Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

January 13, 2012 |  10 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

A Multi-Speed EU Will Weaken Europe

David Grodzki: A greater union of the Eurozone countries may have a dangerous effect on the overall unity of the European Union. A growing divide between a “Core Europe” and a periphery based on the Euro threatens to undermine the European integration process and reduce Europe’s status in the world.

The current economic and financial crisis of the European Union has made one thing clear: without proper supervision of Member States and a stronger role for the European Commission, the EU will face a dysfunctional future. The case of the Greek budget “adjustments” before and during its stay in the Eurozone and Spain's and Portugal's failed economic policies are both examples that come to mind. One solution proposed by the Commission and agreed upon by the Council is the economic governance "Six Pack" that will give the Commission a bigger say in questions of national economic policies in order to ensure fiscal stability and reduce macro-economic differences.

Closer cooperation between governments should certainly be welcomed. Such a move however may cause a number of problems. The most pressing issue would be a Europe of varying speeds, which might lead to an internal division of the EU. The common currency is a current example of multi-speed Europe, as it allows a number of Member States to integrate further than others. The Schengen area agreement is another example of an integration process which classifies states as “inside” or “outside”. Truth be told, the EU is already a Union comprised of various multi-speed Europes. Recent developments are however alarming, could potentially harm Europe, and consequently cause problems for the EU's transatlantic partners.

Will closer Eurozone cooperation destroy the EU?

The Eurozone states recently agreed that in order to prevent any future crisis, it would be necessary to ensure that all members adhere to the rules of the Euro Plus Pact and implement a debt brake for their budgets. Most countries, even those outside the Eurozone, have signed up to it, including the Czech Republic, Sweden and Hungary, who had reservations about any new agreements. The UK has decided to stay outside’ and has thus isolated itself in Europe. The important point though is not that support for the Euro Plus Pact or the debt brake drew heavy criticism, but that it increased cooperation between Eurozone countries and promoted the idea of having a core group to lead the process.

As economic, fiscal, and financial policies are becoming more aligned those outside the core group, and especially those currently outside the Eurozone, will find it increasingly difficult to follow suit. Paradoxically stronger integration of Eurozone countries, perhaps consisting of a Eurozone minister (instead of the current President of the Eurogroup) or with its own economic government, will lead to a stronger division within the European Union as a whole, as the Eurogroup will have to set up common rules not only in monetary areas but in related fields such as employment or taxation.

This can already be witnessed, with finance ministers of Eurozone countries holding meetings ahead of the meetings of EU finance ministers to discuss issues, leaving their colleagues in the dark. With the exception of Denmark and the UK, who have both opted to stay outside the Euro, all other Member States will be compelled to introduce the common currency eventually. They are not however currently participating in Eurozone meetings. As it seems likely that the Franco-German tandem will push for increasingly tighter rules with regards to fiscal and probably also economic questions, non-Eurozone member states will constantly struggle to catch up. It seems unlikely that they will ever actually do so. Stronger integration of the Eurogroup countries will therefore create an invisible barrier between Eurozone countries and the outsiders.

Even though the opt-out countries are uncomfortable with the idea of ever introducing the common currency, they find themselves in a rather similar situation with all current non-Eurozone states. They are on the outside, and as there is little they have in common besides their status as outsiders, there is no reason to assume they would actually gather to discuss how to align their policies. Whereas the core group, and potentially the whole Eurozone, will become more homogeneous in time, the non-Eurozone group will remain fragmented.

As the common currency is one of the most important projects of the EU and one of the pillars of its success, the leverage and power of the in-group will increase. This development will obviously be to the detriment of those that have no say on the subject. British Prime Minister David Cameron experienced this recently when he was rather undiplomatically told off by Nicolas Sarkozy during the last EU summit.

The solution

A union within the Union is bad news for Europe and its transatlantic partners. Either the EU is transformed into a Core Europe and those currently outside are downgraded to partners of a new free trade area or all current Member States will have to sign up to and implement the latest agreements. (This will involve introducing the Euro within the next few years to ensure Europe's fragmentation is reversed) The first option would mean a step backwards for many Member States, the latter may prove to be a huge leap for them. Europe is economically strong; it will have to use that strength to prop up those Member States that are serious about joining the Eurozone. Only if EU members align and become more similar will the EU continue to play a significant role in the world. A fragmented Union will only be as strong as its parts, but combined it can rival the world's major powers.

David Grodzki currently studies Political Science and English Literature at Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen, Germany and regularly contributes to the European Student Think Tank, atlantic-community.org's new partner.

  • 7
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Talha Bin  Tariq

January 11, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hi !!

