Enlargement of the European Union

Based on Wikipedia: Enlargement of the European Union

In 1962, Spain—then ruled by the military dictator Francisco Franco—submitted an application to join the European Economic Community. Every single member country rejected it. The reason was simple: Spain wasn't a democracy, and democracies don't admit dictatorships to their club.

This rejection captures something essential about the European Union's expansion over the decades. It has never been merely about economics or geography. It's about identity. About values. About what kind of continent Europe wants to be.

The EU today has twenty-seven member states. It started with six. That growth happened through a series of enlargements, each with its own drama, its own politics, and its own vision of Europe's future. Understanding how this happened—and why it remains so contentious—reveals a lot about the tensions that still define European politics.

The Inner Six and the Coal That Started Everything

On May 9, 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed something radical: France and West Germany should pool their coal and steel industries under a common authority. This wasn't primarily an economic proposal. It was a peace proposal. Coal and steel were the raw materials of war, and if you put them under joint control, you made war between France and Germany materially impossible.

Or at least much harder.

The proposal attracted Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands (already deeply integrated through the Benelux customs union), and Italy. These six nations—France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg—signed the Treaty of Paris in 1952, creating the European Coal and Steel Community. They became known as the "Inner Six."

The name distinguished them from another group: the "Outer Seven." These were the countries suspicious of such deep integration—led by the United Kingdom—who instead formed the European Free Trade Association. The British viewed the continental project with skepticism. They had an empire. They had the Commonwealth. They had their "special relationship" with the United States. Why tie themselves to a bunch of continental bureaucrats?

This skepticism would prove remarkably durable.

Britain Changes Its Mind

The Suez Crisis of 1956 shattered British illusions about their place in the world. When Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt to seize the Suez Canal, the United States forced them to withdraw through economic pressure. The message was clear: Britain was no longer a great power that could act independently on the world stage.

Suddenly, the European project looked more attractive.

Britain applied to join the Community. So did Ireland, Denmark, and Norway—their economies were so intertwined with Britain's that they felt they had no choice but to follow. But French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed British membership. Twice. He saw Britain as an American Trojan horse that would dilute French influence in Europe.

Only after de Gaulle left office did the door reopen. It took a twelve-hour negotiating session between British Prime Minister Edward Heath and French President Georges Pompidou to finally seal the deal. On January 1, 1973, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark joined the Community. Norway had also negotiated entry, but its citizens rejected membership in a referendum—a pattern Norway would repeat decades later.

Heath was triumphant:

For my part, I have no doubt at all that the discussions which we have had will prove of real and lasting benefit, not only to Britain and France, but to Europe as a whole.

The benefit, it turned out, would prove debatable. Britain would spend the next half-century as an often reluctant member, culminating in its withdrawal in 2020.

The Mediterranean Enlargement: Consolidating Democracy

The 1970s brought a new kind of applicant: countries escaping dictatorship.

Greece threw off military rule in 1974. Portugal's fascist regime collapsed the same year. Spain began its transition after Franco's death in 1975. All three looked to the European Community not just for economic benefits but for something more profound: they wanted to lock in their fragile new democracies by binding themselves to a club that required democracy for membership.

The Community had its own motivations. Unstable countries on Europe's southern border made everyone nervous. These were also members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Western military alliance facing the Soviet Union. Democratic stability in the Mediterranean served everyone's security interests.

But French President François Mitterrand initially opposed their membership. He worried they weren't ready—that admitting former dictatorships too quickly would water the Community down to a mere free trade zone rather than the deeper political project France envisioned.

He was overruled. Greece joined in 1981. Spain and Portugal followed in 1986. None of these countries held referendums on membership—their governments simply joined, and their populations accepted it.

This established a pattern: countries on Europe's periphery, especially those with recent authoritarian pasts, saw EU membership as a way to anchor themselves in the democratic West. And the EU saw enlargement as a tool of foreign policy—a way to stabilize its neighborhood.

The Copenhagen Criteria: What It Takes to Join

By 1993, it had become clear that many former Eastern Bloc countries would apply to join the EU. The Soviet Union had collapsed. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and others were building new democracies and market economies. They looked westward.

But the EU needed standards. You couldn't just let anyone in. At a summit in Copenhagen, the member states agreed on what became known as the Copenhagen criteria—the entry requirements for new members.

The requirements fall into three categories:

• Political criteria: Stable democratic institutions, rule of law, protection of human rights, and respect for minorities. In plain terms: you need to be a functioning democracy that treats its citizens fairly.
• Economic criteria: A functioning market economy capable of handling competitive pressure. You can't be so economically fragile that EU integration would destroy you.
• Administrative capacity: You need to be able to actually implement EU laws. This means having courts, regulatory agencies, and bureaucracies that work.

