While EU enlargement remains a strategic priority, it faces major financial, political, and geopolitical obstacles.

By BV TEAM

France remains a key player in the European Union’s enlargement policy. While President Emmanuel Macron initially linked expansion to deeper EU integration, the process has now evolved into a parallel approach. The financial cost of future enlargement is estimated at €256.8 billion, which implies a reduction of around 20% in agricultural subsidies for current net beneficiaries of the EU budget. Given these financial implications, a key question in Brussels is whether the EU genuinely has an interest in accelerating enlargement.

Eric Maurice, Analyst at the European Policy Centre, notes that last year’s European summit established that EU reform and enlargement would proceed simultaneously. “This is no longer about deepening the Union before expanding it, but rather about two parallel reforms, where EU reform does not necessarily mean deepening,” he explains. This shift could lead to changes in decision-making processes, budget policies, cohesion policies, and agricultural policies. Current member states will bear costs, making this more of an operational restructuring rather than a deepening of the Union.

Maurice also highlights that “if one of these processes fails to deliver results, the other is unlikely to succeed either.” The challenge is how to reform the EU while continuing enlargement without making one conditional on the other. The financial burden of enlargement will impact key policies such as agriculture and cohesion, transforming net beneficiaries into net contributors. This raises serious discussions about the economic feasibility and political will for expansion.

Enlargement as a Geostrategic Investment

Despite the high costs, enlargement is framed as a geostrategic investment—essential for stability and the EU’s broader strategic interests. Maurice acknowledges that while investments often require significant upfront costs, they are expected to yield long-term economic benefits. This includes access to natural resources, labor markets, and political stability. However, candidate countries must align their economic and social standards with the EU, a process that remains challenging given their current levels of development.

Meanwhile, the EU’s transition towards climate, energy, and digital policies is also financially demanding. The cost of enlargement must be reconciled with these existing expenses, potentially through cost-sharing mechanisms that integrate candidate countries into broader EU projects. This could help justify the expansion financially while maintaining economic balance within an enlarged bloc.

The Western Balkans: A Long and Uncertain Road

The EU’s 2004 enlargement created a geopolitical buffer against Russian influence, integrating the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. However, it left a strategic vacuum in the Western Balkans, where accession has been slow and uncertain.

Serbia and Montenegro began accession talks in 2012 but have closed fewer than a third of the required 35 chapters.

North Macedonia has awaited negotiations since 2009, alongside Albania, but vetoes from EU member states have stalled progress.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is awaiting the launch of formal talks, while Kosovo remains in candidate status.

The normalization of relations between Serbia and Kosovo remains a critical requirement for both countries’ EU integration. Maurice describes this as a “sine qua non” condition: “As long as Serbia and Kosovo have unresolved disputes, they cannot join the EU. The Union cannot import conflicts into its structure.” He draws historical parallels, noting that Germany and Poland had to resolve their border disputes before Poland’s accession in 2004. Similar principles apply to other geopolitical disputes, such as those involving Greece and Turkey or Cyprus and Turkey.

North Macedonia: A Case of Geopolitical Deadlock

November 2023 marked a critical deadline for North Macedonia, set under the French Proposal, which lifted Bulgaria’s veto on Skopje’s EU integration. The country was required to amend its constitution to recognize ethnic Bulgarians, a step that failed to gain the necessary parliamentary support.

This impasse has fueled Euro-skepticism, with increasing numbers of North Macedonian citizens believing their country should seek alternatives to EU integration. Nearly 50% of respondents in recent surveys now consider non-EU alliances a viable alternative.

Zylyftar Bregu, a political analyst, warns that enlargement is unlikely to proceed as a “bloc”, as seen in 2004. He even suggests that Albania and North Macedonia could eventually be separated in the accession process, depending on their individual progress.

Maurice further emphasizes that bilateral disputes—such as Bulgaria’s demands on North Macedonia—slow down the entire process. “So long as Bulgaria maintains leverage over North Macedonia, it can use the veto to push its own interests. The current EU approach is merit-based, not collective,” he notes. Unlike in 2004, when multiple countries joined simultaneously, the next enlargement will be staggered based on individual readiness.

Albania: A Potential Fast-Track Candidate?

Unlike North Macedonia, Albania holds two advantages in its EU accession bid:

1. It has no open disputes with neighbors.

2. It enjoys broad political consensus on EU integration, similar to Croatia and Montenegro.

Prime Minister Edi Rama remains optimistic about progress, emphasizing that Albania is currently focused on the screening process and the opening of the first negotiation clusters. However, he acknowledges that North Macedonia still faces additional hurdles due to its constitutional amendment process.

Judicial Reform and Property Rights in Albania

For Albania, two key domestic issues—judicial reform and property rights—are central to its EU path.

Lulzim Basha, leader of Albania’s opposition Democratic Party, argues that judicial reform must lead to the end of impunity. “As long as citizens don’t feel equal before the law, justice remains selective, which is not real justice,” he warns.

He also highlights property rights as a major barrier to Albania’s European aspirations. “Albania is the only country where property owners still lack legal certainty over their assets,” Basha states. Resolving this requires either returning property to rightful owners or providing financial compensation—a model applied in other post-communist transitions.

A Long-Term Vision Amidst Uncertainty

While EU enlargement remains a strategic priority, it faces major financial, political, and geopolitical obstacles. The process is no longer a one-size-fits-all expansion, but rather an individualized, merit-based integration. Countries like Albania may advance faster than others, while unresolved bilateral disputes—such as Serbia-Kosovo or Bulgaria-North Macedonia—continue to delay progress.