Europe’s Next Enlargement
What Berlin, Paris, and The Hague Really Think
- The Commission’s initiative to fast-track Ukraine and reform accession led the governments of some EU member states to more closely scrutinize enlargement policy and sharpen their national positions.
- In Germany, debate on enlargement is beginning to gain some momentum. In France, ambivalence is deepening ahead of presidential elections in 2027. In the Netherlands, the new minority government has yet to reveal its exact approach.
- Member states should now lead their policy processes forward, forming coalitions of the willing to rethink the parameters of the accession process.
- EU leaders and governments should not neglect public communication. They must shape domestic discourses on enlargement, stressing its security dimension and geopolitical significance.
Wouter Zweers is a co-author to the policy brief 'Europe’s Next Enlargement: What Berlin, Paris, and The Hague Really Think'. This policy paper was originally published by the German Council on Foreign Relations, DGAP, on 18 May, 2026.
Recent debates in Brussels – sparked by the European Commission’s proposals to fast-track Ukraine’s EU entry and overhaul the accession framework – have prompted renewed scrutiny of enlargement policy by national governments. Departing from the regular process could offer both new opportunities and risks for the “older” Western Balkan candidates. This policy brief examines perspectives on enlargement in three key member states – Germany, France, and the Netherlands – and offers recommendations on how to move forward.
EU enlargement has entered a critical phase. Amid geopolitical urgency and a US-led push to end Russia’s war on Ukraine, the European Commission developed several options for accession reform. The proposal that centered on fast-tracking Ukraine’s membership by formally bringing the country into the EU first and then conditioning full access to meeting criteria later has faced pushback from member states. On March 4, EU ambassadors reportedly refused this option, which is known as “reverse enlargement” or “phased integration,” and asked the Commission to find a realistic way forward.
If the Commission is tasked to continue under the current accession model, more focus should be given to the two so-called Balkan frontrunners, Montenegro and Albania. Having recently achieved impressive results in their respective membership talks, they now stand a realistic chance of finishing them in the period from 2027 to 2028. While their membership prospects have been recently overshadowed by the centrality of Ukraine in the EU’s enlargement debate, they now certainly deserve more attention. Montenegro, for example, has already closed almost half of its negotiating chapters. Consequently, in December 2025, EU member states proposed to start drafting the accession treaty for its entry into the EU. As the last accession treaty was concluded with Croatia 15 years ago, this presents a further challenge for officials in Brussels and national capitals. They will have to include stronger safeguards against new members backsliding on commitments made during negotiations on EU membership, particularly on the rule of law. Adding to the pressure, the accession treaty with Montenegro, according to European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos, will serve as a blueprint for the next generation of EU accession treaties.
There are internal hurdles to clear within the EU before the first candidate can realistically receive the green light to join the bloc. However, in an increasingly volatile world with transactional great-power competition – and with two wars on Europe’s threshold – the window of opportunity for enlargement is there. In fact, EU leaders should be discussing this prospect as a matter of urgency. After all, enlarging the Union can be a key instrument to promote security and stability in its neighborhood and stay relevant in global geopolitics.
Despite reservations about “phased integration,” revising the accession model is not completely off the table. Still, whether EU leaders will succeed in taking joint decisions on widening and reforming the Union is not yet clear. That will depend on a Ukraine peace deal putting pressure on the EU and Montenegro arriving at the finish line of its technical process – or the August 2026 referendum in Iceland succeeding and creating the prospect for the swift accession of this Nordic state that is already part of the European Economic Area.
Next decisions on enlargement, as well as the timeframe for accession reform, are now firmly in the hands of EU member states. As ever, their leaders must balance competing priorities and objectives while their own governments, parliaments, and societies might not be fully onboard with expanding the EU.
Given the dominant position of the member states in the accession process, this paper takes stock of the situation in Germany, France, and the Netherlands, whose governments play a critical role in this policy dossier. It finds that, while diplomats in Berlin, Paris, and The Hague are becoming better prepared to rethink parameters for the next enlargement, political leaders there have yet to take sufficient interest in this issue. While public discourse and national debates remain limited, there are also signs of increased interest. Against this background, we put forward recommendations on how to navigate some of the key obstacles.
