DOCSLIB.ORG

One Size Does Not Fit All: European Integration by Differentiation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
One Size Does Not Fit All: European Integration by Differentiation POLICYBRIEF ISSUE 3 | SEPTEMBER 2018 ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: EUROPEAN INTEGRATION BY DIFFERENTIATION Maria Demertzis A BARE-BONES PLUS CLUBS EUROPE Deputy Director, Bruegel Common court system Jean Pisani-Ferry Mercator Senior Fellow at Club 1 Club 2 Club 3 Club 4 Bruegel Economic Migration, Security Other and Monetary Asylum and and foreign policies André Sapir Union Schengen policy Senior Fellow, Bruegel Common base (treaty, Council, Commission, Parliament) Thomas Wieser Non-resident Fellow, Source: Bruegel Bruegel THE ISSUE Guntram Wolff Reforming the governance of the European Union has become urgent for three reasons: Director, Bruegel to better deal with politically-sensitive topics, to manage greater external challenges and because future EU enlargement will increase the diversity of the bloc’s member- ship. The answer to disagreement typically has been qualified majority voting, but on sensitive topics, the EU has increasingly moved to unanimity and heavy European Council involvement, which has often not delivered results. The alternative answer has been a Europe of multiple speeds of integration with one shared goal for all, increasing political tensions. A different approach is now needed to move Europe forward. POLICY CHALLENGE Two options would be a Europe of concentric circles and a Europe of ‘clubs’, but the former would cement tensions between the inner and the outer circles, while the latter would lead to unclear structures and an end to cohesion. However, a governance model could combine the two approaches. The model would be based on a strong ‘bare-bones EU’ formed by the single market, trade and accompanying policies, the European institutions, treaties, rule of law and a commitment to fundamental EU values. Three policy areas would be completely moved into ‘clubs’ while remaining based on the bare-bones legal and institutional structure: economic and monetary union; Schengen and asylum policy; and foreign and security policy and neighbourhood policy. Club membership would be optional but once in, countries would have to accept the rules and there would be high hurdles to leaving. Finally, a ring of friends would surround the bare-bones EU, based on very close economic relationships and some multilateral discussion elements, but no formal votes. 2 POLICY BRIEF ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: EUROPEAN INTEGRATION BY DIFFERENTIATION 1 INTRODUCTION a dangerous global environment, The strong global anchor of which the Europe’s ability to remain in charge European Union has been part since its of its destiny might be compromised inception – rules-based multilateralism by a failure to manage these issues – is unravelling. A multipolar regime is effectively. This has made it more emerging faster than anybody antici- urgent to reform the EU to meet the pated. Will it be an international order? challenges of tomorrow. Ad-hoc Will it have rules, and if so who will solutions to the challenge of write them? Because of its size, Europe heterogeneity do not appear to be is bound to be one of its poles, but will enough, especially in a context of Europe be strong enough to shape its enlargement and deeper internal own future or will its future be deter- divisions. mined by others? In other words, will the EU be a sovereign player commen- 2 THE LEGACY surate with its size? These are questions Since the outset, the EU was conceived Europe must urgently answer. and designed as a single undertaking As if these global questions were in which all member countries would not hard enough, they arise at a eventually participate in full in all time when the EU is having doubts policies, though in some cases after about its own future. This is not just a transition period. Accordingly, the because of Brexit. Strong political acquis was regarded as indivisible forces in other member states, and participation in it was considered including the six original members, irreversible. For decades, indivisibility are questioning the direction, even and irreversibility provided extremely the principle of European integration. powerful lock-in mechanisms. Some basic tenets of EU treaties no Now, and as the EU has increased longer command consensus. Internal its membership, this unitary model is unravelling has become a real threat. being questioned by increasingly deep At one level this coexistence of divisions over the aims of European external and internal questioning integration. is paradoxical, because a strong, The unitary model is also brought united European stance is even more into question by the stalemate in required in a world in which global the accession process. Some current rules and institutions threaten to fall members have no appetite