The debate on European Union enlargement may be officially alive, but it no longer sits at the top of the Union’s political agenda. That was the sober message from Bulgarian MEP Kristian Vigenin (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats / Bulgarian Socialist Party) at a conference in Sofia devoted to the future of the EU, enlargement, security and the Union’s credibility in delivering on its promises.
Vigenin argued that, historically, the EU has emerged stronger after each wave of enlargement. Expanding the bloc, he said, has consistently created new opportunities for citizens and businesses, opening markets and deepening political cooperation. Yet today, the process is caught between high expectations in candidate countries and the Union’s own internal constraints. While several states are formally in line for membership, it is difficult to say which of them will realistically be ready to join – and when.
Among the current candidates, Montenegro and Albania stand out in Vigenin’s assessment as the most advanced. Work with them is progressing, he noted, and they are increasingly aligning with common EU standards and policies. Even so, their path forward depends not only on their own reforms, but also on whether the EU can resolve two underlying questions that now shape the enlargement debate: how to pay for it, and how to govern a larger Union effectively.
On the financial side, Vigenin pointed to the draft EU budget framework starting in 2028. In its current form, it does not explicitly anticipate new members joining between 2028 and 2035. A technical clause allows the budget to be revised in the event of future enlargements, but, as he stressed, enlargement simply does not appear as a visible priority in the next financial perspective. That omission is political as much as technical: it signals hesitation among member states about committing resources before a clear internal consensus emerges.
The second constraint is institutional. Even with 27 member states, decision-making is often slow and difficult, especially on strategic issues requiring unanimity or broad consensus. Vigenin underscored the practical limits of further expanding core EU bodies without reform. The European Commission currently has 27 commissioners. If another five or six states were to join under the existing “one commissioner per country” rule, the size and functioning of the college would become increasingly unwieldy. The European Parliament has already taken a position that, in future enlargements, not every member state should automatically have its own commissioner. For Vigenin, this discussion is unavoidable if the EU is to absorb new members without paralysing its institutions.
He also highlighted the need to assess, in a very concrete way, how enlargement would reshape EU spending policies. Some candidates, like Montenegro and Albania, are relatively small and would not dramatically strain the budget. Others, particularly Ukraine, would fundamentally alter the balance in areas such as the Common Agricultural Policy and cohesion funds. Ukraine’s size, agricultural potential and development needs would have profound implications for how money is distributed between existing and new members. Any realistic enlargement strategy, Vigenin suggested, has to grapple now with what Ukrainian membership would mean for farm subsidies, regional development and the logic of solidarity across the Union.
Cohesion policy is central in this regard. It is designed to reduce disparities both within member states and between them, channelling funds to poorer regions and countries. Bringing in new members with significantly lower income levels will inevitably require recalibrating who receives what and why. Without careful communication and transparent rules, this could easily fuel resentment either in current beneficiaries, who fear losing funds, or in newcomers, who feel short-changed compared to earlier entrants.
Beyond technical questions, Vigenin warned of the political risks of delay. Many candidate countries still show high levels of public support for EU membership. If their citizens come to believe that accession is being indefinitely postponed or that they are not genuinely wanted, frustration and disillusionment could grow. In his view, this would be dangerous not only for those countries’ domestic stability but also for the EU’s credibility as a community that honours its commitments.
The discussion in Sofia took place at the National Student House, underlining the generational dimension of the debate. The event was opened by Velko Ivanov, Secretary General of the Union of European Federalists (UEF), and organised in cooperation with UEF Bulgaria, UEF Kosovo, UEF Romania and UEF Europe. Bringing together actors from both member states and aspiring members, the conference highlighted a key tension: while the political and civic enthusiasm for a “wider” Union remains strong in many parts of Europe, the institutional and financial groundwork for that wider Union is still incomplete.
Vigenin’s message was ultimately one of cautious realism. Enlargement, he suggested, continues to be a strategic tool that can strengthen the EU economically and geopolitically. But without clear commitments in the budget, serious institutional reform and honest answers to the distributional questions posed by larger candidates like Ukraine, it risks becoming a promise that the Union is unable – or unwilling – to keep. The challenge for the coming decade will be to move enlargement back from the realm of rhetoric into that of concrete, credible planning before public patience in the waiting room runs out.
