Multi-speed Europe

Multi-speed Europe or two-speed Europe (called also "variable geometry Europe" or "Core Europe" depending on the form it would take in practice) is the idea that different parts of the European Union should integrate at different levels and pace depending on the political situation in each individual country. Indeed, multi-speed Europe is currently a reality, with only a subset of EU countries being members of the eurozone and of the Schengen area. Like other forms of differentiated integration such as à la carte and variable geometry, "multi-speed Europe" arguably aims to salvage the "widening and deepening of the European Union" in the face of political opposition.

Reasons and actuality of the concept

The concept entered political discourse when, after the end of the Cold War, an eastward enlargement of the European Union began to materialise and the question arose how "widening" could be made compatible with "deepening",^[1] i.e., how the imminent enlargement process could be prevented from diluting the idea of an "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe", as the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community of 1957 had put it. In 1994 – still at a time of the EU12 – the German Christian Democrats Wolfgang Schäuble and Karl Lamers published a document^[2] in which they called for a Kerneuropa (= core Europe). This idea envisaged that "core Europe" would have a "centripetal effect", a magnetic attraction for the rest of Europe. A precursor to that concept had been a proposal by two advisors to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Michael Mertes and Norbert J. Prill, published as early as July 1989. Mertes and Prill called for a concentric circles Europe, built around a federal core consisting of the Inner Six (EU6) and like-minded EU member states.^[3] In 1994 they partly revoked their original idea, arguing that the post-Cold War EU would rather look like a "Europe of Olympic rings" than a "Europe of concentric circles".^[4]

The multi-speed Europe concept has been debated for years in European political circles, as a way to solve some institutional issues. The concept is that the more members there are in the Union, the more difficult it becomes to reach consensus on various topics, and the less likely it is that all would advance at the same pace in various fields.

Intermediate forms could be limited to some areas of close cooperation, as some historical examples are given below. It is also possible now for a minimum of nine EU member states to use enhanced co-operation, but this new framework has been used only once. A second proposal, a unified European patent, is nearing completion [as of December 2010] with only two countries (Italy and Spain) not participating.^[5]

The idea of a multi-speed Europe has been revived because of the following initiatives:

the eurozone, with 20 member states and two more in ERM II (Bulgaria and Denmark). Every EU member except Denmark has agreed by treaty to join, but many currently have no plans to do so.
the Schengen Area, with 29 member states, 25 EU members and four non-EU members (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland). It excludes two EU members: Cyprus, which is legally obligated to join in the future, and Ireland, which has an opt-out from participating.
other initiatives limited to some states, such as the European Defence initiative and Prüm Convention.

Furthermore, important events were:

the enlargement of the European Union to 28 member-states and in the forthcoming years other candidates (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine) where new members initially don't join the Schengen area and the Eurozone for some time.
the European Convention that led to the European Constitution that was signed in 2004 by the 25 Heads of State, but was not ratified by all national parliaments or assemblies and so failed. Later most of its provisions were adopted through the Treaty of Lisbon that included additional opt-outs for some states.
differences of view between EU members on some foreign diplomatic and military issues. In a 2004 article The Economist compared the variances of Europe to a lake that has many deep parts (areas in which countries are similar) and many shallow parts (areas in which countries have major differences).^[6]

<imagemap> File:Supranational European Bodies-en.svg|none|400px

rect 60 15 435 50 European Political Community rect 45 70 230 100 Schengen Area rect 755 65 980 95 Council of Europe rect 155 190 355 220 European Union rect 55 545 115 575 European Economic Area rect 165 610 290 635 Eurozone rect 165 705 400 735 European Union Customs Union

rect 50 365 125 395 European Free Trade Association rect 225 300 325 355 Nordic Council rect 355 300 475 360 Visegrád Group rect 190 430 390 460 Baltic Assembly rect 235 540 345 565 Benelux

