In this interview for the Balkanview.com, Eric Maurice, policy analyst at the European Policy Centre (EPC) in Brussels, reflects on the European Union’s historic 2004 enlargement and its implications 20 years later. He delves into the successes and challenges of integrating new member states and the lessons learned as the EU prepares for another wave of expansion by 2030. Maurice discusses the need to balance member expectations, manage geopolitical risks, and address internal reforms to ensure sustainable enlargement. From economic disparities to political decision-making hurdles, he underscores the importance of addressing public concerns, strengthening the rule of law, and fostering trust in the enlargement process while highlighting the EU’s strategic motivations and the economic and political investments required to secure a stable and unified Europe.
Interviewed by: Erisa Zyka
Balkanview: You were a witness to what is often called the “Big Bang of the European Union,” referring to the largest expansion of the EU in 2004 with 10 new member states from Central and Eastern Europe. Twenty years later, how do you view this expansion? Did it bring the expected results?
Eric Maurice: The results are not set in stone. However, we can say that the EU is functioning reasonably well. The convergence process for new member states to reach the standards of older member states has worked. Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic have made significant progress, and the Baltic States are now a success story within the EU. These nations play a considerable role depending on the topic and their respective governments. For them, EU membership has been successful in terms of economic advancement and improving living standards, despite challenges in some member states.
However, the overall balance of the 2004 enlargement is more nuanced when it comes to public acceptance in the older EU-15 member states and political differences. These differences emerge on issues such as economic and social matters or analyzing the threat posed by Russia.
From a broader perspective, decision-making within the EU has not been eased by the 2004 enlargement. A central question remains: how do you make decisions for 27 member states while aligning their priorities, strategic interests, and positions? This issue remains unresolved and is more complicated than when the EU had 11 or 15 members. The enlargement has impacted the political atmosphere in the EU and made decision-making more challenging. A prominent example is migration policy, where opposition from countries like Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia—part of the 2004 wave—has been significant.
Balkanview: Twenty years on, the EU is preparing for another expansion, this time in the context of the war in Ukraine. By 2030, the EU is expected to welcome nine new members, including six from the Western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. How can this challenge succeed without jeopardizing the EU?
Eric Maurice: In this regard, managing the expectations of candidate countries and their citizens, as well as those of current member states, is crucial. The 2004 enlargement took a decade to complete. While the Western Balkan countries have been engaged in formal processes for years, the road ahead remains long.
The idea of a 2030 timeline has been widely discussed, but I believe no state will be ready to join by then. This must be made clear. The process is highly technical, involving detailed negotiations. Managing expectations is therefore essential. Simultaneously, member states’ populations need clear explanations of why enlargement is a geostrategic investment, outlining its benefits for EU citizens, economic actors, and policymakers.
The process must run on two parallel tracks: managing candidate countries’ expectations and explaining the advantages to current members. Additionally, candidate states must meet accession criteria and comply with EU legislation. These are clear and well-documented requirements, and candidate countries understand what is expected of them.
What matters most is not the speed of the process, even though the geostrategic context might impose urgency. It’s better to proceed slowly and correctly than quickly with future complications. A well-managed process ensures long-term success.
Balkanview: A lesson from previous enlargements is that participation in the EU’s single market does not automatically strengthen the rule of law. Should the next expansion emphasize stronger conditionality mechanisms, such as linking EU funding to governance or applying Article 7 of the EU Treaty?
Eric Maurice:It’s clear that the rule of law will take center stage in the accession negotiations more than ever before. Experience with Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia has shown that the rule of law is not guaranteed. We’ve learned that progress in strengthening democracy—a core value of the EU—is not irreversible. Regress, once unthinkable, is now a recognized possibility.
This means guarantees required from current candidates must be much stronger and more demanding than those set during the 2004 or 2007 enlargements, which included Bulgaria and Romania. Those decisions, made despite known deficiencies in meeting criteria, will not be repeated due to their long-term impact on EU perception and decision-making capacity. Rule of law issues will be a primary focus in negotiations going forward.
Balkanview: In 2004, concerns about labor market abuse and social dumping dominated public opinion, particularly in France with fears like the “Polish plumber.” Does public skepticism about new members persist for countries like the Western Balkans, Ukraine, and Georgia?
Eric Maurice: Public skepticism exists in many member states and reflects broader economic, social, and personal insecurities. These include fears of competition, globalization, and instability. As we saw in 2004, transitional periods before fully opening labor markets were implemented and may be repeated for new members.
However, no matter the safeguards, populist parties will continue to exploit these fears through misinformation or manipulation. This underscores the need for clear communication about the tangible benefits of enlargement.
Today, many countries benefit from affordable labor from Poland, Ukraine, and Romania. Yet, for unemployed workers in Western Europe, factory relocations to new member states are perceived as a direct loss, fueling opposition to expansion. Managing these perceptions is as critical as the technical negotiations themselves.
Balkanview: France has emphasized combining EU deepening with enlargement, but now both processes are advancing in parallel. Given the estimated financial cost of €256.8 billion, does the EU have a real interest in accelerating enlargement?
Eric Maurice: The 2022 EU summit established that enlargement will proceed alongside internal reform. This does not necessarily mean deeper integration but adapting the EU’s functioning, including decision-making and budgetary policies.
Current member states, especially net beneficiaries, will need to contribute more to the EU budget post-expansion. This raises serious questions about political and financial willingness. Enlargement is framed as a geostrategic investment with long-term benefits, including economic growth, political stability, and access to new markets.
The challenge lies in balancing short-term costs with these long-term gains and integrating candidate countries in ways that minimize disruptions.
