Five European Union member states have proposed new safeguards for future members of the bloc, including the possible temporary limitation of some voting rights and stronger rule-of-law monitoring, in a move that links EU enlargement directly to fears over institutional paralysis.
Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg set out the ideas in a joint paper seen by Reuters. The paper argues that the EU should discuss mechanisms that would prevent future entrants from weakening democratic standards or blocking key decisions once inside the Union.
The proposal comes as the EU is trying to give new momentum to enlargement, particularly for Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans. The European Commission lists Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye and Ukraine as countries in the enlargement process, while Kosovo remains a potential candidate under the EU’s stated framework.
Kosovo snap election prolongs EU enlargement test in the Western Balkans
The immediate political concern is not only whether candidate countries can meet accession conditions. It is also whether the EU can absorb new members without reproducing the problems it has faced with existing members that have used veto powers or resisted rule-of-law scrutiny. Hungary is not named in every enlargement debate, but it remains the reference point for many such discussions because of repeated disputes with Brussels over democratic standards, media freedom, judicial independence, sanctions and EU decision-making.
The five countries’ paper reportedly proposes that future accession treaties could include clauses allowing temporary measures against new members in cases of serious democratic or rule-of-law violations. Such safeguards could apply to areas where unanimity is required, including budget decisions, foreign policy and further enlargement.
That would mark a sensitive shift in the political logic of accession. EU membership has traditionally meant full institutional equality after entry, even where transitional arrangements apply in specific policy areas. Limiting voting rights, even temporarily, would raise questions about whether future members would enter on the same basis as existing ones.
Supporters of the approach argue that enlargement cannot proceed without institutional protection. They say the EU must avoid importing new veto risks at a time when it is already struggling to act quickly on sanctions, foreign policy, budgetary decisions and treaty-sensitive issues. In this view, safeguards are not intended to block enlargement but to make it politically acceptable to existing members.
For candidate countries, however, the proposal may be received with caution. Ukraine, Moldova and Western Balkan states have already faced long accession procedures, demanding reforms and uncertain timelines. If future membership appears to include second-tier conditions after entry, pro-EU governments may find it harder to persuade voters that accession still delivers equal status.
The debate reflects a wider tension in EU policy. Russia’s war against Ukraine has made enlargement a strategic priority, particularly for states exposed to Russian pressure or located in contested neighbourhoods. At the same time, the EU’s own decision-making system was designed for a smaller Union and has become more difficult to operate as membership has expanded.
Earlier this month, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said at a Western Balkans summit that the EU must prove it is capable and willing to take in new members. Reuters reported that Germany and France have also floated ideas for giving candidate countries earlier access to EU programmes and parts of the single market before full accession. That approach is intended to give practical benefits during the long accession process while reforms continue.
The new safeguards paper points in the other direction: it asks what protection the EU needs after accession has taken place. Taken together, the two tracks show that enlargement is no longer being discussed only as a technical process of chapters, benchmarks and alignment. It has become a question of how the EU governs itself after the next wave of members joins.
The proposal also intersects with the EU’s rule-of-law machinery. Brussels has strengthened its annual reporting, conditionality tools and funding controls in recent years, but enforcement remains politically difficult. Article 7 proceedings, designed to address serious breaches of EU values, require a level of agreement among member states that has often proved hard to secure. Future accession clauses could be an attempt to create more targeted and usable instruments.
The issue is particularly relevant for Ukraine and Moldova, whose accession paths are now tied to the EU’s broader response to Russian aggression. Both countries present strategic arguments for membership, but they also face extensive reform requirements in areas such as the judiciary, corruption, public administration and minority rights. Western Balkan candidates face similar rule-of-law and governance tests after years of slow progress.
The five-state proposal is unlikely to settle the enlargement debate. It may instead open a new one over equality, conditionality and trust. Existing members want assurance that enlargement will not make the Union harder to govern. Candidate countries want assurance that the accession process leads to full membership, not a diluted status shaped by permanent suspicion.
For Brussels, the question is whether both objectives can be reconciled. Enlargement has returned as a strategic necessity, but the institutional lessons of previous crises are now shaping the terms of the next round. The discussion over voting rights and rule-of-law safeguards shows that the EU is no longer asking only who can join, but what kind of Union they will be joining.