rect 805 145 895 175 GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development rect 1005 245 1095 275 Central European Free Trade Agreement rect 1110 120 1190 150 Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation rect 1110 420 1190 475 Union State rect 830 495 980 555 Common Travel Area rect 750 685 1005 740 International status and usage of the euro#Sovereign states

rect 70 120 130 170 Switzerland rect 70 180 130 230 Liechtenstein rect 70 240 130 290 Iceland rect 70 300 130 350 Norway

rect 165 240 225 290 Sweden rect 265 240 325 290 Denmark rect 165 300 225 350 Finland

rect 365 240 425 290 Poland rect 435 240 495 290 Czech Republic rect 505 240 565 290 Hungary rect 505 300 565 350 Slovakia

rect 590 180 650 230 Bulgaria rect 590 240 650 290 Romania rect 590 300 650 350 Greece

rect 200 365 260 415 Estonia rect 270 365 330 415 Latvia rect 340 365 400 415 Lithuania

rect 200 470 260 520 Belgium rect 270 470 330 520 Netherlands rect 340 470 400 520 Luxembourg

rect 440 385 500 430 Italy rect 440 440 500 490 France rect 440 500 500 550 Spain rect 505 385 565 430 Austria rect 505 440 565 490 Germany rect 505 500 565 550 Portugal rect 570 440 630 490 Slovenia rect 570 500 630 550 Malta

rect 505 580 565 635 Croatia

rect 670 385 730 430 Cyprus rect 670 500 730 550 Republic of Ireland rect 765 500 825 550 United Kingdom

rect 670 120 730 170 Turkey

rect 540 690 600 740 Monaco rect 605 690 665 740 Andorra rect 670 690 730 740 San Marino rect 1120 690 1180 740 Vatican City

rect 780 180 840 230 Georgia (country) rect 780 240 840 290 Ukraine rect 860 180 920 230 Azerbaijan rect 860 240 920 290 Moldova

rect 860 360 920 410 Bosnia and Herzegovina rect 935 180 995 230 Armenia rect 935 360 995 410 Montenegro

rect 860 300 920 350 North Macedonia rect 935 310 995 360 Albania rect 935 240 995 290 Serbia

rect 1025 370 1085 420 Kosovo

rect 1120 300 1180 350 Russia rect 1120 360 1180 410 Belarus

</imagemap>

An Euler diagram showing the relationships between various multinational European organisations and agreements

Currently in the EU there are the following cases of non-uniform application of the European Union law:

permanent deviations^[a]	request by states to cooperate more than EU (post-accession: request to participate at EU level instead of less)	request by states to cooperate less than general EU level
allowed by the EU	Enhanced co-operation	Opt-outs in the European Union Minor EU law derogations or exemptions special territories status
not allowed by the EU	Mechanism for Cooperation and Verification Eurozone/Schengen suspensions (post accession: benchmarks for adoption of EU level)

Overview of non-uniformity inside the EU

Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Slovenia participate in all EU provisions.

Participant	European Union Agreements					Enhanced cooperation				PESCO	Open method of coordination	Related Intergovernmental treaties			Symbols
Participant	Schengen	AFSJ	CFR	Euro	EEA	Patent	Divorce	Int. couples' property	EPPO	PESCO	Euro+	SRM	ESM	Prüm	Symbols
Bulgaria	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x
Croatia	x	x	x	x	c^[b]	o	o	x	x	x	o	x	x	o	o
Cyprus	c	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x
Czech Republic	x	x	x	c	x	x	o	x	x	x	o	x	o	o	o
Denmark	x	o	x	o	x	x	o	o	o	x	x	c	o	o	o
Estonia	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	x	x	x	o
Finland	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o
Greece	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	c	x
Hungary	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	o	o	x	o	x	o	x	x
Ireland	o	o	x	x	x	x	o	o	o	x	x	x	x	o	o
Italy	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	c	x
Latvia	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	x	x	o	o
Lithuania	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	x	x	o	x
Malta	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	o	x
Netherlands	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o
Poland	x	x	o	c	x	x	o	o	x	x	x	c	o	o	o
Portugal	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	c	x
Romania	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	x	o	x	x
Slovakia	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	o	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Spain	x	x	x	x	x	o	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Sweden	x	x	x	c	x	x	o	x	o	x	o	o	o	c	o
x – Member c – Candidate (or conditions to be fulfilled before joining) o – Non-member

