Revisiting the Debates on a Model of Integration for Post-Crisis Europe: Towards A Political Union or Just More Differentiation?

Abstract

The Euro crisis, which has had deep economic, social and political implications for the European Union EU , has revived the debates on the future model of European integration. In this respect, the establishment of a European political union has been advocated as a way of restoring shattered confidence in the EU. Whereas these debates recall neofunctionalist/supranationalist approaches to European political integration, the enduring crucial role of national preferences in the integration process keep intergovernmentalist arguments on the agenda as well. Furthermore, the increasing divergences within the EU endanger the unity and cohesion required by a political union, bringing forward arguments in favour of differentiated integration as an alternative model for post-crisis Europe. This paper aims to analyse the implications of the crisis for the EU on theoretical grounds, elaborating on the debates over a future model of integration for post-crisis Europe. It is mainly argued that these debates reveal the persisting complexity of reconciliation on the possibilities and means of building a European political union and stimulate conventional controversies rather than clarifying the finality politique of the EU

Keywords

• European Union, Euro crisis, political union, differentiated integration, neofunctionalism, supranationalism, intergovernmentalism.

References

1. Sevilay Kahraman, “Avrupa Bütünleşmesi Kuramları 1950-1970 Yılları”, in Belgin Akçay and İlke Göçmen (eds.), Avrupa Birliği Tarihçe, Teoriler, Kurumlar ve Politikalar, Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2012, pp. 69-83.
2. Mark A. Pollack, “Theorizing the European Union: International Organization, Domestic Polity, or Experiment in New Governance?”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 1 (June 2005), pp. 357-398.
3. Thomas Diez and Antje Wiener, “Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory”, in Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (eds.), European Integration Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 1-21.
4. Jonathan Bradbury, “The European Union and the Contested Politics of Ever Closer Union: Approaches to Integration, State Interests and Treaty Reform Since Maastricht”, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, Vol. 10, No. 1 (April 2009), pp. 17-33.
5. “Merkel Warns of Europe’s Collapse: If Euro Fails, So Will the Idea of European Union”, Spiegel Online International, 13 May 2010, http://www.spiegel.de/international/ germany/merkel-warns-of-europe-s-collapse-if-euro-fails-so-will-the-idea-of- european-union-a-694696.html (last visited 5 March 2015)
6. Jose Manuel Barroso, “State of the Union 2012 Address”, Speech at thePlenary Session of the European Parliament, 12 September 2012, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ SPEECH-12-596_en.htm (last visited 1 March 2015)
7. Frank Schimmelfennig, “European Integration in the Euro Crisis: the Limits of Postfunctionalism”, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 36, No. 3 (April 2014), pp. 323- 324.
8. Magali Gravier, “Empire vs. Federation: Which Path for Europe?”, Journal of Political Power, Vol. 4, No. 3 (December 2011), pp. 413-431.

