The role of the European Parliament in foreign affairs is the subject of much debate. Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén explains how the Parliament has contributed to the current momentum around enlargement – an area where parliamentary influence is often overlooked – and how the European Commission is increasingly recognising, and valuing, the parliamentary dimension
In the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, enlargement rose to the top of the EU’s agenda. As Veronica Anghel argues in this series' foundational blog, the war has highlighted the ‘strategic necessity’ of enlargement. There is a newfound urgency around the project, and a strong drive to speed up the accession process with Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and the Western Balkans.
Media attention has focused on the European Commission and the European Council – the main actors in setting the direction of enlargement. But we should not ignore the Parliament's contribution to this process. As this series has highlighted, the Parliament has several tools through which it can exert influence over enlargement. Here, I argue that it has indeed used them, and that the Parliament is playing an increasingly influential role.
While the European Commission and European Council have been the main actors in EU enlargement, we should not ignore the Parliament's contribution to the process
The argument for enlargement as a strategic necessity prevailed in the Parliament even before war broke out in Ukraine. Several parliamentary resolutions called for Ukrainian and Georgian accession, ‘to more effectively counter any future Russian aggression’. The parliamentary commitment to EU accession of these countries contrasted starkly with the position of the Commission and the member states. At the time, they regarded the Eastern Partnership as a mechanism for close cooperation without the promise of EU membership.
As a result, the Parliament had a head start when Ukraine, and later Moldova and Georgia, applied for EU membership. Just a day after Ukraine submitted its application, the Parliament adopted a resolution, calling on the other institutions accept it. This was the beginning of active parliamentary engagement via resolutions, debates, speeches, and visits to candidates, through which the Parliament gained influence and recognition. Over time, the argument of enlargement as a strategic necessity gained ground across the other institutions. This paved the way for the historic decisions to grant candidate status and open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. It also helped confer candidate status upon Georgia, and accelerate the Western Balkans' enlargement process.
The argument for EU enlargement as strategic necessity prevailed in the Parliament even before war broke out in Ukraine
From the start of the war until the end of the 2019–2024 legislature, enlargement constituted a significant part of the Parliament’s foreign affairs activities. The Parliament provided ‘political direction to the Commission’, reinforcing the inter-institutional relationship between the two.
As the 2024 parliamentary elections approached, there were concerns that the electoral success of right-wing parties opposed to enlargement might jeopardise the enlargement momentum. Yet, despite the increase in number of enlargement-sceptic MEPs, such parties have not been able to threaten the Parliament's strong overall pro-enlargement position.
An early parliamentary success was the confirmation of the new Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos, and the establishment of a new Directorate-General for Enlargement (DG ENEST) to support her. The Parliament had long called for a dedicated Commissioner for Enlargement and a DG focusing specifically on enlargement. This would reverse the organisational reforms of 2015, when enlargement merged with the European Neighbourhood Policy.
Having distinct structures for enlargement reflects the importance attached to this portfolio. Indeed, many consider it one of the most important of the current Commission.
Commissioner Kos has expressed commitment to a ‘teamwork’ approach. She recognises the value of parliamentary support, not least when communicating the necessity of enlargement.
As several contributions to this series have stressed, to increase democratic legitimacy of enlargement, informed citizen engagement and greater investment in communication about the benefits (and costs) of enlargement are essential. Accordingly, the Commission has made strategic communication on enlargement a top priority.
DG ENEST's remit includes ‘communication on the benefits of enlargement’. Here, the Parliament, with its close links with EU citizens and candidate countries, is a key partner for the Commission. Through its broader political perspective, it can complement the Commission’s more technical approach and reach beyond the Brussels bubble. And there is indeed a commitment to working hand in hand with the Parliament on this.
With the current urgency around enlargement, there is, as this series has already argued, a risk of undermining the core principles of merit-based accession. For the Commission, which leads on the day-to-day negotiations with candidates, it is clear that there will be no ‘geopolitical discounts’ and that enlargement remains merit-based. Yet the Commission's annual enlargement reports, the main tool for evaluating candidates' reforms, can be a delicate balancing act, because the Commission must act as both supporter and critic.
As supporter, the Commission recognises the positive steps taken to keep the candidates motivated to continue the reform process. As critic, it identifies areas where progress is lacking to provide guidance on what to prioritise. The tension between the two constrains the Commission somewhat in its communication.
Unlike the Commission, which must act as both supporter and critic of candidate countries, the European Parliament can offer a more critical assessment of efforts towards accession
The Parliament, on the other hand, does not have the same constraints and can offer a more critical assessment. As a strong advocate of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, the Parliament would not compromise on these to accelerate the accession process. A clear example is the recent resolution on the Commission’s enlargement report on Georgia. In this case, the Parliament was more critical than the Commission in its condemnation of the political developments and democratic backsliding in the country, issuing one of the 'strongest-worded documents' in the history of enlargement. The Commission praised the resolution, recognising the complementary role the Parliament plays for the candidate countries.
After all, the candidates respect the Parliament – not only as a result of its pro-enlargement stance, but because of its democratic legitimacy as the only directly elected EU institution. Perhaps not a powerhouse, but certainly more than a talking shop.
Magdalena was recently a Visiting Fellow at Sciences Po, Paris.
Her research interests are in the areas of EU external relations and international negotiations.
She has produced articles on these topics for leading journals, including Comparative European Politics, Journal of Common Market Studies, Journal of European Public Policy, Policy and Politics, and International Negotiation.
The EU in International Negotiations
Palgrave, 2023