There's also an informal requirement that's just as important: every existing member state must agree to let you in. And the European Parliament must approve. Enlargement requires unanimity, which gives any single country veto power.

The Copenhagen criteria created something unusual: the EU now had explicit, written standards for what kind of country could join. This wasn't just about power politics or economic advantage. It was about values. It was saying, in effect, "This is who we are, and if you want to be one of us, this is who you need to become."

The Big Bang: Eastern Enlargement

The 2004 enlargement was the largest in EU history. Eight former communist countries joined simultaneously: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Cyprus and Malta also joined. The EU went from fifteen members to twenty-five in a single day.

This was a logistical nightmare and a political triumph. Countries that had been behind the Iron Curtain for half a century were now full members of the Western European club. The Cold War division of Europe was, symbolically at least, over.

But it changed the character of the EU. Suddenly the union included countries with very different historical experiences, lower wages, and different political cultures. Western European workers worried about competition from cheap Eastern labor. Eastern European governments didn't always share Western views on issues like judicial independence or minority rights.

Public opinion in Western Europe turned against further expansion. The EU had grown too fast, many felt. It was time to consolidate before adding more members.

Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007, and Croatia in 2013. Each of these accessions was harder fought, more controversial, and more conditional than those that came before.

How Joining Actually Works

The process from application to membership typically takes about a decade. Some countries—particularly wealthy, well-governed ones like Sweden, Finland, and Austria—have done it faster. Others have been negotiating for far longer. Turkey first applied for association in the 1950s and still hasn't concluded negotiations.

Here's how the process works:

First, a country signs an association agreement with the EU. This is essentially a promise to work toward eventual membership by adopting EU-compatible laws and practices. It's a way to prepare for the formal application.

When a country formally applies, the European Commission—the EU's executive branch—evaluates whether the country is ready to begin negotiations. If the Commission says yes, and if all member states agree, negotiations begin.

These negotiations are divided into "chapters"—essentially topics of law, from agriculture to environmental protection to justice. For each chapter, the EU examines whether the candidate country's laws are compatible with EU law. The candidate must demonstrate that it can implement and enforce European regulations.

A chapter is "closed" when both sides agree the country has made sufficient progress. But chapters can be reopened if the Commission decides the country has backslid. This creates ongoing pressure to maintain standards.

Once all chapters are closed, a Treaty of Accession is signed. This treaty must be ratified by every existing member state—through their national parliaments or, in some cases, referendums. If any single country says no, the accession fails.

The entire process is designed to be slow, thorough, and conditional. The EU doesn't want members who will drag down standards or cause problems. Better to take years getting it right than to rush and regret it.

The Current Queue

As of 2024, several countries are actively negotiating membership:

• Montenegro began negotiations in 2012
• Serbia began in 2014
• Albania and North Macedonia began in 2020
• Moldova and Ukraine began in 2024

Turkey is a special case. Negotiations opened in 2005 but have been effectively frozen since 2016 because the EU believes Turkey has backslid on democracy, rule of law, and human rights under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The negotiation chapters remain open, technically, but no one expects progress anytime soon.

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia have been granted "candidate status"—recognition that they're on the path to membership—but must complete additional reforms before formal negotiations can begin.

Kosovo presents a unique challenge. It declared independence from Serbia in 2008, but five EU member states—Spain, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, and Cyprus—don't recognize it as an independent country. They worry that recognizing Kosovo might encourage separatist movements in their own territories. This makes Kosovo's path to EU membership extraordinarily complicated, since membership requires unanimous agreement from existing members.

Ukraine and the War

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 transformed the enlargement debate.

Within days of the invasion, Ukraine formally applied for EU membership. Moldova and Georgia applied shortly after. In a remarkable acceleration of normal procedures, all three were granted candidate status within months—Ukraine and Moldova in June 2022, Georgia in December 2023.

This represented a massive shift. For years, the EU had been cautious about commitments to post-Soviet states, not wanting to provoke Russia. That caution evaporated when Russia invaded anyway. Suddenly, the EU saw enlargement as a geopolitical tool again—a way to anchor Ukraine in the West and demonstrate that aggression wouldn't be rewarded.

Whether Ukraine can actually complete the accession process anytime soon is another question. The country is at war. Large parts of its territory are occupied. Its institutions are under enormous strain. But the political commitment has been made, and the negotiation process has formally begun.

The Limits of Enlargement

Former Commission President Romano Prodi once suggested giving neighboring states "everything but institutions"—meaning deep economic integration and close cooperation, but not actual membership. This reflected a growing view that the EU cannot expand forever.

There are practical concerns. Adding more members makes decision-making harder. The EU already struggles to reach consensus with twenty-seven members; adding more would compound the problem. The budget would need to grow. Wealthier countries would have to subsidize poorer new members.