I agree with the solution U have given..Nice thought & approach !!
Comprehensively explained !!


Regards,
Talha Bin Tariq
 
David  Grodzki

January 11, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hello!

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate it and I'm glad to see I am not the only one who feels this way. Obviously I could have elaborated more on it (might do so another time) but I guess it conveys the message that only together the EU will remain strong.

Best,
David Grodzki
 
Unregistered User

January 12, 2012

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Grodzki's points are well taken, but are dsimissing geopolitical considerations.
NATO can be considered as a military blanket over Europe, a Stand-Alone without a country
over Europe anchored in the United States Armed Forces.
On the other hand a United Europe, without the United Kingdom, is one of the biggest economic
markets in the world and then striving to be one currency zone, it will become one of the most powerful economic entities in the world. Sweden, Czech Republic and Hungary finally agreed that this should be the endgame for a peaceful Europe.
Should one then give consideration for Free Trade Agreements with CSTO, which is formed close to the EU concept, meaning Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgistan, Tajikistan and perhaps the Ukraine, NATO must reform and transform, but also reconstitue itself as a European Defense Force and include Russia.
But the UK is in disagreement and with that is trying to convince the Czech Republic, Sweden and others to opt out of these objectives. But the question remains unanswered,.. would it be the UK alone, objecting and trying to marginalize the Euro and the Union into a split Europe under the
mantle of NATO........
It seems, that it is not just about a split or united Europe, it is rather the question of dominance.

With that another potential dvelopment should not be overlooked, namely the cooperation or even
treaty between the " Weimar Triangle", France, Germany and Poland with the CSTO/ Ukraine.



HRF

Tags: | EU/tx |
 
Thomas Sullivan Johnson

January 17, 2012

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hello,

I wonder if it is possible to maintain the sophisticated free market structures operating in the EU today without also maintaining a significant degree of political consolidation at the supranational level. Can member states harmonize external customs tariffs and carve out a common border without political negotiation? Britain, for example, is politically marginalizing itself from Europe, but this may come at great political and economic costs. Britain joined the EEC after helping to form EFTA because the trade benefits were greater. That is still true today. The EU remains a significant importer of British good, and the economic benefits of the union are obvious despite Britain's misgivings about relinquishing sovereignty.

I agree that a multi speed Europe is unsustainable. But the consequences of downgrading member states to mere partners might weaken Europe further. The balance of power is shifting, and greater not less political and economic consolidation at the supranational level is needed.

Regards,

Thomas Johnson
 
Member deleted

January 18, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Geometric Economics dream or illusion?

Plato talked about the possible existence of perfectness. So economists strive to conceive the perfect economy, thinking of Swedish mathematician Helge von Koch and the Koch snowflake. Fractal geometric economics where micro economics at the street level work the same as corporate, country and global macro economics. All the people have what they need and all the projects get completed.

The trick for the EU is for the member states to support each other. Some how there has to be a way of finding what each country is good at. In other words what do you have to offer that is somewhat unique. Everyone is good at something. Next you have to get your business people together. One way to do this is have free ongoing business seminars and presentations sponsored by the EU government for the company and corporate strategists. These are the people who co-ordinate or interconnect EU trade goods and services. The same for scientists, mathematicians, electronics and communications and teachers. You will not know the full extent of what you have to share with each other until you start getting together each month and have a lecture from a different country each time so every one has to share sometime. Every one knows something about a topic, yet no one know everything about a topic.

The competition obviously is all the other countries in the world, each claiming that you are unfair to them because you outsource jobs to 3 other countries yet leave all the others out. Well consider this: 6 billion people in the world, you can outsource every job in the EU and still not make a dent in the need for jobs. Technically each country should be able to create it's own jobs for providing for themselves and the only reason to outsource would be to teach them new types of businesses and services to upgrade what they provide for themselves. The old story: Do we give them fish or teach them how to fish? We have had great success in teaching farming to many countries.

The EU will succeed if you stop talking about being a union and how you will pour cold water over the heads of any one who is not in the union. Just start acting like a union.
Tags: | Geometric Economics | EU |
 
David  Grodzki

January 18, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@Reuther-Fix. Thank you for your comment.

The CSTO itself is an interesting factor that you mention and I believe that to some extent a closer European cooperation with the CSTO should not be excluded as a possibility in the future. However, as far as I am concerned, I believe the focus of the EU has to be its own internal market first and foremost and everything else is somewhat relegated to secondary importance. Sooner or later we'll know if the EU or Russia will gain and eventually win over Ukraine and thus end this never-ending struggle between both parties.
As far as NATO is concerned, I guess there too we'll see reforms, hopefully with a generally stronger role for the European countries. I do not believe that there will be any reason to believe an EU based military body will be rivalling Nato, instead it will function as Nato's extended arm in Europe and probably North Africa. Nato itself (and this is an issue that is disconnected from the EU) will have to define what it wants to be nowadays and only after such a decision has been made, will any European adjustments take place.

