Twenty-Seven Against One

European integration began with “coal and steel”: in 1951, six countries agreed to establish joint control over these industries to prevent another war between former adversaries. Today, the EU has 27 member states, with nine more countries holding candidate status. But before the next enlargement, Brussels must address the differences within the bloc itself. Governments disagree over market protection, industries complain about high energy costs and red tape, and a single country can still hold up foreign policy decisions supported by all the others. What rules is the EU drafting for future members, and why is it so difficult even for current members to change them? “Za rubejom” takes a closer look.


ONE MARKET, DIFFERENT INTERESTS

The single market is considered one of the greatest achievements of European integration. Brussels conducts trade negotiations on behalf of the entire union, sets common standards and can leverage the combined economic weight of its 27 member states in disputes with other countries. Yet behind the common trade policy lie national economies whose interests often diverge.



The dispute over Chinese electric vehicles illustrated this well. In autumn 2024, the EU imposed additional tariffs: 17% on BYD, 18.8% on Geely and 35.3% on SAIC. France supported the restrictions, while Germany voted against them. For the French government, the issue was about protecting European manufacturing. German automakers, by contrast, feared a trade conflict with China, which at the time accounted for roughly a third of their car sales.

But competing with imports becomes more difficult when production itself is expensive in Europe. A 2024 report on European competitiveness by Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank, noted that industrial electricity prices in the EU were two to three times higher than in the United States and China, while natural gas was three to five times more expensive than in the US. These costs are particularly burdensome for the chemical, metallurgical and other energy-intensive industries.


The problem is not the existence of common rules as such, but the fact that member states have different ideas about what those rules should be. In October, Eurogroup President Kyriakos Pierrakakis made this point in respect of the banking market, which remains fragmented along national lines despite the common currency and shared supervision.

“If every one of us protects every national safeguard because we believe it makes us stronger individually, we may end up making Europe weaker collectively,” he said.


ENLARGEMENT WITH RESERVATIONS

Economic disputes usually end in compromise, but in foreign policy, a single dissenting government can block a decision supported by all the others. EU sanctions still require unanimity.

In February 2026, Hungary resorted to this power. Budapest refused to support another package of sanctions against Russia until oil shipments through the Druzhba pipeline resumed. Supplies to Hungary and Slovakia had been halted following damage to infrastructure on Ukrainian territory. As a result, a dispute over energy supplies to the two countries blocked a decision of the entire union.

The next round of enlargement will bring even more disputes. The current candidate countries are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, Ukraine and Montenegro. Ankara has been waiting the longest: it applied to join the European Economic Community back in 1987.

Hence the European Commission is looking not only at whether candidate countries are ready to join, but also at how the EU itself is structured. In a package of proposals presented on October 6, Brussels explicitly acknowledged that the union needs to speed up its decision-making before enlargement. One option is to replace unanimity with qualified majority voting on sanctions, the fight against tax fraud and certain energy-related decisions. Majority voting is also proposed for interim decisions in accession negotiations – such as decisions on opening negotiating clusters.

Brussels also wants safeguards against problems arising after new members join. Future accession treaties could include additional mechanisms to address serious failures to meet commitments. In the worst-case scenario, these could include suspending a member state's voting rights. Another proposal concerns the first years after accession: for a limited period, a new member would undertake not to block decisions on further EU enlargement or elevate bilateral disputes to the EU level. The European Commission proposes that all such measures be temporary and reversible.

In other words, Brussels is no longer satisfied with the old formula: meet the requirements, join the union and immediately receive the full set of rights and opportunities enjoyed by existing members. In its October document, the European Commission concluded that the EU could accommodate more countries, but doing so would require changes in four areas: governance, the budget, common policies and the protection of the union’s fundamental principles.


RESILIENCE UNDER PRESSURE

The EU faces numerous challenges today, but Nikolay Topornin, Director of the Centre for European Information, claims that the situation is not as dire as it might seem. Economic growth is slowing, energy costs are rising and security spending is increasing, yet the EU’s institutional machinery continues to function.

“To say that the EU is in some kind of deep crisis would be wrong. Although problems in the economy certainly exist, and growth is slowing,” the expert notes.

Among the most significant challenges, Topornin points to high energy costs. These directly affect the cost of producing goods in Europe, he says, and rising production costs eventually feed through to consumers as well. Supporting Ukraine, strengthening the union’s external borders and rearming also require additional spending. Against this backdrop, the EU is preparing a new seven-year financial plan, with several member states already calling for cuts to expenditure.


In terms of enlargement, Montenegro is the closest to joining the EU, in Topornin's assessment. The country has entered the final stage of accession negotiations and could become an EU member in 2028-2029, provided that all member states approve its accession. Albania could follow. The main obstacle there, however, is corruption. The EU insists that the country must have an effective anti-corruption system in place.

“What matters to the EU is having a mechanism that operates autonomously and independently. Whenever a pocket of corruption emerges, the mechanism should be activated and the problem dealt with on the spot,” he explains.

The expert highlights, however, that neither country would give the EU a significant economic boost. Albania, in particular, would need additional financial assistance from Brussels to bring its level of economic development closer to that of other member states.

“There is no spare money in the EU at the moment. But, of course, the union is interested [in expansion], because admitting new members means extending its sphere of influence,” Topornin says.

The situation is more complicated with the other candidate countries. According to the expert, Serbia maintains special relations with Russia and has not changed its position on Kosovo, thus delaying its accession. Accession negotiations with Georgia have been frozen, while Ukraine and Moldova are only at the beginning of the process. Transnistria remains a particular problem for Moldova, while Ukraine's challenge is the ongoing hostilities.

---

Alena Kazakova
Image credit: "Za rubejom", Leonardo.ai