Brussels – It was certainly a discussion, but it is hard to describe it as “strategic”. Amid new crises and the usual political divisions among the 27 leaders, the 15–16 October European Council left EU enlargement and internal reforms without a clear long-term plan, playing for time – once again – on the future structure of the European Union, with or without new members.
This would not be a problem per se if it were not for the EU institutions themselves building up expectations on issues that the current Union is clearly not yet ready to address with the necessary level of ambition, at least not with a significant number of member states on board.
Just to give one example, a diplomat speaking in the press room said that the highlight of the first day of the European Council would be the press conference – which was eventually cancelled – following the tense debate on the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) just before dinner, implicitly suggesting that journalists might as well go home and get some rest ahead of the second day, as nothing pivotal would happen afterwards. Yet “enlargement and reforms” was precisely the main course at the leaders’ dinner.
The problem lies not only in the discrepancy between formal rhetoric and attitude shown behind the scenes. The commitments set out in the conclusions of the high-level meeting fall short of what was expected when the leaders called, back in June, for a “strategic discussion” on both the EU enlargement process and the reforms needed to make a Union of 27+ members work. And even the timelines for the leading frontrunner, Montenegro, have been completely erased from the formal document.
What the conclusions say about EU enlargement and reforms
The two-hour discussion among the 27 leaders that concluded the first day of the European Council produced something that has been all too familiar in Brussels in recent years. Ultimately, the conclusions on the “strategic discussion on the way forward on enlargement and internal reforms” neither commit member states to any specific action nor call for any historic step that could shape a new Union.
The framing of enlargement as a “geostrategic investment in peace, security, stability and prosperity” has been a recurring refrain since the beginning of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Enlargement is also described as “a driver” of improvements in the economic and social conditions of European citizens, reductions in disparities between countries, and the promotion of the values on which the Union is founded.
With a further enlarged Union on the horizon, both future member states and the EU itself are called upon to “be ready at the time of accession.” It is a pity that, while candidate countries are urged to continue their reform efforts – particularly in the area of the rule of law – the parallel work within the Union to advance reforms, define its long-term ambitions “and the ways to achieve them,” and address “key questions related to its priorities and policies” remains both vague and non-binding, with no concrete promises or pledges.
The European Council recalls that the accession process is merit-based and that “each candidate country advances in its accession negotiations on the basis of its individual progress.” This represents a clear reminder that there will be no shortcuts or exceptions of any kind, while the process remains, as ever, at the mercy of bilateral blackmail and vetoes imposed by EU member states at any point, regardless of the candidates’ merits.
Meanwhile, internal reforms are confined to three lines. The European Council “takes note” of the Commission’s communication on the pre-enlargement policy reviews – presented on 6 October – and just calls on EU ministers to “analyse all strands and, on the basis of this analysis, to take work forward.” Nothing more is said about the gradual integration of candidate countries, new and existing safeguards in the Accession Treaties, or passerelle clauses to enable greater use of qualified majority voting (QMV).
But the twist comes right at the end, just as attention is at its lowest thanks to the text’s sleepy framing, when the leaders turn to Montenegro‘s EU accession. The final text removes two significant passages that were still present in the latest draft of the conclusions. First, the words “by the end of this year” have been dropped from the reference to the Irish Presidency’s intention to work towards the provisional closure of the remaining negotiating chapters. The entire sentence about working “towards finalising the drafting of the accession treaty as soon as possible” has also been removed.
Not even the leading frontrunner in the enlargement process – enthusiastically praised at every occasion for its reform efforts and the impressive progress it has made towards joining the Union by 2028 – emerged unscathed from a summit devoid of ambition and strategy.