The UK's position can certainly be explained to some extent by pointing to the issue of dominance and leadership in Europe, however, I believe that considering how closely France and Germany have (and will continue) to work together, and how the EU seems to grow ever closer, Britain will eventually lose out. Giving up a leadership position to be part of something bigger might be difficult to reconcile with the countries glorious past, but other great nations (if you allow the term) have been able to give up their modern position of the state to move into a postmodern position of being part of something even bigger - Germany and France have certainly benefited from EU membership. The common currency might not be as popular as the Franc or the Deutsche Mark was, but it is part of something bigger, and European integration always had a strong symbolic side to it - the Euro is thus more than just a currency. If the UK is not able to take the next step, it will eventually find itself without allies, without friends and without the benefits of the group.

The Weimar triangle has a lot more to offer than it currently does - the dynamic duo of France and Germany allied with the thriving and definitely pro-European Poles could become the biggest driver of European progress and integration. After the successful presidency of Poland I believe this project might gain more momentum.
 
David  Grodzki

January 18, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@Thomas Johnson: I appreciate your comment and that thought is very interesting indeed.

"I wonder if it is possible to maintain the sophisticated free market structures operating in the EU today without also maintaining a significant degree of political consolidation at the supranational level. Can member states harmonize external customs tariffs and carve out a common border without political negotiation?"

I believe that the status quo is no longer maintainable and this is for a couple of reasons. So far the common believe seems to have been that agreement in Brussels would be implemented domestically and in cases when no agreement could be found, a compromise would still suffice. Obviously, such compromise was far from the preferred outcome.
Now the situation is changing rather rapidly as finally European leaders seem to understand that the problem might be less tariffs and the movement of labour force from one country to another but the discrepancies between the strong economies of the North and the more feeble ones of the South. Even though I do not believe in the "one size fits all" approach that many seem to see in the economic sixpack. However, I believe that in the long run such differences between strong and weak economies can only be tackled if we ensure that the same rules apply everywhere. A real level playing field though seems almost impossible to achieve, but we can at least align economies more. As people get older, it only seems natural that they should work longer and retire later - regardless of where they live or which nationality they have.
Political cooperation on a supranational level will become more important in the future I believe. Even though many will shun the idea of a federal Europe, I tend to like the idea of a stronger role for Brussels that will also influence and encourage closer (cross-border) cooperation between member states and the development of industries with support from various countries, regardless of their geographical proximity. (If you want, think of it as the extension of the Airbus model - whole industries which would benefit from financial and expert help, etc.) For this alone to happen, political cooperation in Brussels will have to ensure that most regulation applying to such a scenario is aligned and harmonised.

Long story short, as far as I am concerned, I do not believe that economic and external borders coordination is possible without a high degree of harmonisation of political positions through negotiations on a supranational level.
 
David  Grodzki

January 18, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@Jeff Hathor.

I agree with your last statement:

"The EU will succeed if you stop talking about being a union and how you will pour cold water over the heads of any one who is not in the union. Just start acting like a union."

I guess pretty much anybody will have had the idea that if you could make sure each country provides what it is good at, then the whole system should work. However, there is obviously some problem with that - such as economic lows which might bring down whole branches of industries (and in case of a country specialising on such an industry) and countries. Think of those countries heavily dependent on income generated through tourism. In good years with brilliant weather, all's fine, in rainy years, or years of unfortunate events, things take a nasty turn down.
If the EU was however to apply such a division of labour, it will have to ensure that it is prepared to act swiftly when the economic tide turns, when whole regions or even countries will suddenly find themselves facing tough times. I believe it would be possible to set it up this way, however, only after national governments have transferred competences in economic and financial as well as fiscal questions to Brussels - and this is something that will be rather difficult to achieve, even now in times of crisis. On the other hand it's obvious that not everybody can do everything - such an approach will lead nowhere either.
 
Unregistered User

January 24, 2012

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Mr. Grodzki,

In the view of the EU's 'external' leverage and credibility, I do concur that it is vital to restore coherence on many levels, both vertical and horizontal.

The Euro Plus Pact is an important symbolic signal that reaffirms the determination of those member states to repair the damage. Wether it will indeed be an effective mechanism to advance and consolidate pan-EU "fiscal (budgetary) governance" remains to be seen though... It should not be taken lightly of course, as the incentives for proper budgetary controls deliver (in time) space to restructure sovereign debts.

