Strasbourg – The European Parliament has made another move in shaping the future of the Union, this time with an ambitious EU enlargement strategy that seeks to clarify a path often marked by uncertainty and difficult predictions, both in terms of its external impact and its internal consequences.
“The EU must inevitably change, and enlargement is a very serious argument for the EU to reconsider its structure, decision-making, structural policies and budgetary framework,” says MEP Petras Auštrevičius (Renew Europe) in an interview with The New Union Post.
Speaking in his capacity as rapporteur on the EU enlargement strategy – adopted by the plenary session of the European Parliament on 11 March with 385 votes in favour, 147 against, and 98 abstentions – the Lithuanian MEP emphasises that the EU enlargement process and the EU’s internal reforms are “a two-way street,” but they “cannot be conditioned” – meaning no enlargement without reforms, and no reforms if enlargement does not take place.
Auštrevičius describes enlargement as “the natural state of the Union,” noting that, of the current 27 member states, 21 joined through successive waves of accession, and further enlargement could help strengthen the Union “both politically and economically.” At the same time, he urges caution, warning that “raising the stakes and imposing conditions will not help.”
With the prospect of an enlarged Union, “different ways to make decisions” are needed in order to avoid becoming stuck on economic and security considerations. “We have to overcome all this by putting on the table the political consensus needed for enlargement and by starting preparations for internal reforms,” the rapporteur warns.
The importance of an EU enlargement strategy
Given that EU enlargement can represent “a strategic response to the new geopolitical reality” and “an investment of the utmost importance for the EU’s security and stability,” the report highlights the need to establish “clear and predictable” timelines for the accession of the most advanced candidate countries.
“It is important to establish a strong starting position,” Auštrevičius explains, recalling that in accession negotiations “you never know how long they might take, what issues you might encounter, or how difficult it may be to reach consensus among member states.”
While Montenegro has set the objective of joining the EU by 2028, Albania by 2029, and Ukraine has even floated 2027 as a possible target, the European Parliament’s rapporteur stops short of putting forward specific dates for the potential entry of the so-called frontrunners. “Accession negotiations are a very fluid process, and every day there is greater understanding.”
It is no secret that the Commission is exploring the possibility of a fast-tracked accession for Ukraine. But what would this mean for the EU’s established accession process? “The merit-based principle can never be removed from the negotiations, otherwise we would be acting in an entirely subjective way,” the rapporteur makes clear. At the same time, “Ukraine’s security is closely bound to Europe – for now they depend on us, but later we may depend on them.” In other words, while no candidate should be overlooked or ignored, geopolitical considerations “will change” the accession strategy.
The report also calls on all EU institutions to strengthen “proactive and strategic communication efforts” on the tangible benefits of EU membership, both in enlargement countries and within the Member States, by developing “tailor-made, fact-based communication strategies rather than relying on generic campaigns.” It also highlights the “crucial” role of youth movements, which have “repeatedly proven key in contributing to pro-democratic activism in candidate countries.”
The “necessary” reforms
In line with the report on the institutional consequences of EU enlargement – adopted in October 2025 – Auštrevičius’ text calls on all EU institutions and member states to undertake the “necessary” reforms to ensure that “the lack of such reforms does not delay” the accession of new members.
“We have to move further towards qualified majority voting,” he says, referring in particular to the abolition of unanimity at intermediate stages of the enlargement process – such as decisions on starting accession negotiations, and opening and closing negotiating clusters and chapters. As analysed by The New Union Post, Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) would allow such a move without requiring changes to the Treaties. “Just look at the behaviour of Orbán’s government – you can only draw increasingly worrying conclusions.”
The report stresses the need to accommodate new members and ensure the “efficient functioning” of an enlarged Union and it acknowledges the importance of gradual integration into EU common policies in order to support the implementation of EU-related reforms, including the possibility of granting observer status – as the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has already done.
Such a gradual approach would also help adapt specific sectoral policies – such as Cohesion Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – that will be affected by the next round of enlargement, particularly in relation to the allocation of funds among current member states. “Time will be needed to see what new members will require in terms of financial support to keep the Single Market functioning properly,” Auštrevičius says.
Safeguard clauses and specific provisions could also be applied, while some capitals are considering limiting certain membership rights for newcomers. “But this must not be a secondary membership status, and it must be clearly defined in the Accession Treaty – otherwise it would be politically very risky and set a bad precedent for the European Union.” As the report notes, gradual integration “can make the transition towards EU membership smoother, but it cannot replace full membership of the EU.”
A “traffic-light” monitoring system
The EU enlargement strategy does not overlook the risks and shortcomings of the current process. Chief among them is the repeated misuse of bilateral disputes to stall enlargement – as seen, for example, with Bulgaria against North Macedonia or Hungary against Ukraine. “We cannot accept a situation of blackmail because of the unanimity rule,” the Lithuanian MEP states bluntly, urging that bilateral issues be kept outside accession negotiations “so that they do not hijack the whole European Union.”
While Brussels could help resolve such disputes – since “one of the EU’s greatest strengths is its ability to facilitate regional cooperation” – Auštrevičius warns that “local politicians cannot become the drivers of the overall process.” All sides involved, both within and outside the Union, “must take responsibility” for finding solutions.
Another sensitive issue concerns the potential democratic backsliding on fundamental values by candidate countries, which could lead to “the freezing of accession negotiations,” the text notes. For this reason, the Commission is asked to “monitor effectively” such situations through the establishment of a dedicated monitoring group. “We need a sort of traffic-light indication at the right moment, so that potential crises are neither overlooked nor addressed too late,” the rapporteur explains.
Given its “constructive role” in supporting alignment with EU values, civil society should be protected from any actions taken by governments responsible for democratic backsliding. “We can support it through very flexible, proactive and responsive financing instruments,” Auštrevičius highlights. “I cannot recall any other enlargement countries where civil society has been involved at the same level” as in the Western Balkans, Ukraine or Georgia, “where the only real hope lies in the active and decisive participation of civil society,” the rapporteur concludes.
