Support NeoGAF

[Xando]

The leaders of the euro zone's four biggest economies threw their weight behind a multi-speed Europe on Monday as the European Union ponders a future without Britain.

The leaders of France, Germany, Italy and Spain met at the palace of Versailles to prepare for a March 25 EU summit in Rome marking the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which paved the way for European integration.

The event has been overshadowed by a series of crises for the EU, including Britain's shock vote to leave, financial trauma and how to handle migration flows.

EU founder members France, Germany and the Netherlands all hold elections this year in which anti-EU and anti-immigration parties hope concerns over security and immigration will help them to gains that could reshape the continent's politics.

French President Francois Hollande called for unity among the remaining 27 EU members in the wake of Britain's vote to leave, but said this did not mean uniformity.

He called for new forms of cooperation to allow some EU countries to push ahead more quickly in areas such as defence, deepening of economic and monetary union or tax harmonisation.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, standing alongside the other three leaders, said the EU risked running into trouble unless it allowed members to participate at varying levels of intensity.

"We need to have the courage for some countries to go ahead if not everyone wants to participate. A Europe of different speeds is necessary, otherwise we will probably get stuck," Merkel said.

"If Europe gets stuck and doesn't develop further, then this work of peace may run into danger faster than one might think," she said.

EU chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker, who last week presented options for reforming the bloc that will be discussed at the Rome summit, has spoken positively of some states pushing ahead more quickly with integration.

But some governments, especially in the poorer east, fear this could entrench divisions to their disadvantage.
Speaking in Versailles, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni also backed different levels of integration to allow Europe to provide different responses to different ambitions.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said Spain was ready to go further with integration "with all those that wish to pursue that integration".

"In my opinion, it is necessary to complete the banking union ... it is essential to deepen the coordination of economic policies to make our economies more competitive,” he said.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-summit-idUKKBN16D2LY


Personally i think this is the way forward and i would welcome deeper integration. I think we could see deeper integration in defence and/or a banking union after the election in Germany.

With the UK gone it's time to move on and progress further with the willing countries

 

[YoungFa]

Why suddenly everything has to go multispeed these days?

 

[Joni]

I would love to live NetherGerBeFraBourg.

Why suddenly everything has to go multispeed these days?

To further integrate countries that have been historically close.

 

[Erevador]

Good luck with that.

 

[daxy]

This has been the forecast in much of the academic literature for a while now. Would be interesting to see how they would implement this. Missteps abound.

 

[CrunchyB]

This always seemed like the most sensible solution to me. Some things make sense to share with everyone (like human rights, defensive pacts, but also refugee policy) but economic policy in particular is hard to harmonize between very different countries.

Splitting the Euro into a hard (northern) and a soft (southern) currency seems like the next logical step.

 

[CoolOff]

Should have been like this from the beginning.

 

[andythinkpad]

Is there a plan to work out a dual euro currency system, because the current monetary system is not working out for many smaller EU countries.

 

[CyclopsRock]

We already have that really, in the sense that there are plenty of ways in which European countries cooperate which have nothing to do with the EU. If not all the countries in the EU are going to do *thing*, then whether it's technically an EU thing (like Schengen has been since 1999) or not an EU thing (like the European Common Aviation Area) is basically irrelevant.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Is there a plan to work out a dual euro currency system, because the current monetary system is not working out for many smaller EU countries.

I don't think looking at it in terms of "smaller" and "bigger" is useful. Italy and Spain - especially Spain - have different needs to France and Germany but also to Belgium and the Netherlands.

 

[Cabaratier]

We already have that really, in the sense that there are plenty of ways in which European countries cooperate which have nothing to do with the EU. If not all the countries in the EU are going to do *thing*, then whether it's technically an EU thing (like Schengen has been since 1999) or not an EU thing (like the European Common Aviation Area) is basically irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant, because it actually is an EU thing as soon the Commission and the ECJ are involved and the participating states are bound by EU law, which (just like with the ECAA and the EEA), will undoubtably be the case. Now, it will work in a slightly different way, because the ECAA and EEA are less two-sided agreements, and more a list of demands by the EU of the non-EU participating countries in order to be allowed to participate, whereas this new two-speed thing will give current EU members even more shared rules and proceedures. Nevertheless, it is only possible because of the EU, within the system set up by the EU, and under the supervision of the ECJ.

