European Union governments have begun negotiations over proposals that would allow Brussels to impose additional restrictions on future member states, exposing divisions over how to prevent democratic backsliding without discouraging countries seeking accession.
The discussions, held among EU ambassadors on 28 October, concern draft safeguards proposed by the European Commission for inclusion in future accession treaties.
Montenegro, currently the most advanced candidate in the Western Balkans, is expected to become the first country subject to the proposed arrangements.
The measures would potentially allow the EU to suspend certain membership rights, including voting rights, during a transitional period lasting up to 15 years after accession.
However, the negotiations have revealed disagreement not only over the duration of the safeguards but also over the powers that should be granted to the Commission and the legal thresholds for intervention.
The controversy raises a broader question about the nature of EU membership: whether countries that have completed accession negotiations should immediately enjoy the same institutional rights as existing members.
According to Euronews’ reporting on the ambassadors’ discussions, France and the Netherlands have pressed for stronger guarantees that newly admitted states will continue respecting the rule of law and other EU obligations.
Their position reflects concern that the Union’s existing procedures have proved difficult to enforce against governments accused of undermining judicial independence or democratic institutions.
Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union already provides for sanctions, including suspension of certain membership rights, where a serious breach of European values is established.
However, the procedure involves demanding political and voting requirements.
The Commission’s proposed safeguards are intended to provide an additional instrument specifically applicable to newly admitted members.
They would operate during a defined period after accession and could be activated in response to serious breaches of EU values or the principle of sincere cooperation.
For governments supporting the proposal, the objective is to ensure that reforms undertaken during accession negotiations remain effective after membership has been secured.
Not all member states share this approach.
Italy and Austria, among countries supporting faster integration of the Western Balkans, have warned against imposing conditions that could make EU membership appear provisional or unequal.
Their concern is that candidate countries may face an increasingly complicated accession process even after meeting the formal requirements.
The credibility of EU enlargement depends partly on the proposition that successful reforms will eventually lead to full membership.
If new members are subjected to extensive additional restrictions, political leaders in candidate countries could find it more difficult to justify the domestic compromises required by accession negotiations.
The debate is particularly sensitive in the Western Balkans, where prolonged delays have already generated frustration over the pace of integration.
The challenge for Brussels is to strengthen safeguards without creating a permanent distinction between established and newly admitted members.
The Commission’s draft institutional safeguard would remain available for 15 years following accession.
This period is intended to permit intervention if a new member reverses reforms after joining the Union.
Yet ambassadors have questioned whether such an extended period can reasonably be described as temporary.
The proposed decision-making mechanism has also attracted criticism.
Under the draft, the Commission could propose restrictive measures that would take effect unless a qualified majority of member states rejected or amended them within two weeks.
This would reverse the usual political dynamic by requiring governments to assemble a blocking majority rather than actively secure support for sanctions.
The proposal could therefore make intervention easier than under the existing Article 7 mechanism.
Critics are concerned that the arrangement would give the Commission excessive influence over the institutional rights of newly admitted countries.
Supporters argue that a more effective enforcement mechanism is necessary precisely because existing procedures have proved difficult to use.
The proposed safeguards are not confined to the period following membership.
The Commission also wants stronger monitoring between the signing of an accession treaty and the date on which a country formally joins.
This period can last several years, during which a candidate government may change and reform commitments may weaken.
Under the draft arrangements, monitoring could include regular assessments, reviews involving existing member states and formal warnings.
As a last resort, accession could be postponed if there were clear evidence that a candidate would not meet the required conditions.
The voting procedure for such a postponement remains unresolved.
These provisions would add another stage of oversight to an accession process that already requires extensive negotiations and the implementation of EU legislation.
Montenegro began accession negotiations in June 2012.
According to the European Commission’s enlargement records, all 33 screened negotiating chapters have been opened and 16 provisionally closed.
Its progress has made the country a leading candidate for the next round of enlargement.
However, its accession treaty may now become the vehicle through which the EU establishes a new framework for future entrants.
The implications extend beyond Montenegro.
Albania, Moldova and Ukraine are also pursuing accession, although they are at different stages of the process.
Any safeguards introduced for Montenegro could influence the terms eventually offered to those countries.
The Commission’s proposals reflect a wider debate over whether the EU’s institutions can function effectively with substantially more members.
New entrants would participate in decisions concerning the budget, sanctions, foreign policy and the internal market.
Their admission could also affect areas where unanimity remains necessary, potentially increasing the risk of institutional deadlock.