for enlarging apart. But at another level, it is logical: the EU to countries where the economic sovereignty starts at home, and the and institutional level is such that their same isolationist forces that undermine participation in the EU could hamper the global multilateral order undermine deep integration and the strengthening the European multilateral order. This of the common regulatory framework, is the tension the EU must solve. If it could be the source of significant labour fails, it could lose its raison d’être. If it migration and could further dilute the succeeds, it could find a new purpose. incumbents’ institutional power within The issue of EU heterogeneity is the EU. The result is that, without an not new. In their contribution to the alternative multilateral framework for ‘Monitoring European Integration’ integration, these weak countries are left series, Dewatripont et al (1995) in a limbo. This is detrimental to their discussed exactly this problem. development and their stability. Some Similarly, the European Commission’s might even turn their backs on the EU March 2017 white paper on the future and look for alternative alliances. The 1. See: https://ec.europa.eu/ of Europe1 offered different scenarios, traditional answer to such challenges has commission/white-pa- motivated by the inability to establish been two-fold: multi-speed integration per-future-europe-reflec- consensus. But we emphasise the and majority rule. tions-and-scenarios-eu27_ en. urgency of the issue and how, in 3 POLICY BRIEF ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: EUROPEAN INTEGRATION BY DIFFERENTIATION 2.1 MULTI-SPEED INTEGRATION 27 members and half a dozen would-be First, it has been to stay the course but members converge on the same goal is buy time: to continue to call for an ever at odds with the large and increasing closer and ever wider union, in which all divergence of political pathways. The members eventually transfer sovereignty set of overlapping policy preferences to a federal level, while envisaging long has shrunk, followed inevitably by transition periods with the possibility for stasis and ineffectiveness. member states and applicants to proceed at different speeds, depending on their 2.2 MAJORITY RULE preferences and readiness. This brings us to the second answer to The strategy followed for currency the challenge of diversity. Historically, unification epitomises this multi-speed a way to deal with the stasis resulting approach – while also illustrating that from narrow overlapping policy pref- it has reached its limits. Twenty years erences in the areas where the EU has after it was launched in 1999, two of the been bestowed with policy competence then-15 EU members are still not part has been voting by majority in the of the euro (excluding the UK). Clearly, Council. This has been, for example, this reflects some loosening of the the basis for the common trade policy indivisibility principle on the part of (a field in which diversity was strong) the EU. Although all member countries and for the spectacular success of the were nominally committed to joining internal market. Those outvoted would the euro, some (Denmark and the UK) accept the majority decision; but the benefitted from a formal derogation. winners also knew that they could be And as membership was based on outvoted in a coming decision. objective criteria some (Sweden) were For decades, this approach has able to abstain from participating in worked well for the mainly economic the common currency by not fulfilling issues of market integration. There was one requirement. Some members have a strong enough consensus on what the also obtained opt-outs from justice fundamental goal was for all to abide cooperation and other areas. by the decisions taken. But we are now Such management by exception is forced to deal with policy areas and not sufficient anymore, because the priorities far removed from the mere European Union has become much economic sphere. Many of the present more diverse than it was in 1999. policy challenges are in areas that Enlargement has contributed to this touch on questions of constitutional evolution. Moreover, as security has rules and prerogatives, national become more relevant, rifts have sovereignty or national identity. This emerged because member states makes it nearly impossible to find do not necessarily have the same solutions among 27 member countries perceptions of threats, do not devote all resenting being outvoted or left the same resources to defence and out. Moreover, regular democratic security, and do not view the use of procedures tend to be substituted by military force the same way. Finally, intergovernmental negotiations. migration from third countries and the different political approaches to 2.3 INCREASING INEFFECTIVENESS address the asylum and refugee issue The limits to the traditional ways of have further exposed the depth of overcoming obstacles are apparent in differences. four major fields in which the EU has Such diversity has contributed to been confronted by the challenge of a growing mistrust between member heterogeneity: asylum, the euro, for- states and in the European institutions. eign and security policy, and external This in turn has made the goal of an economic relations: ever-closer, federal union look more distant than ever.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crisis in the Eurozone Pdf Free Download
