Broader use of qualified majority voting in the European Union could make the path to membership easier for future Western Balkan members by reducing the possibility of individual member states blocking candidates’ progress over bilateral or domestic political issues. Such a reform, however, would not remove the fundamental requirement for membership: implementing reforms in the candidate countries themselves.
The European Commission is preparing a comprehensive analysis of the policies and reforms needed to help the EU function effectively with more members, as a new phase of the enlargement process approaches.
The European Commission told FENA’s EU portal that it adopted the first document on pre-enlargement reforms in 2024 and is now working on a much more detailed version.
”Enlargement requires preparation both by the candidate countries and by the European Union. This is not a choice between deepening integration and enlarging the Union. We can and must do both at the same time, as we have done in the past. It is about completing the Union,” a European Commission spokesperson said.
In a document adopted in March 2024, the Commission had already identified, as one option for more efficient decision-making, the use of existing provisions of the EU treaties that allow a shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain areas without the need to amend the EU’s founding treaties.
The debate has gained additional significance as some candidates move closer to membership. According to the draft document, the Commission is also considering additional safeguards to reduce the risk of future members blocking EU decisions after accession or backsliding in the area of the rule of law.
Ideas include temporary restrictions on the use of the veto by new members in certain areas, as well as the possibility of the EU responding more easily in cases of violations of its fundamental values.
Berta López Domènech, a European Policy Centre (EPC) analyst specializing in European politics and institutions, told FENA’s EU portal that the debate over qualified majority voting requires distinguishing between two issues: a possible removal of the unanimity requirement at certain stages of the accession process and a broader reform of decision-making in the Council of the EU.
That distinction is particularly important for the Western Balkan countries.
If unanimity were abolished at intermediate stages of accession negotiations, López Domènech said, it would reduce the number of opportunities for an individual member state to use its veto to link the enlargement process to bilateral disputes or its own political interests.
She cited as examples the disputes between Bulgaria and North Macedonia and between Croatia and Montenegro, as well as Hungary’s previous blockades concerning Ukraine.
”Bilateralization of the accession process is one of the biggest disruptive factors affecting enlargement. It undermines the integrity of the principle that progress should be based on results, weakens the power of conditionality and the collective authority of the European Union,” López Domènech said.
A shift to qualified majority voting, for example when opening clusters or closing negotiating chapters, would, in her view, significantly reduce the opportunities for such blockades.
In practical terms, this would mean that a candidate that meets the criteria in a particular area would be less likely to remain stalled over issues unrelated to EU legislation or its reform performance.
Unanimity would, however, remain necessary for the final decision to admit a new member. In other words, none of the proposed changes would automatically guarantee membership to candidate countries.
López Domènech also points to another possible consequence of such a change: it would prevent countries that join the EU first from later using their membership to block other candidates that are still going through the negotiating process.
For Bosnia and Herzegovina, such a model could remove some obstacles that are not directly related to meeting the membership criteria. It could not, however, resolve the problems arising from the country’s dependence on political agreements and the functioning of its domestic institutions in pursuing its European path.
”This is not a magic solution. The main challenges of enlargement are political rather than procedural,” López Domènech stressed.
Regardless of how voting within the EU is structured, candidate countries will still have to implement reforms in the areas of the rule of law, democratic institutions and alignment with the EU acquis.
As for Bosnia and Herzegovina, López Domènech assesses that the country’s European path has been slowed by institutional paralysis and domestic political disagreements over the implementation of the necessary reforms.
This is also evident in the case of the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans. The European Commission approved Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Reform Agenda, and the country has been indicatively allocated up to €976.6 million in grants and concessional loans. However, the Commission said disbursements can begin only after the relevant agreements enter into force and the stipulated conditions are met.
The Commission’s current list of disbursement decisions includes Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia, while no decision on a first disbursement to Bosnia and Herzegovina has yet been recorded.
For Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore, a change in the EU’s decision-making system could primarily mean that, once it fulfills its obligations, the country’s progress would be less exposed to a possible veto by a single member state for reasons unrelated to the accession criteria. It could not, however, replace the reforms the country itself must implement.
The second part of the reform under discussion concerns what happens after a country becomes a member.
Previous enlargements have shown, López Domènech said, that reforms carried out before accession do not necessarily remain in place permanently. She cited as examples rule-of-law problems that emerged in Hungary and Poland after they joined the EU.
For this reason, the possibility of including stronger safeguards in future accession treaties is being considered.
Proposals under discussion include temporary restrictions on the voting rights of new members in areas where unanimity is required, as well as strengthening mechanisms that would enable the EU to respond when the fundamental values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union are undermined.
The Commission’s draft envisages the possibility of new members making a temporary political commitment not to block consensus-based decisions and considers a mechanism under which certain rights of a new member could be suspended by qualified majority.
López Domènech believes such guarantees could ease concerns among current member states, but warns that they should not lead to the creation of different categories of membership within the European Union.
”To avoid creating different levels of membership, safeguards should be activated in cases of rule violations or backsliding, and ideally they should apply not only to new but also to existing members,” she said.
In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, such mechanisms would not reduce the requirements the country must meet before accession.
Their purpose, López Domènech explains, would not be to replace reforms in the areas of the rule of law and democratic institutions, but to ensure that reforms implemented to meet the membership criteria remain in place after joining the EU.
The fact that the European Union is considering how its institutions and decision-making system would function with a larger number of members shows that enlargement has once again become an issue the EU must address from its own institutional perspective.
Back in 2024, the European Commission said that the prospect of enlargement had given new urgency to the debate on institutional reforms and that the Union needed to prepare for future enlargement in the areas of values, policies, the budget and governance.
López Domènech nevertheless cautions against concluding from this that the admission of new members will now automatically become faster.
There are significant divisions among member states. Some support broader use of qualified majority voting, while others want to retain unanimity. There are also differences over whether the EU must first reform its own system before the next enlargement or whether the admission of new members can proceed in parallel with internal changes.
”The fact that these issues are on the table is a sign that enlargement is on the EU agenda. That is positive, but a simple and immediate solution should not be expected,” López Domènech concluded.
This parallel process – reforming the candidate countries on the one hand and the European Union itself on the other – could shape the next phase of enlargement.