9. These states include the Eurozone countries (Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia) as well as 6 non-Eurozone member states (Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania).
10. European Commission, “Background on the Euro Plus Pact- Information Prepared for the European Council”, 12 December 2011
11. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/euro_plus_pact_background_december_2011_ en.pdf (last visited 2 February 2015).
12. European Commission, “Single Resolution Mechanism to Come into Effect for the Banking Union”, Press Release, 31 December 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ IP-15-6397_en.htm?locale=en (last visited 12 February 2016).
13. European Commission, “EU Response to the Crisis”, 25 February 2014, http:// ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/crisis/index_en.htm (last visited 1 February 2015).
14. Schimmelfennig, “European Integration in the Euro Crisis: the Limits of Postfunctionalism,” p. 328.
15. European Commission, “A Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine Economic and Monetary Union Launching a European Debate”, 30 November 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/ commission_2010-2014/president/news/archives/2012/11/pdf/blueprint_en.pdf (last visited 16 January 2015).
16. Jale Tosun, Anne Wetzel and Galina Zapryanova, “The EU in Crisis: Advancing the Debate”, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 36, No. 3 (April 2014), p. 208.
17. Cited in Ton Barber, “Saving the Euro: Bound towards a tense future”, Financial Times, 12 October 2010, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c5fcc1e4-d643-11df-81f0-00144feabdc0. html#axzz3wsd2rP00 (last visited 10 February 2015).
18. Ernst Haas, The Uniting of Europe: Political, Economic and Social Forces 1950-1957, London, Library of World Affairs, 1958.
19. Jacob Transholm-Mikkelsen, “Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete?”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1 (March 1991), pp. 1-21.
20. Pollack, “Theorizing the European Union: International Organization, Domestic Polity or Experiment in New Governance?,” p. 359.
21. Arne Niemann and Demosthenes Ioannou, “European Economic Integration in Times of Crisis: A Case of Neofunctionalism?”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 22, No.2(February 2015), p. 199.
22. Schimmelfennig, “European Integration in the Euro Crisis: the Limits of Postfunctionalism,” pp. 321-337.
23. Ian Cooper, “The Euro Crisis as the Revenge of Neo-functionalism”,Euobserver, 21 September 2011, http://euobserver.com/opinion/113682 (last visited 2 March 2015)
24. Niemann and Ioannou, “European Economic Integration in Times of Crisis: A Case of Neofunctionalism?,” pp. 201-202.
25. Schimmelfennig, “European Integration in the Euro Crisis: the Limits of Postfunctionalism,” pp. 321-337.
26. Ramunas Vilpisauskas, “Eurozone Crisis and European Integration: Functional Spillover, Political Spillback?”,Journal of European Integration, Vol. 35, No. 3 (April 2013), pp. 365- 366.
27. Tosun, Wetzel and Zapryanova, “The EU in Crisis: Advancing the Debate,” pp. 203, 206.
28. Niemann and Ioannou, “European Economic Integration in Times of Crisis: A Case of Neofunctionalism?,” p. 206.
29. Andrew Moravcsik, “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (December 1993), p. 496.
30. Michelle Cini, “Intergovernmentalism”, in Michelle Cini (ed.), European Union Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 103.
31. Vilpisauskas, “Eurozone Crisis and European Integration: Functional Spillover, Political Spillback?,” pp. 368-369.
32. Uwe Puetter, “The European Council-the New Centre of EU Politics”, Sieps European Policy Analysis, 2013, http://www.sieps.se/sites/default/files/NY%202013_16epa_A4_0. pdf,p. 6 (last visited 25 February 2015).
33. Sergio Fabbrini, “Intergovernmentalism and its Limits: Assessing the European Union’s Answer to the Euro Crisis”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 46, No. 9 (July 2013), pp. 1022-1023.
34. The signatories included the Eurozone member states as well as 6 non-Eurozone member states (Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Latvia- joined Eurozone in 2014).
35. Schimmelfennig, “European Integration in the Euro Crisis: the Limits of Postfunctionalism,” pp. 333-334.
36. Vilpisauskas, “Eurozone Crisis and European Integration: Functional Spillover, Political Spillback?,” p. 369.
37. Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, “A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus”, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 1 (January 2009), pp. 1-23.
38. Douglas Webber, “How Likely Is It That the European Union Will Disintegrate? A Critical Analysis of Competing Theoretical Perspectives”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 20, No. 2 (June 2014), p.14.
39. “Public Opinion in the European Union-First Results”, Standard Eurobarometer Survey, No. 84, (Autumn 2015), http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb82/eb82_ first_en.pdf,pp. 6, 8(last visited 2 March 2015).
