Debunking three myths about EU enlargement

Myth 1: The ‘lazy’ countries (Eastern and Southern European countries) want to stabilize themselves at the expense of the ‘hard-working’ (Northern and Western European countries)

Are there really ‘lazy’ countries who just want to benefit from the ‘hard-working’ and therefore richer countries in the EU? The level of education is often used as a factor contributing to this misguided belief. Many southern and eastern European countries have a high level of education and are actively modernizing their economies. 2023 a study showed the percentage of the population in EU countries with a university degree: Ireland - the ‘rich’ northwest - is leading with 62.7%, with Cyprus - the ‘lazy’ southeastern - close behind (61.6%). It shows that the level of education isn’t a clear indicator, that smart countries are automatically ‘rich-hardworking” countries or the other way around.

For comparison, Germany, which is always considered to be the big player in the EU in terms of economic strength and hard-working society, ranks even lower than the EU-27 average (43.1%) with 38.4% in 28th place. Over the last two decades, there has been a strong educational expansion within Europe, driven in particular by major changes in southern European countries.

The European Union is a give and take - not a win or lose game. The accompanying assumption that enlargement only benefits the new member states, can’t be put forward in such a way. While the older member states may temporarily have to contribute more to EU structural funds, all members ultimately benefit from a stronger internal market.

The myth about the „lazy“ benefiting from the „hard-working“ countries is rooted in stereotypes and a distorted perception. Historical differences in economic development, frequent negative reporting on corruption, and entrenched biases reinforce this image. However, such blanket judgments ignore the real progress that these countries have made, with the EU integration leading to even more growth and stability for the whole Union.

Myth 2: The last enlargements were too fast, which is why the European Union must now fight against democratic backsliding.

A common prejudice is that the recent EU-enlargements were too rapid, leading to a struggle against democratic backsliding in some member states - the reasons for this perception are multifaceted.

However, EU integration itself can be a stabilizing factor for democracy in the new member states. EU accession is tied to the fulfillment of strict criteria that promote democratic principles, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These conditions encourage candidate countries to reform and stabilize their political systems. In addition, the EU offers various mechanisms and programs to support democratic reforms that can help strengthen democratic structures in the long term.

Also, not all new member states are equally affected by democratic backsliding. Some countries show that progress in democracy is possible. Examples of states, like Croatia, that have successfully implemented institutional reforms show that EU enlargement can have a positive impact, even when there are setbacks (e.g. Poland).

The enlargement of 2004, particularly the accession of many Eastern European states, occurred in a context of political change accompanied by economic and social challenges. In many of these countries (e.g. Poland, Czech Republic), institutions were weak after decades of communist rule, and differing views on democracy and the market economy created uncertainties. These factors were exacerbated by the swift EU enlargement, which some observers considered insufficiently grounded or hasty - but doesn’t mean that the enlargement was the wrong decision.

Myth 3: EU reform and enlargement are separate processes

The prospect of candidate countries joining the EU has driven reforms within the candidate countries, strengthened the EU’s geopolitical position, and prompted the EU to improve its institutional structure to enhance its capacity to act. While preparing for enlargement, the EU must boost its functionality; however, enlargement and reform are not mutually exclusive - they are interdependent and go hand in hand.

History shows that EU treaty changes have often been preceded to prepare enlargement rounds. The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty and the 2001 Nice Treaty changes made the 2004 enlargements possible. Since the 2007 Lisbon Treaty the deepening process has stalled, and the treaties have not been revised. The EU’s new institutional cycle (2024-2029) faces a critical challenge: both the widening and deepening of the Union. However, the current political situation shows little enthusiasm for internal institutional reforms. Member states do not want to give up unanimity voting in the Council. To prepare for potential EU enlargement, the European Commission prepared pre-enlargement policy reviews emphasizing that receiving all the advantages of EU membership, requires preparation from all parties.

Hand-in-hand into the European future

By debunking these myths and prejudices, it becomes clear that EU enlargement is based on mutual support. The various challenges and opportunities it brings foster long-term stability and security in the region – ultimately benefiting all member states.

Heterogeneity and differences in interests within the EU will increase with enlargement, adding complexity to decision-making. Yet, a united Europe that values solidarity and diversity creates long-term advantages for all sides. Until today, EU remains a stable alliance for peace and cooperation.