We have been listening many debates on the expansion of the European Union (EU) in the recent times. Inevitably, it has become an interesting task for analysts of our times to envisage an enlarged union, where almost the rest of the European states would eventually become members of the union. Even with the entry of Croatia as the 28th member of the EU, the importance of the enlargement debate has been increased manifold. What will be the future of the EU after enlargement? Is this enlargement process viable for the union in the long run? Realistically speaking, the union does not seem prepared for enlargement yet. The enlargement process is likely to increase the need for drastic changes in the union. The Central and Eastern European states do not qualify for membership. Their political systems still lack an effective rule of law. Their democracies are not as strong as the EU democracies are. In such a case, the existing EU laws, which are suitable for the member states, might become exploitative for the newcomers. Secondly, the enlargement protagonists envision that the enlargement would result in strengthening democratic traits, perpetuating peace and ensuring stability in the European continent. But what if it does not happen? The EU is already in dire straits. The rich members, especially Germany, have been continuously allocating money to bail out the troubled economies such as Greece. And look at the situation in Greece. Thousands of protesters come into streets and protest against the exploitation, which is the reformation for the lender states. What will happen if there are five other friends of Greece in 2017 and all of those five would be in need of economic rescue? It might not seem unreasonable to argue that even the EU institutions are likely to come under huge strain after the enlargement. Furthermore, the protagonists often use the case study of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) to strengthen their argument that the enlargement will benefit the rich countries like Germany and France, same as the US has benefited by the inclusion of Mexico into the NAFTA. The rich Mexicans have imported high-tech US-made goods from the US. But this example does not seem appropriate in case of the EU. For instance, if the EU concedes full membership to the best six candidates, it will add approximately 60 million people into the population of the EU. On the other hand, those 60 million can bring only $255 billion into the union, which is approximately three percent of the total GDP of the union. It is more likely that Brussels will be further pushed into a cat-and-mouse game, where it will have more members to be cared and rescued. Instead of adding to the strength of the Union, this enlargement may put Brussels into a new problem of distribution of aid. Moreover, the enlargement and resulting free movement of people may result into mass migrations from east to west. Germany and France might become a haven of hope for the job seekers. Not only can it disrupt demographic balance but also job sustainability for the natives. In addition to inflicting damage to labour market, the enlargement process can also damage agriculture and environmental policies of the Union. It remains noteworthy that the supranational organisation has an overwhelming strength in agriculture-related polices. Therefore, the EU’s agriculture policy retains importance because it depicts the centrality of the union in decision-making process. If new members are included in the union, existing agriculture polices are certainly no more valid. The farming industry will no more enjoy substantial subsidies and probably will not be able to follow strict environmental rules. Here it remains an important question in the debate how the newcomers adapt themselves in the existing rule. The applicants are yet in need to change their domestic laws before applying for the membership of the EU. In fact, it seems difficult for every applicant state to include long lists of the EU laws into its domestic laws in years or even a decade. If the aspirants try to do so, a hostile public response is more likely. The EU is, no doubt, has been a good experience for the people of Europe. Europe of our times is much different from the Europe of 1940s. Such a change in a period of 70 years is remarkable. However, sustainability of this cooperation is more important than the expansion of this blessing for others. The recent economic recession has exposed the long-standing vulnerabilities of the Union. Although the Union was expanded in 1990s, it managed to maintain itself due to economic boom and rise in consumption of finished goods in the world during that era. But now the world has changed. Those who were dependent on the European technology are now producing finished good in their own states. Above all, the global economic competition is likely to increase in coming years. In such a scenario, the rich EU countries would be reluctant to rescue half a dozen of drowning economies in a situation where they will also need economic resources to maintain their trade balances. The writer is a visiting scholar at Ball State University, USA, and can be reached at shoaibm37@yahoo.com