The European Parliament’s research service has identified the proposed safeguards as part of a broader programme addressing decision-making and governance ahead of enlargement.
Negotiations over the draft clauses will continue at the technical level, with ambassadors expected to revisit the matter in November.
The central disagreement remains unresolved.
The EU wants future members to maintain democratic and legal standards, but it must also decide whether those guarantees can be enforced without creating a separate class of membership.
Montenegro’s accession negotiations will provide the first practical test of that approach.
Toda a gente está a contar com um salário mais recheado em novembro, mas atenção, porque o reembolso do IRS pode sofrer um corte de até 70% por causa da redução da retenção na fonte que vai ser aplicada no próximo mês.
Um contribuinte, solteiro, com um salário bruto mensal de 1.500 euros receberia 247 euros de reembolso sem o corte extraordinário da retenção. Todavia, com a aplicação da medida, receberá apenas 79 euros: que é menos 168 euros, uma quebra de 68%, de acordo com a simulações da PwC que o Jornal de Notícias (JN) terá publicado, segundo veicula o Notícias ao Minuto.
Esta média de 70%, diz respeito às situações simuladas pela consultora e não a uma previsão para a totalidade dos contribuintes, mas um casal com um dependente, por exemplo, poderá sentir o mesmo efeito, segundo noticia o jornal.
Importa sinalizar que apesar de as famílias ficarem com mais dinheiro disponível em novembro, devem contar com um reembolso menor em 2027, quando entregarem a declaração do IRS referente a 2026.
O Governo anunciou uma redução para metade das retenções na fonte sobre os salários e pensões pagos em novembro, incluindo o subsídio de Natal.
Deduz-se que o objetivo seja fazer refletir já na carteira das famílias a redução do IRS até ao 6.º escalão, no valor global de 400 milhões de euros, destinada a apoiar a classe média.
Note-se que este alívio deverá ser sentido por todos os contribuintes que pagam este imposto, devido à progressividade do IRS.
“Esta descida abrange, na prática, todos os contribuintes de IRS, mesmo aqueles que estão acima no escalão de rendimentos, dada a progressividade do imposto“, explicou o primeiro-ministro, Luís Montenegro, no Parlamento, quando anunciou a medida.
Montenegro também esclareceu nessa altura, que “este alívio fiscal será já sentido com uma redução das retenções da fonte em novembro, no salário e no subsídio de Natal“.
Thousands of protesters gathered outside Portugal’s parliament in Lisbon on 27 October, demanding action over soaring housing costs and criticising police operations against housing activists, as the country’s long-running property crisis developed into a broader political confrontation.
The demonstration coincided with parliamentary debate on the government’s proposed 2027 budget and followed several days of protests in Lisbon and Porto.
At the centre of the dispute is an increasingly familiar European contradiction: property values continue to rise, while wages and household incomes have failed to keep pace with the cost of obtaining accommodation.
For Portugal, the problem has become particularly pronounced.
House prices have more than doubled since 2017, while rents for newly agreed tenancies have almost doubled over the same period.
According to figures reported during the demonstrations, the cost of housing in Portugal increased by 147 per cent between 2015 and 2025, compared with an EU average of 60.5 per cent.
The result is a growing disparity between earnings and the cost of independent living, particularly among younger adults.
In Lisbon, a one-bedroom flat can routinely command monthly rent of approximately €1,500.
Portugal’s minimum wage stands at €920 per month before tax.
Although these figures do not represent every household or property, they illustrate the scale of the affordability problem for lower-paid workers.
Between the first quarters of 2025 and 2026, Portuguese house prices increased by almost 20 per cent, according to national statistical figures cited in recent reporting.
Rental costs have also continued rising, recording an increase of approximately 68 per cent since 2020.
The country’s attractiveness to foreign investors, retirees and remote workers has contributed to demand, particularly in Lisbon, Porto and coastal areas.
Tourism has introduced additional competition for residential property, with some homes converted into short-term accommodation.
However, investment and tourism are only part of the explanation.
Restrictions on construction, administrative delays, limited affordable housing supply and the geographical concentration of employment have also contributed to pressure on the market.
These conditions have produced a widening gap between those who already own property and those seeking to purchase or rent their first home.
The immediate political confrontation concerns government proposals that would accelerate certain eviction procedures and remove restrictions on rents for new tenancy agreements.
The legislation passed its first parliamentary reading, with the right-wing Chega party abstaining.
Housing campaigners argue that removing protections without first increasing affordable supply could leave tenants more exposed to rising rents and displacement.
The minority centre-right government, led by Prime Minister Luís Montenegro, has pursued measures intended to encourage construction and increase the availability of housing.