There are also cultural and identity concerns, though these are rarely stated openly. Some argue that certain countries—Turkey, for example—are simply too different to integrate successfully. Turkey's population of over 80 million would make it one of the largest EU members, dramatically shifting the union's demographic and political center of gravity. France and Germany have pushed for a "privileged partnership" with Turkey as an alternative to full membership.

Morocco's 1987 application was rejected on geographic grounds: the EU determined it wasn't a European state. This raises interesting questions about what "European" actually means. Cyprus is geographically in Asia, closer to Syria than to Greece. Is Europe a geographic concept or a political one?

Greenland and Brexit: Leaving the Club

In 1985, Greenland became the first territory to leave the European Community. When Denmark granted Greenland home rule, the Greenlandic government used its new powers to withdraw. The main issue was fisheries—Greenland didn't want EU fishing boats in its waters.

This was a small and unusual case. Greenland has a population of about 56,000 people and is largely autonomous from Denmark. But it established a precedent: territories could leave.

The United Kingdom's withdrawal in 2020 was something else entirely. Brexit was the first time a major member state chose to leave the EU. The British had always been ambivalent members, maintaining their own currency, opting out of various agreements, and periodically threatening to leave. In 2016, they actually voted to do it.

Brexit was traumatic for both sides. For the EU, it raised uncomfortable questions about whether the union was truly irreversible. For Britain, the actual process of leaving proved far more complicated and economically damaging than many had anticipated.

Algeria's departure in 1962 was different again: that wasn't really a withdrawal but decolonization. Algeria had been a formal part of France, and therefore of the European Community. When it became independent, it was simply no longer part of France and thus no longer in the Community.

Estonia's Journey: A Case Study

To understand how enlargement works in practice, consider Estonia.

In November 1991, Estonia restored its independence from the Soviet Union. The EU recognized it immediately. Just thirteen years later, in May 2004, Estonia was a full EU member.

This was remarkably fast for a country that had been part of the Soviet Union. Estonia moved quickly because it made EU accession a national priority. It reformed its economy aggressively, privatizing state-owned enterprises and creating a business-friendly regulatory environment. It invested in digital infrastructure, eventually becoming one of the most digitally advanced governments in the world. It aligned its laws with EU requirements systematically and thoroughly.

The speed also reflected political will on both sides. The EU wanted to demonstrate that former Soviet republics could become full members—that the Iron Curtain was truly gone. Estonia wanted to anchor itself irreversibly in the West, with NATO membership providing security and EU membership providing economic integration.

Not every country can replicate Estonia's path. Estonia is small (about 1.3 million people), highly educated, and had advantages that larger, poorer countries lack. But it demonstrates what's possible when a country commits fully to the accession process.

France's Reform Proposal

In October 2019, France vetoed starting negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia. French President Emmanuel Macron argued that the current enlargement process was broken—too slow, too vague, and too disconnected from actual progress.

France proposed a new seven-stage accession system. Instead of the all-or-nothing approach—you're either a member or you're not—countries would gradually gain access to various EU programs and benefits as they progressed. Candidate countries could join the Erasmus student exchange program, participate in the Banking Union, enter the Customs Union, and access other benefits step by step.

The idea was to make enlargement more like a ladder than a single high jump. Countries would have concrete incentives at each stage. Progress would be visible and meaningful, even if full membership remained years away.

This reflects a broader tension in EU enlargement policy. On one hand, the promise of eventual membership is the EU's most powerful tool for encouraging reform in neighboring countries. Take away that promise, and countries have less incentive to undergo painful transformations. On the other hand, bringing in countries that aren't ready causes problems for everyone. The challenge is maintaining the promise while ensuring it's only fulfilled when countries are genuinely prepared.

What Enlargement Means

Enlargement has been one of the EU's most successful foreign policies. It has helped consolidate democracy across Southern and Eastern Europe. It has created the world's largest single market. It has given countries that were once at war a framework for peaceful cooperation.

It has also created tensions. Older members sometimes resent having to subsidize newer ones. Newer members sometimes chafe at rules they had no part in making. The EU's institutional machinery, designed for six countries, strains under the weight of twenty-seven. Some argue the union has become so large that meaningful integration is no longer possible.

Yet the queue of countries wanting to join remains long. For all its problems, EU membership still represents something valuable: access to the world's largest single market, the rule of law, democratic governance, and a place in the European project. Countries wait decades for the chance to join. That says something about what the EU has built, even if it also creates problems the EU struggles to solve.

The fundamental question remains the one France raised in 1962 when it rejected Franco's Spain: What kind of union is this, and who gets to be part of it? That question has never been fully answered. Perhaps it never can be.