PROS AND CON ARGUMENTS FOR A MULTI-SPEED EUROPE

Multi-speed Europe or two-speed Europe (called also variable geometry Europe or Core Europe depending on the form it would take in practice) is the idea that different parts of the European Union should integrate at different levels and pace depending on the political situation in each individual country. Indeed, multi-speed Europe is currently a reality, with only a subset of EU countries members of the eurozone and of the Schengen area. Like other forms of differentiated integration such as à la carte and variable geometry, multi-speed Europe arguably aims to provide a solution to the dilemma between unity and diversity, widening and deepening of the European Union

PRO MULTI-SPEED EUROPE ARGUMENTS

• Variable geometry is good for the EU as a whole. Without it, every time there is disagreement on how the EU should proceed with integration, the EU is plunged into an ‘institutional crisis’, because the willing Member States can threaten to cooperate outside of and next to the EU. Every difference of opinion between Member States gets exaggerated by political opponents and the media so much, that it calls the legitimacy of the EU itself into question. This leads to unnecessary bickering and resentment amongst EU partners. Allowing variable geometry would remove the EU’s tendency to hobble from crisis to crisis.
• Variable geometry is good for the EU because it will make the EU more adaptive to specific policy problems and goals for specific regions. One could imagine the countries from the Baltic creating several policies to enhance their trading position which would be vastly different from the Latin countries in the South. Moreover, the increased policy differentiation will lead to more effective EU policy in the long run: different coalitions can experiment with different approaches towards similar problems, with the remaining Member States joining in later when a certain ‘pioneer group’ has succeeded in proving that a certain policy is effective.
• Variable geometry is good for the Member States that wish to integrate further. Without variable geometry, they would have either have to drop their initiatives, thereby harming their interests and goals, or they would have to go outside of the EU institutions and establish new forms of cooperation, alongside the EU. But negotiating and maintaining a new institution for cooperation for every policy is very costly. If they can use the structures of the EU, they will save time and money and can draw on the effective and time-tested mechanisms, institutions, procedures and experience the EU already provides for cooperation
• Variable geometry is good for the countries that do not want to integrate further. These countries are ‘euro-sceptic’ for a reason: they believe it is in their interest to not integrate further on a specific policy. By being allowed to ‘opt-out’ of specific areas of further integration, they can be sure that their legitimate interests and sovereignty are respected by others and the EU institutions. At the same time, it allows them to maintain good relations with the countries that do want to continue: the countries ‘opting out’ will not be blamed anymore for ‘frustrating the process’. Eventually they may see the benefits of further integration in practice elsewhere in the EU, and choose to join in.

AGAINST MULTI-SPEED EUROPE ARGUMENTS

• Variable geometry is bad for the EU as whole. The consequence would be a confusing array of interlocking and overlapping jurisdictions, making it even more unclear who decides over what when it comes to EU-politics. This will confuse the EU-citizen and this will lead to an even further loss of legitimacy. Most importantly, variable geometry would mean that euro-parliamentarians and euro-commissioners from all countries would decide on and have influence over issues which actually only concern the few that have decided to integrate further. This is referred to as ‘recreating the West-Lothian question’ in Brussels. [for recall the West Lothian question asked why Scottish, Welsh or indeed Northern Irish MPs have the same right to vote at Westminster as any English MP now that large areas of policy are devolved to national parliaments and assemblies in areas such as health, housing, schools and policing]
• Variable geometry is bad for the EU because in the long run it will lead to the disintegration of the EU. This is because several ‘coalitions of the willing’ will diverge further and further from each other, because they have specific interests. For example: the Southern European countries have vastly different interests when it comes to economic relations compared to the Benelux countries. These coalitions will acquire more specific legislation for their specific jurisdictions, leading them to drift apart, and eventually out of the EU entirely.
• Variable geometry is not really good for the Member States that want to integrate further. In theory it sounds good, but in practice the number and scope of issues on which countries are allowed to proceed with integration is very small, because it is limited to a set of specific issues on justice and home affairs and foreign policy, and even then the European Commission can still block it.
• Variable geometry is bad for the countries that do not want to integrate further, because it marginalizes them in the EU in the long run. The euro is a good example of this: since the euro was introduced, the euro-area members have been calling for EU-level fiscal policy to ensure the stability of the euro. This can lead to a significantly increased body of legislation of which the non-participating states are not members. This would firstly make it very difficult for them to join the ‘core group’ later on, but would also lead the EU to focus mostly on policy-making and discussions in this area, to the exclusion of other issues of more importance to the non-participating states.

Conclusion

If the EU wants to integrate further, it will have to continue doing so at different paces, and possibly even decelerate on some issues. It is the very fact that Mr. Cameron wants to repatriate some competences from the EU to the national level that is the proof that this phenomenon is changing: it not a halt anymore, it is an ongoing process in different directions.

Since the Maastricht Treaty and the creation of the Single Currency, the EU has had very different groups of countries regarding their integration.

1. UK and Denmark: They chose directly to opt out from the EMU
2. Sweden: Sweden has opted-in but it makes sure it does not respect the Maastricht criteria to stay out of it.
3. Euro Member States (18): Austria, Belgium,  Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain
4. Non-Eurozone Members :Bulgaria, Croatia Czech Republic, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania
5. Countries outside the EU who benefit from a special agreement with the EU: the European Free Trade Association (Switzerland), the European Economic Area (Norway), the EU customs union (Turkey).