Participation of European countries in non EU-only integration initiatives

A number of countries have special relations to the European Union implementing many of its regulations. Prominently there are Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein which are the only remaining EFTA members while all other former EFTA members have converted into EU members. Through agreements Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (not including Switzerland) are members of the European Economic Area since 1994. As a consequence of taking part in the EU single market they need to adopt part of the Law of the European Union. Formally they would not need to fund the EU government^{[citation needed]} but in practice they have opted to take on their part of financing EU institutions as required by EU law (see EEA and Norway Grants) with the financial footprint of Norway being equal to that of an EU member since 2009.^{[citation needed]} Especially Norway and Iceland are known to forfeit EU membership on the basis of EU fishery regulations that they want to opt out on. Both Norway and Iceland have signed and implemented the Schengen zone agreements from the start. During the turmoils of the financial crisis, Iceland was looking into membership of the Eurozone and it did apply for EU membership in 2009. Norway has joined all EU political treaties^[vague] and it has applied to EU membership multiple times but while fulfilling the requirements the membership was rejected by referendums in 1972 and 1994. This leaves Norway to be integrated into Inner Europe's institutions while not being part their governing body.


Participant	EU	OSCE	CoE	Schengen	Euro	EUCU	EEA	Energy Community	ECT	ECAA	EEA	EMCDDA	EMSA	EASA	ERA	EDA	ESA	Prüm	NATO
Albania	c^[c]	x	x					x	x	x									x
Andorra		x	x	s	s	x
Armenia		x	x					o	x	x
Austria	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Azerbaijan		x	x						x
Belarus		x							x
Belgium	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Bosnia and Herzegovina	c	x	x					x	x	x
Bulgaria	x	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Croatia	x	x	x	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		o	x
Cyprus	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		o
Czech Republic	x	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x
Denmark	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x
Estonia	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Finland	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
France	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Georgia	c	x	x					x	x	x
Germany	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Greece	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	c	x
Hungary	x	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Iceland		x	x	x			x		x	x	x		x	x				x	x
Ireland	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o
Italy	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	c	x
Kazakhstan		x							x
Kosovo	c^[d]				x^[e]			x		x
Latvia	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		o	x
Liechtenstein		x	x	x			x		x		x			x				x
Lithuania	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		o	x
Luxembourg	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Malta	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		o
Moldova	c	x	x					x	x	x
Monaco		x	x	s	s	x
Montenegro	c^[c]	x	x		x^[e]			x	x	x									x
Netherlands	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
North Macedonia	c^[c]	x	x					x	x	x									x
Norway		x	x	x			x	o	x	x	x	x	x	x			x	x	x
Poland	x	x	x	x	c	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	o	x
Portugal	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	c	x
Romania	x	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Russia		x
San Marino		x	x	s	s	x
Serbia	c^[c]	x	x					x		x
Slovakia	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Slovenia	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
Spain	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Sweden	x	x	x	x	c	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	c	x
Switzerland		x	x	x					x		x			x			x	x
Turkey	c^[f]	x	x			x		o	x		x	x							x
Ukraine	c	x	x					x	x	x
United Kingdom		x	x						x								x		x
Vatican City		x	o	s

x – member
c – conditions to be fulfilled before joining
s – unilateral adoption/participation through another state who is a member/some instruments signed, but not yet ratified
o – observer

Post-Brexit-vote revival of "multispeed Europe" ideas

In March 2017, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker released a five-point view of possible courses for the EC and its to-be-27 post-Brexit members, looking forward to the year 2025. The points, among which Juncker expressed no preference, "range from standing down from policing of government financing of companies, for example, to a broader pullback that would essentially strip the EU back to being merely a single market", per one report. The updated possibilities would entail member countries or groups of countries adopting different levels of participation with the union. The EC was approaching a March meeting of the 27 members in Rome and Juncker's paper addressed the options that "once invited scorn from convinced Europhiles" and seemed maybe even to have some backing "of lifelong federalists" like the president.^[7]

