The battle for the next enlargement: Competing networks, discourses and arguments

It is widely accepted among experts and policy makers that the context of EU enlargement has been profoundly changed by the war against Ukraine and by Ukraine’s application for membership. The rationale for a ‘geopolitical enlargement’ has been emphasized by scholars and commentators (Schimmelfennig 2023; Koval and Vachudova 2024). At the same time, the process of negotiations and ultimately accession of Ukraine and Moldova, or candidates from the Western Balkans such as Albania or Montenegro, is still fraught with significant risks. The EU is facing important dilemmas that will require significant trade offs. One crucial tension is between a relatively fast, geopolitically driven accession and the need to secure and strengthen rule of law in the accession states and in the enlarged Union. This paper identifies competing elite discourses and arguments in the EU related to the future enlargement. Drawing on a systematic analysis of elite interviews with different member states’ representatives, the paper aims to identify what Schmidt (2001) labels ‘coordinating discourses’ related to enlargement, discourses that help policy ideas emerge and become prominent. With relation to Ukraine’s potential accession, some may seek to balance internal EU cohesiveness with geopolitical and security imperatives or, conversely, describe them as irreconcilable. Enlargement has always been discussed in the EU with reference to the widening versus deepening arguments. In identifying coordinating discourses shared by some but not all member states, the paper aims to contribute to the theoretical understanding of enlargement decision making. It also aims to contribute to our empirical understanding of the interplay of member states’ preferences and ideas and arguments on security, rule of law in accession states and the EU and economic and political stability.