EU Photo: 2eu.brussels
As 2EUBrussels notes, the options under discussion include reducing the areas in which a single member state can block a decision, more flexible European institutions, the possibility for smaller groups of countries to move forward more quickly, as well as stronger safeguards against violations of EU values after accession.
According to the publication, the European Commission is beginning to shift the discussion on enlargement away from the question of whether candidate countries are ready for accession and toward another issue: whether the European Union is ready to function with a larger number of members. In a speech at a conference of ambassadors, consuls general, consuls, and military attachés in Zagreb on August 25, Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos said that the next phase must combine the preparation of candidate countries with reforming how the EU functions.
A “Helsinki Moment” for the EU
The timeline presented by Kos places this discussion at the center of the European agenda this fall. The Commission will present its ideas on preparing the Union in September, and the leaders of member states will discuss enlargement at the European Council in October.
The Commissioner for Enlargement compared this moment to the 1999 Helsinki summit, when European leaders began preparing the Union’s institutions for a wave of enlargement that would bring in ten new member states in 2004.
In this context, Marta Kos described the upcoming discussion as the “Helsinki moment” for the current generation and highlighted four challenges that the Union must address in order to build the necessary political consensus for admitting new members.
The first concerns the economic and budgetary implications of enlargement. The second is the ability of the institutions to make decisions in a larger Union. The third concerns the protection of Europe’s values and security following accession. And the fourth involves reforming the enlargement process so that candidate countries can be integrated gradually until they achieve full membership status.
According to the European Commissioner, a larger Union needs serious reforms to maintain its ability to act and adapt quickly in the face of crises.
Marta Kos asserts that changes to decision-making processes and the institutional architecture can be implemented without amending the treaties, which would require lengthy negotiations and an unpredictable ratification process in member states. In her view, this is a crucial point for the proposed reform.
This could also mean reducing the number of areas in which a single member state can block the actions of all the others. Furthermore, it could involve streamlining the structure of EU institutions, Kos noted.
She also pointed to the “enhanced cooperation” mechanism—a legal instrument that allows a group of EU countries to move forward with a particular initiative even if the other member states are not ready to do so. This mechanism has been used before, in particular, within the framework of the Schengen Agreement and during the introduction of the euro.
Key Challenges and Solutions
In explaining the essence of the four challenges she identified, Marta Kos emphasized that each presents both new opportunities and challenges and risks for the Union.
Regarding the first issue, the Commission proceeds from the premise that the accession of new states can entail both benefits and costs for current members. Kos said that where integration risks negatively affecting the interests of certain member states, safeguards and transition periods must be put in place, similar to the instruments used in previous enlargements.
At the same time, the future architecture must allow the EU budget to continue funding common priorities even as the number of beneficiaries increases, the European Commissioner emphasized.
The second issue —the functioning of the EU’s institutional structure—may, however, spark the most complex debate, according to Kos. She noted that the Union must become more flexible and capable of responding quickly during times of crisis.
At the same time, the European Commission representative believes that the current treaties already offer significant opportunities to change the decision-making process without the need to rewrite all the treaties.
One clearly stated option is to reduce the number of areas in which a single member state can block a decision for the entire Union.
Marta Kos did not specify in which policy areas unanimity should be eliminated or limited, nor did she present a concrete legislative proposal, but she identified the issue as one of the solutions that should be analyzed for a Union with a larger number of members.
The commissioner also mentioned the possibility of smaller European institutions. Her remarks did not specify whether this would mean a change in the number of commissioners, the size of the European Parliament, or other institutional structures, nor did she outline a model that the Commission has already adopted. The details are to be part of a discussion scheduled for September.
Another option could be the more frequent use of differentiated integration. When not all member states are ready to move forward at the same pace, Kos believes that smaller groups can move ahead, drawing on the examples of Schengen and the euro, where participation was not the same for all EU countries from the very beginning.
A third challenge is safeguarding the Union after admitting new members. The Commission places the rule of law at the center of the accession process and requires candidates to demonstrate a verifiable track record of implementing reforms and fulfilling commitments.
However, Kos believes that pre-accession screening is no longer sufficient and that the Union must be able to prevent or rectify violations of fundamental principles even after a country has become a member.
