Brussels is moving to tighten the rules for future EU members, but the bloc's newest applicants are discovering that the most consequential provisions are non-negotiable. Montenegro, the most advanced candidate, is the first to test a new set of institutional safeguards that could, in extreme cases, lead to the suspension of a country's voting rights.
The European Commission presented the proposal last month as a 15-year probation period for newcomers, intended to allow swift action against any member that violates EU values or the principle of sincere cooperation. The initiative is a direct response to the experience with Hungary's Viktor Orbán, who for years used his veto to extract concessions from the bloc.
“When I mentioned this for the first time, I said: no new Trojan horses in the European Union. This was still before the elections in Hungary. Today I can say no more Viktor Orbáns,” Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos told reporters when unveiling the plan.
But there is a catch: candidate countries have no voice in shaping these safeguards. They must accept them as they are or walk away from the prospect of membership altogether. For Montenegro, which has invested more than a decade of administrative capacity and political capital in its accession bid, walking away is hardly an option. Yet the one-sided nature of the deal leaves a bitter aftertaste for officials in Podgorica, who are careful not to criticise the measures openly for fear of derailing the process.
“It was always the case. Safeguards were always a bit one-sided,” a senior EU official told Euronews on condition of anonymity.
From economic rules to political leverage
Safeguards are not new in EU accession treaties. Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania all had them, but those focused on potential breaches of economic, internal market and justice rules. The new proposal goes further, drawing on the Orbán playbook to consider suspending a country's voting rights for the most serious offences.
The procedural difference is stark. Normally, a negotiating chapter is opened once a candidate meets initial conditions, and the candidate then implements reforms and meets interim targets before the chapter is provisionally closed. This time, Montenegro is not asked to submit a negotiating position or meet any targets beyond accepting what is on the table. The safeguards are effectively take-it-or-leave-it.
The Commission is currently preparing EU common positions under Chapters 34 and 35, which cover institutional issues. Last month, it sent a first draft of the safeguards to member states for feedback. The Irish presidency of the EU Council is now collecting governments' views and aims to send a consolidated position at ambassador level next week.
Once EU countries finalise their position, which is more general on safeguards for candidate countries, the Commission is expected to reflect it in Montenegro's treaty. In other words, Podgorica's best chance of influencing the outcome is to lobby member states before that position is set.
Three issues dominate the debate: the measures the safeguard could trigger, such as suspending voting rights; its duration, which candidate countries consider too long at 15 years; and governance, as the proposed decision-making method would give the Commission significant sway.
Some EU capitals are sympathetic to the candidates' arguments and want to distinguish between the political demand for stricter safeguards and a legal text that can be enforced. Italy, a member of the so-called Friends of the Western Balkans, has pushed for respecting the equality of member states and for safeguards that are proportionate and tailor-made for each candidate.
Montenegro's accession target of 2028, which its envoy has called very realistic, adds urgency to the talks. The country's insistence on full membership, as reported earlier, means it cannot easily reject the new terms. The broader enlargement agenda, including pressing for EU entry from other candidates, is also at stake.
For now, the message from Brussels is clear: the safeguards are designed to protect the Union from future disruption, and candidates will have to live with them. Whether that approach undermines the very trust the enlargement process is meant to build remains an open question.