Notes

^ In addition to the permanent deviations there are temporary transition periods for the application of certain EU law provisions in some member states, but these have an already set dates for lapsing.
^ Provisionally applied as a participating non-EEA state since 12 April 2014 pending ratification by Croatia, all EEA states, and the European Union.
^ ^3.0 ^3.1 ^3.2 ^3.3 EU candidate negotiating
^ EU applicant
^ ^5.0 ^5.1 De facto uses the euro.
^ EU candidate negotiations frozen

References

^ Marcin Zaborowski: Germany and EU Enlargement: From Rapprochement to "Reaproachment"? In: Helene Sjursen (Ed.), Enlargement in perspective, ARENA Report February 2005, p. 46.
^ Karl Lamers / Wolfgang Schäuble: Überlegungen zur europäischen Politik (Reflections on European Policy). See also Gilles Andréani: What future for federalism?, Centre for European Reform Essays, September 2002, ISBN 1-901229-33-5, p. 7-8.
^ Michael Mertes / Norbert J. Prill: Der verhängnisvolle Irrtum eines Entweder-Oder. Eine Vision für Europa, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 19 July 1989.
^ Michael Mertes / Norbert J. Prill: Es wächst zusammen, was zusammengehören will. "Maastricht Zwei" muss die Europäische Union flexibel machen, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 9 December 1994, p. 11.
^ "Countries press ahead with limited single EU patent plan" Archived 30 December 2010 at the Wayback Machine, out-law.com, 17 December 2010.
^ 'Coalitions for the willing' Archived 6 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine, The Economist, 1 February 2007.
^ Valentine Pop, "Once Scorned, ‘Multispeed Europe’ Is Back" (subscription) Archived 2 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal, 1 March 2017. Retrieved 2017-03-01.

External links

Official EU glossary: Multi-speed Europe, Variable geometry Europe and other related concepts

[7] In addition to the permanent deviations there are temporary transition periods for the application of certain EU law provisions in some member states, but these have an already set dates for lapsing.

[8] Provisionally applied as a participating non-EEA state since 12 April 2014 pending ratification by Croatia, all EEA states, and the European Union.

[EU_candidate_negotiating-9] 3.0 ^3.1 ^3.2 ^3.3 EU candidate negotiating

[EU_applicant-10] EU applicant

[deFacto-11] 5.0 ^5.1 De facto uses the euro.

[EU_candidate_negotiations_frozen-12] EU candidate negotiations frozen

[1] Marcin Zaborowski: Germany and EU Enlargement: From Rapprochement to "Reaproachment"? In: Helene Sjursen (Ed.), Enlargement in perspective, ARENA Report February 2005, p. 46.

[2] Karl Lamers / Wolfgang Schäuble: Überlegungen zur europäischen Politik (Reflections on European Policy). See also Gilles Andréani: What future for federalism?, Centre for European Reform Essays, September 2002, ISBN 1-901229-33-5, p. 7-8.

[3] Michael Mertes / Norbert J. Prill: Der verhängnisvolle Irrtum eines Entweder-Oder. Eine Vision für Europa, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 19 July 1989.

[4] Michael Mertes / Norbert J. Prill: Es wächst zusammen, was zusammengehören will. "Maastricht Zwei" muss die Europäische Union flexibel machen, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 9 December 1994, p. 11.

[5] "Countries press ahead with limited single EU patent plan" Archived 30 December 2010 at the Wayback Machine, out-law.com, 17 December 2010.

[6] 'Coalitions for the willing' Archived 6 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine, The Economist, 1 February 2007.

[13] Valentine Pop, "Once Scorned, ‘Multispeed Europe’ Is Back" (subscription) Archived 2 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal, 1 March 2017. Retrieved 2017-03-01.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[7]