 

[Hazzuh]

It's already a "multi-speed" Europe, the issue is that they like to pretend that everyone is heading in the same direction.

 

[Xando]

Splitting the Euro into a hard (northern) and a soft (southern) currency seems like the next logical step.

This isn't what this is about. What they're talking about is juncker white paper he published last week.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-385_en.htm

Basically this:

Scenario 3: Those Who Want More Do More – The EU27 proceeds as today but allows willing Member States to do more together in specific areas such as defence, internal security or social matters. One or several "coalitions of the willing" emerge. By 2025 this could mean that:
15 Member States set up a police and magistrates corps to tackle cross-border criminal activities. Security information is immediately exchanged as national databases are fully interconnected.
Connected cars are used widely in 12 Member States which have agreed to harmonise their liability rules and technical standards.

Now if the elections go well this year i could see them creating a european intelligence service and start to create a banking union (depending on how well the SPD does in germany)

 

[Cabaratier]

It's already a "multi-speed" Europe, the issue is that they like to pretend that everyone is heading in the same direction.

No it's not, there is currently very little leeway (apart from a few op-outs in a small number of legislative acts for, primarily, the UK) to NOT participate in new policy. That is what will change, there will be new possibilities to pass laws for a few countries that want to, rather than those acts being blocked by the countries that don't.

 

[oti]

This is a good idea.

 

[jorma]

As long as it doesn't compromise on the four pillars and/or makes it overly complicated for individuals to keep track of i guess it's alright.

 

[YourMaster]

Strange that they do not see that will be the death of the current union. As soon as it becomes clear that 'the willing' always fall behind to the 'unambitious' ones, they will suffer tremendous democratic pressure to stop and roll back integration.

 

[Frankfurter]

Strange that they do not see that will be the death of the current union. As soon as it becomes clear that 'the willing' always fall behind to the 'unambitious' ones, they will suffer tremendous democratic pressure to stop and roll back integration.

Why would the willing fall behind those others?

 

[Muffin1611]

Perfect. This opens up whole new possibilities.

Strange that they do not see that will be the death of the current union. As soon as it becomes clear that 'the willing' always fall behind to the 'unambitious' ones, they will suffer tremendous democratic pressure to stop and roll back integration.

I do not get this sentiment. To me it seems more like a few countries can try out things not all countries want for themselves, which allows the "unwilling" countries to opt in if these things go well or their compatibility to it changes.

 

[RJT]

We definitely need to complete the banking union and a deepen the fiscal harmonization. At the very least we need to end fiscal competition among EU states.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It is not irrelevant, because it actually is an EU thing as soon the Commission and the ECJ are involved and the participating states are bound by EU law, which (just like with the ECAA and the EEA), will undoubtably be the case. Now, it will work in a slightly different way, because the ECAA and EEA are less two-sided agreements, and more a list of demands by the EU of the non-EU participating countries in order to be allowed to participate, whereas this new two-speed thing will give current EU members even more shared rules and proceedures. Nevertheless, it is only possible because of the EU, within the system set up by the EU, and under the supervision of the ECJ.

I still don't really see how that's actually relevant, though. I can recognise the difference, but I don't see how it tangibly matters - which is to say that Europe already co-operates in a lot of ways that either started without EU involvement or continue without EU involvement (for example the ESA - sure, a bunch of its funding now comes from the EU but operationally it still exists as bi-lateral cooperation between nations). If you're arguing that this will become increasingly less the case due to the way the EU's reach continues to spread then you may well be right. But what do you mean by "this new two-speed thing will give current EU members even more shared rules"? I mean, isn't this just four people chatting in a palace right now?

 

[Shadowhelper]

Problem is, europeans love their country far more than they do Europe.

To the majority of Americans leaving the country would be identity wise, incovievable. But there is no powerful undying desire for everyone in the EU to remain.