But as the member states who did not sign up on the Euro Plus Pact hence prefer to run an own agenda with regards to austerity and budgetary control, the dichotomy between "good pupils of the Europe class" (the insiders) and the "laggers" (the outsiders) may materialize even further. It's a scenario we might not approve of, but which might likely happen. In principle, 'pacta sunt servanda'.

Yet, the facts point to a distorted Union: the European Stability Pact has already been violated over 60 times (acknowledged by the Polish Foreign Affairs Minister, late November 2011) ? Not just by the smaller states in trouble... this is the kind of data that frightens and frustrates me, because it seems to point to a pattern of free-riding and/or selective disengagement . Time to end the retoric about 'benign neglect' and 'moral hazard'. In order to practice solidarity, a nation must be in a relative position to do so without upsetting the electorate over direct financial aid to nations who, under certain proof of gross mismanagement 'might not be worth saving'.

Knocking onto the IMF for a bailout may come at the cost of a loss of face - especially because the EFSF is there for a 'quick fix' - but at least the EFSF would not require repeated re-funding from the nations who in the first place need to tackle sovereign debt, repay debtors and bite back at the credit rating agencies (CRA's).

In view of the EU's CFSP, I fear there will for a long time remain a 'Europe of different speeds'. Especially with regards to defense capabilities (but let's not deviate the discussion). With a naval analogy: in a siege, saving and maximizing all firepower from the major ships while a part of the fleet suffers losses is the advised course of action. I am not advocating that the smaller nations are tossed aside, nor that the Franco-German leadership is pasted over the image of the EU27 for too long.

Eurozone nations, and the EFSF remain castigated by looming financial downgrades by US-based CRA's who have little or no regard for the continuation of the political integration process of the EU. On the contrary, these actors have wide incentives to act as 'instigators', engendering a clearer gap between 'survivors' and 'laggards'. Higher disparities would trigger more shifts in (external) investor behaviour - a thing where many financiers can potentially gain higher marginal profits. Thus, the EU needs to put in a large effort also to re-modell that very asymmetric system in the long run!

Keeping a calm, stoic phlegm about the downgrades by S&P, Fitch, Moody's etc. does not advance the matter, nor does it 'contain' it. The inception of ESMA and registration / accreditation procedure for non-EU based CRA's is a first step, but the EU does not have either a 'Federal Reserve' (still a lot of legal hurdles to transform EFSF into that!), nor does it have a long-standing EU credit rating 'practice' to parallel (or challenge?) the mighty and influential US equivalents.

What I do believe is an even more depressing 'loss', is that of cross-national solidary.
For one thing, the Eurozone acts as a buffer against unbridled exchange rate speculation and "panic devaluations" instigated on the exchange markets. We've seen the negotiations about a 'bazooka reserve' for the EFSF render meager results - only ¤ 500 bn alltogether.
If one considers that the EU Solidarity Fund is just serving the purpose of providing urgent aid for nations wrecked by natural disasters, then we've really limited the purpose of the concept 'solidarity'.

May I ask, what do you make of the size and allocation scheme of the European Social Fund (about ¤ 75 bn for 2007-2013)? Every single readjusment invoked on each nation will be met with severe scrutiny and . Beefing up cohesion funds needs to become a 'mutual benefits' game and no longer a race to the bottom.
 
Member deleted

February 8, 2012

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you for your response David. Here is another idea I have been thinking about after reading some of Yegor Gaidar studies.

Organizationism is an idea where large countries or groups of countries take control of major industries and watch over them to make sure everything is functioning. Without this we end up in a situation like the USA in the early 1900's during the Dust bowl storms which gradually stopped the farming in four states and lasted 10 years. Individual farmers had no resources to save themselves or the farms, yet a large population was depending on these farms functioning. If these farms were owned by a large corporation they would have sent water by train and truck, drilled new wells or built aqueducts to bring water to make up for the lack of rain fall. The same can be said for a socialist country with government officials as controllers.

Basically situations can be remedied sooner. Repeated situations can be planned for in advance and new situations can be inspected sooner and large numbers of engineers and scientists redirected to solve the problem.

Problems with this approach so far.
Economic down turns stop everything.
Limited resources lead to choosing priority locations and ignoring other locations.
Excess resources lead to advanced technology automation which puts people out of jobs.
High economic gains in one area cause intentional suppression of other areas needed solutions.
Focus tends toward vital resources and maximum profit.
Tags: | Organizationism | economics | EU |
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website