    CRISIS IN THE EUROZONE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Costas Lapavitsas | 268 pages | 09 Nov 2012 | Verso Books | 9781844679690 | English | London, United Kingdom Crisis in the Eurozone PDF Book For example, a crisis in one country could force eurozone banks to sell that nation's debt, leaving domestic banks unable to cope. The European Central Bank is being a watchdog here and Banks in Bulgaria have been given time to create additional capital buffers till April Retrieved 11 July Retrieved 11 February Archived from the original on 4 December Comparative Political Studies. As of January , a group of 10 central and eastern European banks had already asked for a bailout. Federal Union. The major disagreements and clashes started Consequently, Greece was "punished" by the markets which increased borrowing rates, making it impossible for the country to finance its debt since early The Lisbon Council. The Balance uses cookies to provide you with a great user experience. Archived from the original PDF on 9 February In mid, due to successful fiscal consolidation and implementation of structural reforms in the countries being most at risk and various policy measures taken by EU leaders and the ECB see below , financial stability in the eurozone has improved significantly and interest rates have steadily fallen. In the idea was picked up by the European Central Bank. The 7-point plan followed an intergovernmental treaty approved on December 9, , where EU leaders agreed to create a fiscal unity parallel to the monetary union that already exists. Advanced Manufacturing Clusters in various nations will greatly help, but understanding of global-age expansion of value offerings with fine production is a new art and commercialization to nations a new science.
    [Show full text]
  • Departure from the Schengen Agreement Macroeconomic Impacts on Germany and the Countries of the European Union
    GED Study Departure from the Schengen Agreement Macroeconomic impacts on Germany and the countries of the European Union GED Study Departure from the Schengen Agreement Macroeconomic impacts on Germany and the countries of the European Union Authors Dr. Michael Böhmer, Jan Limbers, Ante Pivac, Heidrun Weinelt Table of contents 1 Background Information 6 2 Methodological approach 7 3 Results 9 4 Further costs of departure from the Schengen Agreement 13 Further economic impact 13 Political impact 14 Social significance 14 5 Conclusion 15 Literature 16 Imprint 18 5 1 Background Information The Schengen Agreement entered into force in 1995 and of checks at EU internal borders, on Germany and other EU today it is comprised of 26 states. This includes all European countries, as well as for the European Union as a whole. The Union members with the exception of the United Kingdom, evaluation period extends to the year 2025. Ireland, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Croatia, as well as the non-EU countries of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The agreement provides for the abolition of the requirement to check persons at internal borders within the Schengen area. The Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement also regulates the standardisation of entry and residency requirements, as well as, the issuing of visas for the entire Schengen area. At the time, police and judicial cooperation measures were also agreed upon, in addition to asylum provisions. In the wake of sharply rising refugee movements into Europe, a partial restoration of border controls has been implemented. European Union countries have seen a significant increase in asylum seekers.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Economic Area (Eea), Switzerland and the North
    THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA (EEA), SWITZERLAND AND THE NORTH The European Economic Area (EEA) was set up in 1994 to extend the EU’s provisions on its internal market to the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are parties to the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but does not take part in the EEA. The EU and EEA EFTA partners (Norway and Iceland) are also linked by various ‘northern policies’ and forums which focus on the rapidly evolving northern reaches of Europe and the Arctic region as a whole. LEGAL BASIS For the EEA: Article 217 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Association Agreements). For Switzerland: Insurance Agreement of 1989, Bilateral Agreements I of 1999, Bilateral Agreements II of 2004. THE EEA A. Objectives The purpose of the European Economic Area (EEA) is to extend the EU’s internal market to countries in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA). The current EFTA countries do not wish to join the EU. EU legislation relating to the internal market becomes part of the legislation of the EEA EFTA countries once they have agreed to incorporate it. The administration and management of the EEA is shared between the EU and the EEA EFTA countries in a two-pillar structure. Decisions are taken by joint EEA bodies (the EEA Council, the EEA Joint Committee, the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee and the EEA Consultative Committee). B. Background In 1992, the then seven members of EFTA negotiated an agreement to allow them to participate in the ambitious project of the European Community’s internal market, launched in 1985 and completed at the end of 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dublin Regulation
    1 The Dublin Regulation → Analysis of the Dublin System, perceived to cause a disproportionate burden to the expense of the external border countries of the EU and the reason for its continuous implementation despite persisting criticism Author: Laura Helena R. Suy Thesis Supervisor: Bjørn Møller Global Refugee Studies Aalborg Universitet København (AAU-Cph) 10th Semester, Master Thesis Spring 2014 2 List of Contents Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Abbreviation List ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Methodology & Limitations .................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1: History & Content of the Dublin System .............................................................................. 9 1.1. The Dublin System: Content ............................................................................................................. 9 1.1.1. The Dublin Convention (1990/1997) .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Development of European Integration
    FACT SHEETS ON THE EUROPEAN UNION The historical development of European integration PE 618.969 1. The First Treaties.....................................................................................................3 2. Developments up to the Single European Act.........................................................6 3. The Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties...............................................................10 4. The Treaty of Nice and the Convention on the Future of Europe..........................14 5. The Treaty of Lisbon..............................................................................................18 EN - 18/06/2018 ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This leaflet contains a compilation of Fact Sheets provided by Parliament’s Policy Departments and Economic Governance Support Unit on the relevant policy area. The Fact Sheets are updated regularly and published on the website of the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets ABOUT THE PUBLISHER Author of the publication: European Parliament Department responsible: Unit for Coordination of Editorial and Communication Activities E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript completed in June, 2018 © European Union, 2018 DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Euromyths Shows That There Needs to Be a More Substantial Effort to Change the Debate on the EU
    blo gs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/02/19/euromyths-media-debate/ The power of Euromyths shows that there needs to be a more substantial effort to change the debate on the EU. Blog Admin From bans on oddly shaped bananas, to children blowing up balloons, so-called ‘Euromyths’ have become a pervasive part of the UK media’s reporting of EU policies. Simon Usherwood takes an in-depth look at the place of Euromyths in the public debate on the EU, finding that they are much harder to stop than to start. While it is important to debunk these myths, what is really needed is a substantive effort to generate a more mature and thoughtful debate on European integration. For many members of the public, much of their knowledge of the European Union comes f rom the ‘…and f inally’ stories that pop up in the media. This is the territory of ‘children not being allowed to blow up balloons’, ‘bans on claims that water can prevent dehydration’ and the ‘end of the prawn cocktail crisp’. Such tales provide much amusement to those who see them, conf irming suspicions about ‘Europe’ and its lack of f ocus on the important things in lif e. A wry smile – or a loud tut – and on we go, to the next story. Euromyths hold a particular place in the UK’s public debate on the EU. On the one hand, they are derided by public of f icials as silly distractions, but on the other, they consume much time and ef f ort.