Those that do, mostly want to do it out of practical reasons. With this as a basis, it seems like there will always be crisis. And have a complete banking and monetary union? Germany is not going to pool all their money with the rest of the countries and split it out according to need.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Problem is, europeans love their country far more than they do Europe.

To the majority of Americans leaving the country would be identity wise, incovievable. But there is no powerful undying desire for everyone in the EU to remain.

Those that do, mostly want to do it out of practical reasons. With this as a basis, it seems like there will always be crisis. And have a complete banking and monetary union? Germany is not going to pool all their money with the rest of the countries and split it out according to need.

Indeed. This seems like a colossal mistake that will divide Europe even more.

 

[Dascu]

A lot of the problems, as in, Member States blocking or watering down Commission/Parliament-backed legislation, stem not from 'core EU' versus 'border EU'. The more common fault lines are UK+Scandinavia v France+Spain+Italy and Germany somewhere in between.

I mean, institutional reform and progress will have to come from the Parliament having a stronger say vis a vis the Council, rather than different arrangements within that Council.

 

[Blablurn]

I would like to see a strong Europe

 

[YourMaster]

Why would the willing fall behind those others?

Because the EU as an institution has been counterproductive in almost anything they do, it is safe to assume any future EU policies also serve only to harm the countries participating in them. The only way they currently have any success is by threatening countries with serious sanctions, for example how they threatened Greece that they would do anything in their power to make Greece go belly up and not a success if they would default and leave the euro area.

Even now they are not talking about useful integration that allow citizens to benefit from a single entity, like a single tax-id allowing you to accept a job in any country hassle free, international, bank independent, bank accounts that can be taken along with you easily, a true end to roaming allowing people to use their cell phones anywhere and keep their number forever or even stuff like unifying train tracks allowing trains to move from one country to the next.

If they would do the good kind of integration - the kind that benefits citizens - than you'd have an advantage in being a front runner and it would cause others to be willing to follow. If you insist in doing only policies that harm citizens - like confusing helping refugees with solving a demographic problem in your home country or trying to force all countries to follow the stupid shit from individual member states you won't get anywhere good.
As a rule of thumb, as long as they still have meetings in Strasbourg you know that whatever policy they make is there only to benefit a single country at the expense of all the others.

 

[CrunchyB]

This isn't what this is about.

No, but it is a requirement for splitting up the Euro. I could have phrased that better, sorry!

 

[Muffin1611]

If you insist in doing only policies that harm citizens - like confusing helping refugees with solving a demographic problem in your home country or trying to force all countries to follow the stupid shit from individual member states you won't get anywhere good.

Of course this thread would go this way. Of course.

 

[andythinkpad]

Strange that they do not see that will be the death of the current union. As soon as it becomes clear that 'the willing' always fall behind to the 'unambitious' ones, they will suffer tremendous democratic pressure to stop and roll back integration.

They should have gone for ever closer union and never admitted UK in the first place. This is a soft way to rebuild a better and smaller union.

 

[Nikodemos]

They should have gone for ever closer union and never admitted UK in the first place. This is a soft way to rebuild a better and smaller union.

De Gaulle knew.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

I'm all for this, hopefully the BCE policies for creating demand will enter the dense heads of my country's (Spain) government.

 

[Nabbis]

Of course this thread would go this way. Of course.

Sure, let's put our heads in the sand when it's time to talk about something we don't like. Though i don't know if EU specifically had a political circus to frame refugees in this direction, some of our leftists certainly threw this "brilliant" idea.

 

[Dascu]

Because the EU as an institution has been counterproductive in almost anything they do, it is safe to assume any future EU policies also serve only to harm the countries participating in them. The only way they currently have any success is by threatening countries with serious sanctions, for example how they threatened Greece that they would do anything in their power to make Greece go belly up and not a success if they would default and leave the euro area.

Even now they are not talking about useful integration that allow citizens to benefit from a single entity, like a single tax-id allowing you to accept a job in any country hassle free, international, bank independent, bank accounts that can be taken along with you easily, a true end to roaming allowing people to use their cell phones anywhere and keep their number forever or even stuff like unifying train tracks allowing trains to move from one country to the next.

