Two tier Europe – really?
February 5, 2014
-
Ten Member States not (or not yet) in the euro
-
Ireland, UK, Cyprus, (and Romania and Bulgaria not yet) in Schengen;
-
Denmark not in defence cooperation;
-
UK, Ireland and Denmark not participating in all AFSJ areas.
-
Denmark with an exemption from the single market as regards secondary residencies.
-
Spain and Italy not joining the unified EU patent;
-
Twelve states not in divorce law cooperation.
-
UK and Poland protocol interpreting the Charter of Right’s effect on their domestic law.
-
UK and Czech Republic not in Stability Treaty (fiscal compact).
-
First, the group is clearly not an avant garde on any other subject than those directly linked to the common currency (not foreign policy, justice, environment, transport, agriculture, fishing, consumer protection, competition policy, etc.).
-
Second it is not a fixed membership group, others will join, only two have legal opt-outs (and even they have a right to reconsider). It is not a fixed-boundary division.
-
Third, the deepening measures which have been taken as response to economic crisis, have, in many cases, been at the level of the whole Union, and only some at level of the euro. For example, the three European Supervisory authorities for the financial sector (European Banking Authority, etc), the European Systemic Risk Board, substantial legislation on the financial sector, the reinforced excessive deficit procedure, the EU Semester as a means of intensifying macroeconomic policy co-ordination, have all been done at the level of the whole Union.
-
Fourth, what HAS been done at eurozone level, has usually been done in a way that was deliberately open to others to participate, and attempts have been made to expressly minimize the institutional split between the 17 and the rest. For example: the Stability Treaty (“Fiscal compact”), was done at level of eurozone, but almost all the others wanted to join and in the end only two did not sign it. Furthermore its architecture was designed to keep it as close as possible to the EU system. Another example, currently underway, the banking union: although one could argue that this is needed for the single financial market as much as for the single currency, it was done at level of eurozone + others that wanted to join — but every care was made to ensure single market compatibility, including a “double majority” voting procedure to safeguard the “outs”. Further example: the Eurozone Summits: these are being held in conjunction with European Council meetings, not stand-alone. Everyone can raise an issue before the 17 meet separately. It has been given the same President to ensure institutional coherence. Also, at least one of the two annual meetings is open to all signatories of the Stability treaty, not just the Eurozone.
-
Fifth , the bulk of what the EU does, even economically, is at the level of the whole EU of 28. The single market is crucial in this respect, it is the glue that holds EU together and generates bulk of EU legislation. The common rules on consumer protection, competition, state aids, standards, etc, etc, is at level of whole EU. So is trade policy, environment, R&D programmes, and of course all the non-economic matters such as foreign policy, police & justice, etc.
-
Sixth, no separate institutional structures have been set up, other than the ESM. The ESM is indeed intergovernmental at eurozone MS level. After all, it is financed by national money or guarantees (the EU budget is far too small) and the Member States are the shareholders, so they sit on the board of governors. In practice, however, when it comes to using this instrument, they rely on the Commission for country specific reports, to negotiate MoUs, etc.
-
Last, in the case of the Stability Treaty, its architecture has been designed to avoid divergence. (It was not even originally intended to have a separate treaty — that resulted from UK non-cooperation in December 2011.) Every care has been taken to hug the EU institutions closely: role of Commission, use of ECJ, etc. And not just Eurozone Member States, but all bar two Union Member States joined in, so rather than being a separate construction, the correct analogy is that of my colleague Luuk Van Middelaar, that it is a buttress, supporting the main structure, not a separate building.
Author : European Movement UK