas confirmed, a point reinforced by Commissioner for Defence Andrius Kubilius: “Enlargement is a vital interest for the EU’s security. It would be a serious mistake not to integrate Ukraine’s military capabilities in the face of Russia’s threats.”
Another issue on the table was that of accession dates. “It is definitely possible to close all negotiating chapters by the end of 2026,” confirmed Montenegrin Prime Minister Milojko Spajić, supported by the Irish Minister for European Affairs, Thomas Byrne, who will hold the Presidency of the Council in the second half of 2026. “The ambition of the Irish Presidency is to conclude negotiations with some candidates, that would be a signal to all the others that EU enlargement is real.” No further indications were given regarding the potential accession timelines of other candidates — notably Moldova and Ukraine.
The gradual integration of candidate countries, along with the prospect of EU internal reforms, inevitably featured in the discussions. “Gradual integration is not a substitute for full membership, but it is a sign that accession is moving forward,” Commissioner Kos stressed, referring also to the idea of including safeguard clauses in the Accession Treaties to prevent potential backsliding on the rule of law. The presentation of the communication on the pre-enlargement reforms is expected for “next month,” she anticipated the first indiscrezioni. The Commission’s communication on pre-enlargement reforms is expected to be presented “next month,” as already anticipated.
The issue is already visible, as demonstrated by Orbán’s Hungary, described as “the most corrupt EU member” by Danish Minister for European Affairs Marie Bjerre. Speaking in her capacity as President of the Council of the EU, she noted that the stalemate over launching Ukraine’s accession negotiations — caused by the Hungarian veto — could be overcome with sufficient political will. “Many member states support introducing qualified majority voting, because we must ask ourselves whether all these unanimous decisions are really necessary.” Countries such as France have ruled out other creative ideas for the post-accession phase: “Flexibility is useful, but we cannot change the rules only for future new members,” Minister Delegate for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad made it clear.
Between Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama’s monologue on the meaning of enlargement – “though I would speak more of re-unification,” he said, echoing the controversial words of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – and the intervention of the President of the National Assembly of Serbia, Ana Brnabić, who criticised Serbian students for not engaging in the country’s EU path, the real innovation of the day was the involvement of civil society. The panel EU enlargement from the perspective of citizens brought together the voices of four citizens from candidate countries, a reminder – including for Brussels – that it is not only governments and institutions that are part of this “geopolitical imperative.”