If they would do the good kind of integration - the kind that benefits citizens - than you'd have an advantage in being a front runner and it would cause others to be willing to follow. If you insist in doing only policies that harm citizens - like confusing helping refugees with solving a demographic problem in your home country or trying to force all countries to follow the stupid shit from individual member states you won't get anywhere good.
As a rule of thumb, as long as they still have meetings in Strasbourg you know that whatever policy they make is there only to benefit a single country at the expense of all the others.

All of those examples you mentioned have been blocked by Member States and strong corporate players. It's not the fault of 'Brussels eurocrats'. The Commission is also far more keen to help Greece, but again, Germany and some Nordics are blocking progress there.

 

[Walshicus]

Because the EU as an institution has been counterproductive in almost anything they do, it is safe to assume any future EU policies also serve only to harm the countries participating in them. The only way they currently have any success is by threatening countries with serious sanctions, for example how they threatened Greece that they would do anything in their power to make Greece go belly up and not a success if they would default and leave the euro area.

Even now they are not talking about useful integration that allow citizens to benefit from a single entity, like a single tax-id allowing you to accept a job in any country hassle free, international, bank independent, bank accounts that can be taken along with you easily, a true end to roaming allowing people to use their cell phones anywhere and keep their number forever or even stuff like unifying train tracks allowing trains to move from one country to the next.

If they would do the good kind of integration - the kind that benefits citizens - than you'd have an advantage in being a front runner and it would cause others to be willing to follow. If you insist in doing only policies that harm citizens - like confusing helping refugees with solving a demographic problem in your home country or trying to force all countries to follow the stupid shit from individual member states you won't get anywhere good.
As a rule of thumb, as long as they still have meetings in Strasbourg you know that whatever policy they make is there only to benefit a single country at the expense of all the others.

Bollocks.

The EU as an institution has generally provided more utility in scale with it's delegated power than the member states themselves.

 

[YourMaster]

All of those examples you mentioned have been blocked by Member States and strong corporate players. It's not the fault of 'Brussels eurocrats'. The Commission is also far more keen to help Greece, but again, Germany and some Nordics are blocking progress there.

Allowing 'strong corporate players' or to block progress IS a failing of the institution.
And the commission without Germany wanted more debt relief, not a default and grexit which would have helped Greece a lot more.

Their big projects they fuck up big, the rest of the time the integration consists of stuff like not only allowing farmers in France to hide their additives to wine on the labeling, but also forbidding other countries to require the additives/ingredients to wine to be put on the label.

 

[hello_my_name_is_cookie]

Why suddenly everything has to go multispeed these days?

Because there are countries in EU who don't give a shit about it. It seems to me Poland, Hungary, Romania etc. have nothing to do in EU.
We'll never be able to build "The United States of Europe" with them but this is possible with the core of Europe (France, Germany, Benelux, Spain and Italy).

 

[Joni]

Because the EU as an institution has been counterproductive in almost anything they do, it is safe to assume any future EU policies also serve only to harm the countries participating in them. The only way they currently have any success is by threatening countries with serious sanctions, for example how they threatened Greece that they would do anything in their power to make Greece go belly up and not a success if they would default and leave the euro area.

You are confusing the European Union with the International Monetary Fund. The debts towards the EU were all long term, those towards the IMF had to be paid back urgently.

 

[kiguel182]

I think multi-speed is important if it allows poor countries to not be subject to advancing at a speed that they can't handle. If Germany wants to spend a bunch of money in their military that's fine but we have other priorities.

"One solution for all" clearly doesn't work because each country has their own set of problems and challenges to face. EU should be more understanding of that going forward or more crisis within the Union are bound to happen.

 

[Muffin1611]

Sure, let's put our heads in the sand when it's time to talk about something we don't like. Though i don't know if EU specifically had a political circus to frame refugees in this direction, some of our leftists certainly threw this "brilliant" idea.

