Brussels – EU policymaking is shaped not only through formal proposals and ministerial negotiations, but also through ideas informally circulated to test the appetite of other stakeholders for their implementation. It should therefore come as no surprise that, just days after the German–French non-paper on simplifying the EU enlargement methodology, a new informal document has been put forward presenting a “catalogue of options” for future Accession Treaties.
The non-paper circulated and signed by Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg – seen by The New Union Post – urges the EU to “jointly draft a new blueprint” for Accession Treaties that can support “sustained progress after enlargement,” further strengthen the track record on the rule of law, and “enhance public support” in view of the required ratification of Accession Treaties by all member states.
The merit-based approach and the “geostrategic investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity” are closely intertwined in the informal document. On the one hand, it calls for maintaining momentum in the EU enlargement policy and delivering tangible progress in the accession negotiations. On the other hand, lessons from previous enlargements – particularly the 2004 wave – point to the need for “a fresh perspective” on future Accession Treaties. “A copy-paste of previous Accession Treaties will not suffice.”
What is needed is “a general template for future Accession Treaties and a catalogue of options to choose from”, both sufficiently flexible to adapt to the challenges faced by each candidate country and to the concerns of the current member states. “All options should be on the table”, including temporary limitations on voting rights for new members, ad hoc instruments to respond to potential backsliding in the rule-of-law area, and the strengthening of existing sectoral safeguards.
The options for future Accession Treaties
The most controversial proposal concerns the discussion on “temporary transitional limitations of voting rights for new member states, particularly in areas requiring unanimity”, including enlargement policy, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the EU budget. The document acknowledges the need to take “legal and political sensitivities” into account, against the backdrop of the broader debate about whether such an approach would ultimately prove short-sighted.
At the same time, the five governments do not conceal the need to strengthen decision-making through internal EU reforms and urge the European Commission to publish its pre-enlargement policy reviews, which have been frozen for months.
New safeguards could include a clause to address potential breaches of the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) through specific enforcement mechanisms.
The core safeguards under discussion concern the protection of the EU values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is where the lessons learned from past experience – Hungary was among the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 – become particularly relevant, as the Union recognises the need for “instruments which can be used quickly and effectively” in the event of backsliding.
Although mechanisms already exist within the current EU framework – including rule-of-law conditionality and the suspension clause Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union – future Accession Treaties could include additional safeguards. These may include a non-regression clause, “codified as a binding norm, prohibiting regression on EU values” after accession; an extension “beyond three years” of safeguard clauses covering justice and home affairs, the internal market and the economic situation; and a transitional voting arrangement under Article 7, notably regarding the four-fifths majority to address through sanctions the serious and persistent violation of EU values.
The non-paper also proposes building upon existing sectoral safeguards from previous enlargements by incorporating them into future Accession Treaties. However, it argues that it should be assessed “whether they are still sufficiently broad in scope” to respond to serious disturbances affecting the EU’s internal security.
This could lead to extending transitional measures “beyond three years” and broadening the areas in which such sectoral safeguards may be required, particularly in relation to economic security and resilience against foreign interference.
Discussions on enhancing existing safeguard clauses could also encompass enhanced financial provisions, notably transitional phase-in for the Common Agricultural Policy and Cohesion Policy, as well as an extension of the “maximum possible timeframe” for optional measures on the free movement of workers and labour mobility, taking into account the risk of “possible circumvention”.
Strengthening the European Labour Authority (ELA) is becoming “even more urgent” in light of EU enlargement, while a monitoring mechanism – “possibly in a staged form, with more intensive monitoring directly after accession” – could help ensure the “proper” implementation of the EU acquis.
