A TWO SPEED EUROPE

A two-speed Europe – the only real scenario for the future of the European Union?

A divided Europe the only chance for the European Union?

A two-speed Europe is a theme, which returns as a boomerang in the public debate, in the context of the European Union. For some, it means the possibility of further development, for others it is a symbol of the division of the Old Continent. For a long time, we can observe the ongoing discussion, which relates to a new model of European integration. It is limited solely to the supporters of the "two–speed Europe" and its opponents, who at every occasion try to prove that such division will be the end of the European Union as we know it. All of the Member States are fully aware of the need to make changes in the current model of integration, but it's hard for them to achieve any consensus in the matter.

The idea of a "two–speed Europe" is nothing new. Usually it is presented as an effective solution to get more frequent and more difficult problems in terms of agreement between the Member States. Such form of cooperation between the Member States has met with a strong resistance of the majority, however, in the context of recent events, it starts to gather an increasing group of followers. With every emerging crisis affecting the European Union, it can be noticed that the idea of a "two–speed Europe" begins to be perceived as the only realistic scenario for the survival of the European Union. A key issue to this approach is that it collides with the original premise of the unity of the Member countries. One of the main priorities which inspired the creation of the Union was to organise a space that would allow European countries a closer cooperation, reconstruction and strengthening of the Old Continent. The basic priority was a unity among the Member States, which since then had to face the emerging problems.

It referred to both issues related to the internal and the external activities.

Over the years, such form of cooperation worked. Member countries managed to pursue jointly developed policies that reflected the goals of all. In addition, it became such an attractive form of joint action, that another states also wanted to take part in it. However, with time, the first problems of cooperation between countries within the European Union emerged and it became increasingly difficult to achieve unanimity when while making decisions. This involved a number of member countries which had different visions on the areas of interaction.

It was clearly visible in 2004, after the enlargement of the European Union, when Western and Eastern European countries began to build a common policy in spite of significant differences.

Initially they managed to compromise, however at some point discrepancies began to appear in the way policy is shaped, problems are solved and what are the ideas for further forms of integration. Despite a clearly defined principle, which should be the cooperation, it was increasingly difficult for it to be established.

The emerging crisis also does not help the situation. The problems of the eurozone, the wave of refugees or Brexit (are just a few the Union must face in recent times), showed how difficult it is to find a solution that will be satisfactory to all parties. Those situations have shown weak points of organization, such as lack of unity when solving problems. Some countries do not feel obliged to solve issues which they did not cause. Such cases only expose the need for a thorough debate on the model for future cooperation between member countries.

Reforms in this area are necessary if the EU wants to survive further crises and be able to function effectively.

All Member countries share the opinion that the principle of cooperation within the framework of the European Union require redefinition, but do not agree on potential reforms.

Some countries want to transform European Union into a federation, while others prefer to maintain the present model and undertake minor changes. Clearly, both solutions have their supporters and opponents.

Supporters of the big three at the head (Germany, France and Italy), express the view that the strengthening of cooperation between the Member States, gives the Union the chance of further existence and operation on the international stage and the breakdown of the European Union less likely happen.1 With a wide network of associations, none of the countries will think of withdrawing from the process of integration because there is too much to lose. Those countries have tried to convince other members to this solution, but with no success. One of the reasons why this idea was born again was Brexit – the biggest opponent of a deeper integration decided to leave the Union. However, not all countries are convinced that it is the best solution.

Supporters of the increased integration put the stress on the fact that not all of the Member States will be obliged to integrate more, but only the ones that are interested. This way, no one would say that individual decisions have been imposed on one's state. However, many perceive

1

Tomasz G. Grosse, Ku Europie dwóch prędkość? Strategia Niemiec wobec kryzysu integracji europejskiej, Centrum Analiz Klubu Jagiellońskiego, 2017 s.8 – 9.

this as the first step to divide the European Union. It is believed that such a move will not be a step forward, which will improve the operation of the Organization, but rather, a step back to the days of the Iron Curtain, which divided Europe. Supporters of a closer cooperation between the Member States feel that it does not lead to further division on the Old Continent, and this solution would only improve the work. The Member States would decide on their own what would be the best time for their integration and, above all, no state will be left behind.

Opponents argue that in the long term, if the Member States work together in smaller groups, this division will occur spontaneously, and differences between countries will grow further.

The changes that have taken place in the European Union and in its immediate vicinity require the development of a specific action plan. In order to do this, EU must specify the internal principle of cooperation in the coming years. In view of the above, the European Commission issued a document entitled "White Paper on the future of Europe", in which the opportunities and challenges faced by the Union over the next decade were presented. However, the most important part of the document is the member countries' ability to choose the five potential collaboration scenarios. In the document, there is also a wide range of possible models of action such as the relaxation of cooperation. It is reduced exclusively for action within the common market, by maintaining the status quo or deciding on the multi-speed Europe option, after the transformation of the Organization into the Federation.2 The White Paper was primarily intended to force the Member States to start a discussion, which would determine the specific framework for future cooperation. That would help to illustrate what individual countries expect, what are the areas they want to focus on and, above all, where they see their place in the "new European Union".

The representatives of the Member States have signed the Rome Declaration on 25th of March, 2017, which summarizes the achievements of the European Union in recent years, but primarily includes plans for the next 10 years. Roman Declaration is symbolically considered by many as the birth of a New Union. This is due to the fact that it is the first document signed by all 27 Member States. That is the assurance of the unity and solidarity of the European Union presented as its foundation. It stresses that countries are able to face new challenges together

2

European Commisison, White Paper on the Future of Europe, 2017 s. 15

and actively participate in shaping our common future. Despite assurances about the indivisibility of Europe in the Rome Declaration, records have emerged for States that wish to strengthen the cooperation between the members of the Union.3 In order to participate actively in the shaping of the international political scene, the European Union should function well itself. The Member States must therefore clearly specify its position to turn up in the political debate about not only Europe, but also about other parts of the world. In addition, the internal jostling has an adverse effect on the image of the Union.

This gives a clear signal to partners about the difficulties with which the European Union cannot cope and as a result the European Union's views might not be taken into account.

Looking at the current situation inside the European Union we can safely conclude that to plan the first, it mainly stands out its problems. A more difficult situation occurs between the Member States which have different views about the future of the Union and this affects the areas of their cooperation. Decisions that will be taken on the issue of a new model of cooperation (a two–speed Europe), will have a huge impact on the further operation of the organization. Can this current model of integration be saved, and can the Member States decide to change the existing rules by choosing a more flexible form of cooperation. This is where one should ask questions: What those changes mean for the European Union? Is the internal fragmentation the only way to ensure the continued efficient operation? Is the internal distribution scenario the only guarantee of the Union’s survival? Or does it mark the end of the community as we know it and the emergence of a new political formation, which will function only under the aegis of the European Union?

Supporters of changes ensure that this is the best solution to wake the European Union up and let it move forward. Opponents are concerned that this is the first step on the road to Europe. They believe that the break with the Union will solve the current problems.

At this point it is difficult to determine which Member States should make the decisions that will shape the future of the relationship. What is sure is that in the near future the European Union will have to make important decisions that will have a major impact on its future, and hence on the coming Member States, as well as on the Old Continent.

3

Declaration of the Leaders of 27 Member States and of the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission 25.03.2017

About the author:

Marta Szymonek Student of European studies and The management in the public sector and non-governmental at the Jagiellonian University. Her interests include the European Union's foreign policy, diplomacy and issues related to leadership in the modern world.

Text correction: Barbara Drewniak