    [Show full text]
  • State Transformation and the European Integration Project Lessons from the Financial Crisis and the Greek Paradigm Evangelos Venizelos No
    State Transformation and the European Integration Project Lessons from the financial crisis and the Greek paradigm Evangelos Venizelos No. 130/February 2016 Abstract The financial crisis that erupted in the eurozone not only affected the EU’s financial governance mechanisms, but also the very nature of state sovereignty and balances in the relations of member states; thus, the actual inequalities between the member states hidden behind their institutional equality have deteriorated. This transformation is recorded in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the member states’ constitutional courts, particularly in those at the heart of the crisis, with Greece as the most prominent example. It is the issue of public debt (sovereign debt) of the EU member states that particularly reflects the influence of the crisis on state sovereignty as well as the intensely transnational (intergovernmental) character of European integration, which under these circumstances takes the form of a continuous, tough negotiation. The historical connection between public debt (sovereign debt) and state sovereignty has re-emerged because of the financial crisis. This development has affected not only the European institutions, but also, at the member state level, the actual institutional content of the rule of law (especially judicial review) and the welfare state in its essence, as the great social and political acquis of 20th century Europe. From this perspective, the way that the Greek courts have dealt with the gradual waves of fiscal austerity measures and structural reforms from 2010 to 2015 is characteristic. The effect of the financial crisis on the sovereignty of the member states and on the pace of European integration also has an impact on European foreign and security policy, and the correlations between the political forces at both the national and European level, thus producing even more intense pressures on European social democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 the Present and Future of the European Union, Between the Urgent Need for Democracy and Differentiated Integration
    Chapter 1 The present and future of the European Union, between the urgent need for democracy and differentiated integration Mario Telò Introduction The European Union has experienced an unprecedented multi-dimensional and prolonged crisis, a crisis which cannot be understood in isolation from the international context, with major global economic changes to the detriment of the West. Opinions differ as to the overall outcome of the European policies adopted in recent years to tackle the crisis: these policies saved the single currency and allowed for moderate growth, but, combined with many other factors, they exacerbated the crisis of legitimacy. This explains the wave of anti-European sentiment in several Member States and the real danger that the European project will collapse completely. This chapter analyses the contradictory trends at play and examines more closely how to find a way out of this crisis – a way which must be built around the crucial role of the trade union movement, both in tackling Euroscepticism and in relaunching the EU. This drive to strengthen and enhance democracy in the euro area, and to create a stronger European pillar of social rights, will not be successful without new political momentum for the EU led by the most pro-European countries. The argument put forward in this chapter is that this new European project will once again only be possible using a method of differentiated integration. This paper starts with two sections juxtaposing two contradictory sets of data. On the one hand, we see the social and institutional achievements of the past 60 years: despite everything, the EU is the only tool available to the trade union movement which provides any hope of taming and mitigating globalisation (Section 1).
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union: Questions and Answers
    The European Union: Questions and Answers Updated October 27, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS21372 SUMMARY RS21372 The European Union: Questions and Answers October 27, 2020 The European Union (EU) is a political and economic partnership that represents a unique form of cooperation among sovereign countries. The EU is the latest stage in a process of integration Kristin Archick begun after World War II, initially by six Western European countries, to foster interdependence Specialist in European and make another war in Europe unthinkable. The EU currently consists of 27 member states, Affairs including most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and has helped to promote peace, stability, and economic prosperity throughout the European continent. How the EU Works The EU has been built through a series of binding treaties. Over the years, EU member states have sought to harmonize laws and adopt common policies on an increasing number of economic, social, and political issues. EU member states share a customs union; a single market in which capital, goods, services, and people move freely; a common trade policy; and a common agricultural policy. Nineteen EU member states use a common currency (the euro), and 22 member states participate in the Schengen area of free movement in which internal border controls have been eliminated. In addition, the EU has been developing a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which includes a Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), and pursuing cooperation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) to forge common internal security measures. Member states work together through several EU institutions to set policy and to promote their collective interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain, Ireland and Schengen: Time for a Smarter Bargain on Visas Michael Emerson No