These include tax reductions for new building projects and a commitment to deliver 145,000 homes.
Such measures, however, require time before additional properties become available, while many households face immediate financial pressures.
The housing dispute intensified following police operations to remove protest encampments in Lisbon and Porto during the weekend.
Police used batons during the clearances, while campaigners alleged excessive force.
According to accounts of the subsequent parliamentary demonstration, police reported 11 minor injuries, including three officers. The housing organisation Casa para Viver claimed that 60 people had been injured.
Portugal’s internal affairs watchdog has opened an inquiry, while prosecutors are conducting a separate investigation into officers’ conduct.
Montenegro defended the police response in parliament, arguing that officers had acted according to the principles of necessity, proportionality and adequacy.
President António José Seguro has convened a meeting of the Council of State to consider the growing protests.
The dispute has consequently expanded beyond housing economics to include questions about policing, public demonstrations and political accountability.
Portugal’s demonstrations follow similar protests in Spain and growing political scrutiny of housing affordability elsewhere in the EU.
The European Commission has begun addressing the issue through initiatives intended to encourage construction, facilitate investment and give authorities greater legal certainty over short-term rental restrictions.
As EU Today recently reported, the proposed European Affordable Housing Act would provide additional regulatory tools for areas facing severe housing pressure.
Yet the principal responsibilities for housing supply, planning and tenancy law remain with national and local governments.
This division creates a political challenge: Brussels can support investment and coordinate legislation, but the most immediate decisions affecting rents, construction and evictions are taken elsewhere.
For Portugal, the next test will be whether the government’s housing measures can deliver sufficient additional supply while responding to demands for immediate tenant protection.
The demonstrations outside parliament show that housing affordability has become more than a question of property prices. It now affects the government’s legislative agenda, the 2027 budget debate and the relationship between the authorities and an increasingly organised protest movement.
© RODRIGO ANTUNES/LUSA
O primeiro-ministro, Luís Montenegro, recusou, esta terça-feira, ter estado em silêncio perante as manifestações de protesto pela falta de acesso à habitação em Portugal, contrapondo que falou nos dois dias seguintes aos protestos de rua.
Luís Montenegro fez apenas esta breve referência sobre a questão da habitação na parte de debate com o presidente do Grupo Parlamentar do PSD, Hugo Soares, na abertura da discussão na generalidade da proposta do Governo de Orçamento do Estado para 2027 na Assembleia da República.
“Àqueles que dizem que o primeiro-ministro não falou, nunca se esqueçam que falou no primeiro e no segundo dia em que houve manifestações na rua em Portugal”, declarou.
A anterior intervenção de Hugo Soares foi caracterizada por um ataque cerrado ao secretário-geral do PS, José Luís Carneiro, lembrando os tempos em que exerceu o atual líder socialista desempenhou as funções de ministro da Administração Interna no terceiro Governo chefiado por António Costa.
De acordo com o líder parlamentar do PSD, face à posição que tomou o secretário-geral do PS na sequência das intervenções policiais, “a máscara de moderado caiu agora” a José Luís Carneiro, que “saltou para os braços da extrema-esquerda em Portugal”.
“Foi isso que o deputado José Luís Carneiro fez na última semana, saltou para o colo da extrema-esquerda em Portugal e caiu-lhe a máscara de moderado”, acentuou.
Hugo Soares citou depois o que defendia José Luís Carneiro enquanto ministro da Administração Interna: Nessa altura, considerava “que qualquer ofensa a agentes das autoridades era uma ofensa ao Estado”.
“José Luís Carneiro tem hoje oportunidade de se pôr do lado certo, de se pôr contra aqueles que ofenderam e praticaram crimes contra as forças e os serviços de segurança, colocando-se ao lado das nossas polícias que zelaram pela ordem e pela segurança de cada um”, declarou o líder parlamentar social-democrata.
Hugo Soares desafiou ainda o secretário-geral do PS a deixar um duplo pedido de desculpas: “um às forças e aos serviços de segurança, outro aos portugueses pela política de imigração do PS”.
“José Luís Carneiro fica sempre muito zangado, muito ofendido, quando lhe lembro que é o pai – se não gostar é o padrinho – da extinção do SEF (Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras). E é também o rosto do problema da habitação em Portugal. Fazia parte do governo que permitiu a entrada de cerca de um milhão de pessoas em Portugal, de forma desregulada, e que criou a pressão no setor da habitação em Portugal”, acrescentou.
© ANTÓNIO COTRIM/LUSA
Login