Who the hell says that we shouldn't talk about it? The poster mentioned it in an already really one-sided way which I don't agree with. Germanys economy benefited immensely in the last months/few years.

And yes, refugees were often framed in this direction. You must have missed all those populist right wing parties that suddenly gained votes because of this kind of talk.

You also must have missed the dozens of europe themed threads that were derailed because of this kind of talk. If you wanna talk about it, make a thread, I'll be happy to post in it. But the constant derailing is tiring.

 

[DarthMasta]

Allowing 'strong corporate players' or to block progress IS a failing of the institution.

Great, let's remove the ability to "block progress". Tell me, what army is going to ensure that? And when you get that army, how many civilians from non-cooperating countries should be killed to ensure progress isn't blocked?

I don't know if a multiple-speed EU is good or bad, but I'm down for more integration for the countries that want / need it.

 

[gutter_trash]

The banking sector needs a smackdown and get Canadian style regulations

 

[KonradLaw]

This always seemed like the most sensible solution to me. Some things make sense to share with everyone (like human rights, defensive pacts, but also refugee policy) but economic policy in particular is hard to harmonize between very different countries.

Splitting the Euro into a hard (northern) and a soft (southern) currency seems like the next logical step.

No way anyone will ever be able to push through common refugee policity, unless that policy is "help as little or as much as you want, no obligation"

 

[KonradLaw]

Because the EU as an institution has been counterproductive in almost anything they do, it is safe to assume any future EU policies also serve only to harm the countries participating in them..

I'm sorry, but this is pure BS. Union has been huge benefit to pretty much every single member. It brought prosperity, stability and growth that would be completely impossible without it.
It has it's problems, but only somebody who has no clue about Europe could claim it's members would be better off without it.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Ironically, this is exactly the sort of thing the UK wanted in the first place.

 

[mrklaw]

can we get another vote now?

 

[Muffin1611]

I'm sorry, but this is pure BS. Union has been huge benefit to pretty much every single member. It brought prosperity, stability and growth that would be completely impossible without it.
It has it's problems, but only somebody who has no clue about Europe could claim it's members would be better off without it.

Yup. Always funny how people criticize the EU for all they do, without knowing much about it or forgetting where Europe was few decades ago.

 

[KonradLaw]

Ironically, this is exactly the sort of thing the UK wanted in the first place.

That's what they were always getting though. Still wasn't enough.

 

[DarthMasta]

Ironically, this is exactly the sort of thing the UK wanted in the first place.

It isn't, at all. Sure, it might mean an EU where some countries might decide they want to be on the real slow path to allowing foreigners into their country, but I doubt the UK would enjoy not having a voice if/when other countries decide to push for closer integration that leaves Britain out of the decision loop...

 

[Joni]

Ironically, this is exactly the sort of thing the UK wanted in the first place.

Not really. They wanted a Europe à la carte. The idea of a multi-speed Europe is still further integration, just not waiting for blocking countries. They would have hated that they no longer had blocking powers.

 

[YourMaster]

You are confusing the European Union with the International Monetary Fund. The debts towards the EU were all long term, those towards the IMF had to be paid back urgently.

No I'm not. Currently the official EU position (because of mostly Germany) is 'pay back all remaining debt' and the IMF says 'debt relief first'. I was talking when the Greek crisis was at the top, where Greece even had a referendum supporting their politicians to just say 'fuck it, we're not paying anything back'. Back then - and now still - there's mayor and aggressive opposition from the EU from allowing Greece out of the monetary Union and go into default.
The behind the scenes talks are secret, but there were strong indications that the EU told Greece behind the scene that under no circumstance would they allow a Grexit to be a success.

Great, let's remove the ability to "block progress". Tell me, what army is going to ensure that? And when you get that army, how many civilians from non-cooperating countries should be killed to ensure progress isn't blocked?

Why would you need armies to not allow corporations to successfully lobby against the interest of its citizens?
I'm not saying it's not the member states themselves that take a large part of the blame, but that's part of the current organizational system.

Further integration should be driven citizens first, not corporate-interests first. An integrated Europe can be formed by building the infrastructure for citizens to benefit from.