Blog Post

One club does not fit all in Europe

In this column, Jean Pisani-Ferry argues how the EU can become a more effective global player, following the Policy Brief "One size does not fit all: European integration by differentiation.

By: Date: October 2, 2018 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

“Italy,” a contemptuous Metternich said two centuries ago as the peninsula was split into a myriad of fiefdoms, “is only a geographical expression.” Some in Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi, and even Washington regard Europe the same way. They acknowledge that the European Union matters for trade agreements and currency issues, but considerate it too irresolute to be a real player in today’s global power game, and too divided to cope with security and migration challenges. Proving them wrong is the task that Europe must now tackle.

Existential debates are admittedly as old as the EU – and so pervasive that they seem to be part of its identity. But they are also as alien to the vast majority of citizens as they are familiar to the small circle of policy wonks who obsess over them. So, one could be forgiven for ignoring Europe’s latest identity crisis.

That would be a serious mistake. To survive in a different, much tougher world, the EU must redefine its purpose. It was mainly designed to steer internal integration; now it must confront external threats. It used to be the champion of rules; it is unprepared for the new, transactional game of geopolitics. The US looked after its security; President Donald Trump regards this responsibility as an excessive burden. Refugee flows were a negligible trickle; though they are back to low levels, the massive surge in 2015 exposed the dysfunctional character of the European asylum regime.

And all of this comes at a time when the EU is already deeply divided. The scars from the post-2008 split between euro-zone creditors and debtors are still visible, and a new fight pits advocates of the open society against proponents of identity politics. External issues add to existing divisions, because attitudes about migration, perceptions of foreign threats, and willingness to use military power differ widely. Europe risks a protracted stalemate.

The EU traditionally resorted to two techniques to cope with its divisions. The first was to buy time, by pretending that all member countries, though not equally ready to act, shared the same ultimate goal of “ever closer union.” This multi-speed approach has reached its limits. We can perhaps still pretend, against the odds, that all member countries will ultimately join the euro; but we cannot ignore the gulf between those who claim one can be a proud European Muslim and those for whom Christianity is quintessential to European citizenship.

The second technique has been to transfer competences to the EU level and to sort out differences through majority voting. This is how the single market was built and how trade policy is successfully managed, despite widely different attitudes and interests. But such a process works only as long as member countries agree to abide by majority rule. Opposing stances on security, defence, or, again, asylum cannot be sorted out this way. It was actually tried – for refugees – and failed: a decision on how to allocate asylum-seekers to member states was reached, but it could not be implemented.

The prospective EU enlargement in the Western Balkans further complicates the problem. These countries have made great efforts to join Europe and deserve to be rewarded. But they would make the EU even more heterogeneous and would likely add to its divisions.

This is why, in a recent paper, my colleagues from the think tank Bruegel and I advocate an overhaul of Europe’s architecture. We propose a new structure composed of a common base and a few optional clubs devoted to major policy areas.

The base would essentially comprise the single market, the customs union, and essential flanking rules and institutions to ensure consumer protection, uphold competition, and manage research, energy and climate, infrastructure, and regional policies. The institutional pillars – the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Court of Justice – would also be part of the base, as would the EU’s essential principles: democracy, the rule of law, free movement of people, and the fundamental rights of workers. It would be a sort of bare-bones EU, consistent with the original project but stripped of would-be common policies.

Clubs would be built around key policy areas. Because their members would share the same goals, they would be more effective internally and externally. One club would combine the euro, fiscal coordination, bank surveillance, and resolution of financial crises. Another would combine asylum policy, border protection, and cooperation in police and judicial affairs; this area could retain control-free internal borders, which is increasingly difficult between countries with widely differing asylum policies. A third club would be devoted to defence and external security; inclusion in it would require contributing resources and participating in military operations. A fourth club could be envisaged for common policy areas that are still in their infancy, such as education.