    Britain, Ireland and Schengen: Time for a smarter bargain on visas Michael Emerson No. 249, August 2011 Given Britain’s desire to maintain its own border controls, it will not join the EU’s passport-free ‘Schengen’ area in the foreseeable future. Ireland also has to stay out because it shares a common travel area with the UK. But there is now mounting evidence that this situation hurts tourism and businesses in Britain and Ireland. Non- European travellers can move freely between Schengen countries with a single visa, and many skip the further hassle of getting visas to visit Britain or Ireland. Already the Schengen area has an agreement to facilitate Chinese group tourism, which is growing fast, and from which the UK and Ireland are excluded. This problem could be overcome if Britain, Ireland and the Schengen countries would agree on ‘mutual recognition’ of the visas they issue, without the UK or Ireland having to scrap their border controls. or the present UK government, full A case of simple economics for Britain accession to the Schengen area, a passport- and Ireland free travel area covering most of Europe, is F For many people, the cost and hassle of obtaining a red line that it will not cross. Ireland shares a common travel area and land border with the UK visas for business purposes or to go on holiday and is also bound by this decision. However, it is act as a deterrent. One of the achievements of the becoming increasingly clear that the UK, along EU internal market, with free movement of with Ireland, is suffering serious economic and goods, services, capital and people, is that visitors reputational costs as a result of its separate visa from the rest of the world view the Union as a and border management policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a New Pact for Europe
    TOWARDS A NEW PACT FOR EUROPE The New Pact for Europe project is supported by a large transnational consortium including the King Baudouin Foundation, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Allianz Kulturstiftung, BMW Foundation, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, European Cultural Foundation, European Policy Centre, “la Caixa” Foundation, Network of European Foundations, Open Estonia Foundation, Open Society Initiative for Europe, Stiftung Mercator and Svenska Kultur Fonden Promoting the European Debate [email protected] www.newpactforeurope.eu TOWARDS A NEW PACT FOR EUROPE SECOND REPORT October 2014 NEW PACT FOR EUROPE: SECOND REPORT TOWARDS A NEW PACT FOR EUROPE A publication of the King Baudouin Foundation, the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the European Policy Centre (EPC) RAPPORTEUR Janis A. Emmanouilidis, European Policy Centre (EPC) EDITING Jacki Davis, Meade Davis Communication COORDINATION Gerrit Rauws, Director KING BAUDOUIN FOUNDATION Stefan Schäfers, European Programme Advisor Anneke Denecker, Assistant COORDINATION Joachim Fritz-Vannahme, Director BERTELSMANN STIFTUNG Andrej Stuchlik, Project Manager GRAPHIC DESIGN Margarida Oliveira, Forma Design ILLUSTRATION Inês do Carmo This publication can be downloaded free of charge from www.kbs-frb.be, www.epc.eu and www.newpactforeurope.eu This publication is available free of charge: order online from www.kbs-frb.be, by e-mail sent to [email protected] or by calling or faxing the King Baudouin Foundation’s Contact Centre T +32 70 233 728, F +32 70 233 727 Legal deposit: D/2893/2014/35 ORDER NUMBER:
    [Show full text]
  • Chapitre 0.Indd
    Crosswalking EUR-Lex Crosswalking OA-78-07-319-EN-C OA-78-07-319-EN-C Michael Düro Michael Düro Crosswalking EUR-Lex: Crosswalking EUR-Lex: a proposal for a metadata mapping a proposal for a metadata mapping to improve access to EU documents : to improve access to EU documents a proposal for a metadata mapping to improve access to EU documents to access improve mapping to a metadata for a proposal The Oce for Ocial Publications of the European Michael Düro has a background The Oce for Ocial Publications of Communities oers direct free access to the most complete in information science, earned a Masters the European Communities collection of European Union law via the EUR-Lex online in European legal studies and works in is the publishing house of the institu- database. the EUR-Lex unit of the Oce for Ocial tions, agencies and other bodies of the Publications of the European The value of the system lies in the extensive sets of metadata European Union. Communities. which allow for ecient and detailed search options. He was awarded the The Publications Oce produces and Nevertheless, the European institutions have each set up Dr. Eduard-Martin-Preis for outstanding distributes the Ocial Journal of the their own document register including their own sets of research in 2008 by the University of European Union and manages the metadata, in order to improve access to their documents and Saarland, Germany, for this thesis. EUR-Lex website, which provides direct meet the increasing need for transparency. free access to European Union law.
    [Show full text]