In this context, the Commissioner used one of the strongest phrases in her speech: “We must ensure that we do not let in any Trojan horses. Not today, nor in 10 or 20 years.”
For Moldova, it is important to note that the strategic criterion is also becoming more important in the assessment of candidate countries.
Kos said that accession can no longer be reduced to the transposition of European legislation and the formal fulfillment of negotiation chapters, since the choices made in areas such as energy, transportation, trade, defense, and security reveal a country’s true strategic orientation.
The European Commission’s message is crystal clear: EU candidates must genuinely choose Europe, including the Union’s common security and values. This condition takes on greater significance in a context where the Commission views enlargement as a geopolitical tool for reducing vulnerabilities across the continent.
In other words, enlargement is no longer viewed as a process of administrative growth in the number of EU members, but rather as a means of strategically stabilizing the continent and strengthening Europe’s ability to defend its interests.
This shift in context underpins the fourth direction proposed by the Commission: moving away from an “all-or-nothing” approach, under which a candidate receives nearly all the benefits of accession only after completing a process that can take years or decades. Brussels wants more ambitious forms of gradual integration, especially in sectors that are of strategic value to both current member states and future members.
Marta Kos cited existing examples of this integration. Companies from Skopje, Podgorica, and Belgrade can use the Single Euro Area for transfers in euros, and the energy systems of Ukraine and Moldova are synchronized with the European power grid. For the Commission, such connections must be expanded to include infrastructure and sectors on which the functioning of the Union depends.
Accelerating the Enlargement Process and Tightening Criteria
It is not yet clear how the European Commission’s proposals, outlined by Marta Kos in Zagreb, will be received in European capitals. Nor is it clear what changes will ultimately result from discussions within the Commission itself and in the European Parliament.
Some EU countries have repeatedly expressed their disagreement with the European Commission’s governance methods. There are also concerns that limiting the “veto power” will permanently undermine a key principle of the European Union’s existence—the equal rights of all members. And the Union will split into those who make decisions for everyone and those who remain in the ranks of “second-class” states.
However, Marta Kos is full of optimism. According to the commissioner, in the first eight months of 2026, more negotiation chapters were opened and closed than in any of the past 25 years, making 2026 a record year for progress on enlargement.
In her assessment, Montenegro is the closest to concluding negotiations among the current active candidates. Albania has cleared an important interim threshold regarding the rule of law and has begun the process of closing chapters.
Regarding Ukraine and Moldova, Kos said that both countries have made significant technical progress over the past two years on the entire European Act and have now shifted some of the responsibility to the member states. She called on them to respond to the reforms implemented by formally opening all remaining negotiation clusters.
This is a very important statement for Chisinau. A candidate’s technical progress does not automatically lead to the opening of a new stage of negotiations. Member states control these decisions within the Council, and moving the process forward requires political consensus. The Commission can assess readiness and recommend moving to the next stage, but it cannot replace the consent of the member states.
What to Expect
The proposals in September will not determine who will join or when, nor will they automatically amend the European treaties. However, they will open a discussion on the conditions under which a Union with more than 27 members can function without paralysis in decision-making, can finance common policies, and can prevent situations in which a new member fundamentally alters the political direction after accession.
The October discussion will thus, for the first time at this stage of enlargement, place the Union’s institutional preparations on a parallel track with the candidates’ progress. For Brussels, the pace of the process and geopolitical considerations make it impossible to wait until all negotiations are nearly complete before beginning internal reforms.
EU enlargement requires that each candidate meet the accession criteria and that all member states agree on the decisive stages of the process.
The Commission has not yet presented detailed proposals or specified in its statement which areas might shift from unanimity to other forms of voting, which institutions might be scaled back, or what new instruments will safeguard the Union’s values after accession. These elements are set to become part of the political debate this fall.
But it is already clear that this political fall will be a heated and momentous one for the EU. Its geopolitical strategy for the coming years—and even decades—depends on the decisions made and the institutional reforms implemented within the EU.
The Republic of Moldova, like other candidate countries, not only depends on these decisions but also, to a large extent, acts as a direct catalyst for them.
