The European Union is discussing a new approach to enlargement under which incoming members would join without full voting rights for an initial period, according to reports citing EU diplomats.
The model, at a formative stage, is intended to maintain momentum on accession while the bloc undertakes institutional reforms aimed at reducing the scope for veto deadlock.
Three European diplomats and an EU official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Politico that exploratory talks have begun on granting new members access to most benefits of membership but delaying full voting rights until internal decision-making reforms are in place. Advocates argue that such sequencing could make Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán more amenable to opening Ukraine’s path to membership, and help address the frustration of long-standing candidates such as Montenegro. Any such change would still require unanimous agreement of the current 27 member states.
The idea emerges alongside a parallel push led by European Council President António Costa to modify how the EU opens and advances negotiation chapters—known as “clusters”—for candidate countries. Costa’s proposal would allow these steps to be approved by a qualified majority rather than unanimously, reducing the ability of a single capital to hold up the process. This approach has been discussed in recent weeks and is expected to feature in leaders’ deliberations, with several governments signalling support in principle.
Resistance remains significant. Several member states, including France and the Netherlands, have expressed opposition to abandoning unanimity for key enlargement decisions, citing concerns over national sovereignty and control of sensitive dossiers. Without a broader consensus, both the limited-vote accession concept and the qualified-majority opening of clusters face an uncertain path.
The reported sequencing reflects an attempt to reconcile two pressures: the strategic case for integrating Ukraine and Moldova, and the institutional strain that further enlargement could place on EU governance. Supporters argue that a phased voting-rights model would allow the EU to welcome new members sooner while pursuing reforms to curb systematic veto use. Proponents in enlargement-friendly capitals, including Austria and Sweden, see this as a pragmatic route to restart a process slowed by repeated blockages.
Hungary’s stance remains central. Budapest has repeatedly opposed steps linked to Ukraine’s integration, leveraging unanimity rules in Council decision-making. By deferring full voting rights, the nascent proposal seeks to lower the immediate stakes of accession while signalling credible progress to candidates. However, as with any treaty-significant redesign of membership modalities, unanimous assent would still be required—leaving Budapest, and any other sceptical capital, with an effective say over the arrangement itself.
Recent procedural milestones for the candidates form the backdrop. Ukraine completed bilateral screening of its legislation with the European Commission on 30 September 2025, a step the Commission and independent observers have described as rapid. Moldova finalised its screening earlier, on 22 September 2025. Both developments position Kyiv and Chișinău for subsequent stages of talks, subject to political decisions by member states.
The limited-vote model, as recounted by the diplomats, would be temporary and linked explicitly to wider institutional reform aimed at reducing the scope for veto-driven stasis. It would not alter the Copenhagen criteria or the substantive policy alignment required for accession. Rather, it would adjust the timing of when full Council voting rights accrue, potentially after reforms that expand qualified-majority voting or otherwise insulate the decision-making system from single-state obstruction.
Legal and political feasibility will be closely examined. Some experts argue that aspects of the enlargement methodology can be adapted without formal treaty change, particularly regarding intermediate steps such as opening or closing negotiation clusters. Nonetheless, adjusting rights of new member states at entry may trigger more complex legal questions and heightened political sensitivity in capitals wary of setting precedents for differentiated membership.
Brussels tests technical workarounds to Hungary’s Ukraine veto