To ensure that a structure of this sort retains enough unity and prevent it from degenerating into a spaghetti bowl of loose arrangements, key safeguards would need to be introduced. First, clubs should be coherent and not à la carte. Second, institutional consistency should be preserved. In particular, there should be only one European Commission (though there would be club secretariats), one Parliament (though its members could meet in club formations) and one Court of Justice for the bare-bones Union and the clubs. Furthermore, participation in and withdrawal from the clubs should require passing high enough hurdles to ensure stable membership.

Such an approach would not by itself prevent the EU’s dissolution or promote enlargement to less-developed countries. But built-in flexibility would help build a partnership with willing neighbours. A bare-bones EU would provide a sound basis for cooperation with a “ring of friends” that would not participate fully in the single market and the free movement of people but could be involved, on a multilateral basis, in a series of cooperative arrangements.

Is it risky to break taboos? Yes. But the biggest risk is to remain mired in outdated structures and to succumb to inertia. Europe is a bigger dream than the house we have built.

 


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/bruegelo/public_html/wp-content/themes/bruegel/content.php on line 449
View comments
Read article

Opinion

What can the EU do to keep its firms globally relevant?

There is a fear that EU companies will find it increasingly difficult to be on top of global value chains. Many argue that EU-based firms simply lack the critical scale to compete and, in order to address this problem, that Europe’s merger control should become less strict. But the real question is where the EU can strengthen itself beyond the realm of competition policy.

By: Georgios Petropoulos and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 15, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Feb
21
13:30

Reforming decision-making for EU taxation policy

How should the EU taxation policy be reformed?

Speakers: Johannes Becker, Pierre Moscovici, Paola Profeta and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

On Modern Monetary Theory

An old debate is back with a kick. The discussion around modern monetary theory first gained traction in the economic blogosphere around 2012. Recent interventions in the US and UK political arenas rekindled the interest in the heterodox theory that is now seeping into mainstream debates.

By: Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 11, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Feb
27
12:30

Diverging narratives: European policies and national perceptions

A look at the politicians' view of the EU.

Speakers: Pierre Boyer and Giuseppe Porcaro Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Mar
5
12:30

Saving the right to asylum

How can we improve the European asylum policy?

Speakers: Elina Ribakova, Marc-Olivier Padis and Jean-Paul Tran Thiet Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Whose (fiscal) debt is it anyway?

The authors map how much fiscal debt is in the hands of domestic and foreign holders in the euro area. While the market for debt was much more international prior to the crisis, this trend has since been reversed. At the same time, central banks have become important holders of fiscal debt.

By: Maria Demertzis and David Pichler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 6, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

The higher yield on Italian government securities is becoming a burden for the real economy

Francesco Papadia and Inês Gonçalves Raposo have recently written on Italian fiscal policy and the increase in the spread between Italian (BTP) and German (Bund) government. Since then, two developments have taken place: one good, and one bad. This blog post reviews them.

By: Francesco Papadia and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 5, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The EU needs a Brexit endgame

Britain and the EU must try to preserve the longstanding economic, political, and security links and, despite the last 31 months spent arguing over Brexit, they should try to follow a new path toward convergence.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 31, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

After the ESM programme: Options for Greek bank restructuring

With the end of the Greece support programme, authorities now have scope to focus on the legacy of NPLs and excess private-sector debt. Two wide-ranging schemes are under discussion. They should be assessed in terms of required state support, likely investor appetite for problematic bank assets, and institutional capacity to manage a complex new organisation tasked with debt restructuring.

By: Alexander Lehmann Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 29, 2019
Read article More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage: Policy principles for a new social contract

This episode of The Sound of Economics features Bruegel senior fellow Zsolt Darvas in conversation with Maurizio Bussolo and Bernadette Ségol about income inequality in Europe and Central Asia, and the policy principles underpinning a possible new social contract.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 24, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Towards a new social contract

This event will look at a a proposal for a new social contract put forward by the World Bank.

Speakers: Maurizio Bussolo, Zsolt Darvas, Ruby Gropas and Bernadette Ségol Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

What does a possible no-deal Brexit mean?

With Brexit getting closer, it is still extremely difficult to predict which one of the possible outcomes will materialise. Guntram Wolff examines what exactly it would mean for the UK to 'crash out' of the EU, for both parties.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 24, 2019
Load more posts