40. Thierry Chopin, “Political Union: From Slogan to Reality”, Foundation Robert Schuman Policy Paper, No. 280, 28 May 2013, http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions- d-europe/qe-280-en.pdf,p. 3 (last visited 10 March 2015).
41. Philippe C. Schmitter, “Ernst B. Haas and the Legacy of Neofunctionalism”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2 (April 2005), p. 258.
42. Michael Burgess, “Federalism”, in Antje Wiener and Thomas Diez (eds.), European Integration Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 32.
43. Ben Soentorp, Foreign Policy in the European Union Theory, History and Practice, London and New York, Routledge, 2014, p. 38.
44. Phillippe de Schoutheete and Stefano Micossi, “On Political Union in Europe: The Changing Landscape of Decision-Making and Political Accountability”, CEPS Essay, 21 February 2013,https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Essay%20No%204%20Political%20 Union.pdf(last visited 10 March 2015).
45. Laura Ventura, “A Political Union: Clear Concept or Constructive Ambiguity?”, Theseus Conference on a Vision for Post-Crisis Europe: Towards What Kind of Political Union, 17-18 October 2013, http://theseus.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/Files/Konferenz_2013/ Background_Paper_Political_Union_by_Laura_Ventura.pdf,p. 2 (last visited 5 April 2015).
46. The Maastricht Treaty (1993) formally established the EU based uponthree pillars consisting of the European Community, Common Foreign and Security Policy and Justice and Home Affairs. Among these pillars, only the Community pillar was of a supranational nature.
47. Exclusive competences involve the areas where the EU alone is able to legislate and adopt binding acts, while shared competences occur in the fields where both the EU and the member states are authorised to adopt binding acts. As for the fields of supporting competences, the role of the EU is limited to supporting, coordinating or complementing the action of member states, as it does not have any legislative powers.
48. Barroso, “State of the Union 2012 Address”.
49. The members included the foreign ministers of Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain.
50. Future of Europe Group, “Final Report of the Future of Europe Group of the Foreign Ministers of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain”,17 September 2012, http://www. auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/626338/publicationFile/171844/120918- Abschlussbericht-Zukunftsgruppe.pdf, pp. 2-3 (last visited 20 February 2015).
51. “Van Rompuy: the EU will never become the United States of Europe”,Euronews, 9 May 2012, http://www.euronews.com/2012/05/09/herman-van-rompuy-the-eu-will- never-become-the-united-states-of-europe/ (last visited 2 May 2015).
52. Chopin, “Political Union: From Slogan to Reality,” p. 2.
53. Ventura, “A Political Union: Clear Concept or Constructive Ambiguity?,” p. 2.
54. Nicolai von Ondarza, “Strengthening the Core or Splitting Europe? Prospects and Pitfalls of a Strategy of Differentiated Integration”, SWP Research Paper, March 2013,https:// www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2013_RP02_orz. pdf,p. 7 (last visited 1 February 2015).
55. Alkuin Kölliker, “Bringing Together or Driving Apart the Union? Towards a Theory of Differentiated Integration”, West European Politics, Vol. 24, No. 4 (October 2001), p. 127.
56. Katharina Holzinger and Frank Schimmelfennig, “Differentiated Integration in the European Union: Many Concepts, Sparse Theory, Few Data”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 19, No. 2 (March 2012), p. 299.
57. Carlos Closa, “Differentiated Integration and Flexibility in the EU under the Lisbon Treaty: Challenges for the Trio Presidency (ARI)”, Real Instito Elcano Paper, 26 April 2010, http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/wcm/connect/13e488804243186f9d1cff 8b6be8b54b/ARI77-2010_Closa_Differentiated_Integration_Flexibility_EU_Lisbon_ Treaty_Trio_Presidency.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=13e488804243186f9d1c ff8b6be8b54b (last visited 14 January 2015).
58. Matej Avbelj, “Differentiated Integration- Farwell to the EU-27?”, German Law Journal, Vol. 14 (January 2013), pp. 195-196.
59. Cited in Giandomenico Majone, “Rethinking European Integration after the Debt Crisis”, UCL Working Paper, June 2012, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/ analysis-publications/publications/WP3.pdf (last visited 14 March 2015).
60. Cited in Christian Schweiger and Jose M. Magone, “Differentiated Integration and Cleavage in the EU under Crisis Conditions”, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, Vol. 15, No. 3 (May 2014), p. 260.
61. “Mr Major’s Speech in Leiden”, 7 September 1994,http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/ page1124.html (last visited 10 April 2015).
62. Alexander C-G. Stubb, “A Categorization of Differentiated Integration”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 34. No. 2 (June 1996), pp. 283-295.
63. Janis A. Emmanouilidis, “Institutional Consequences of Differentiated Integration”, Center for Applied Policy Research Discussion Paper, February 2007,http://www.isn.ethz. ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?lang=en&id=44676,pp. 9-10 (last visited 12 February 2015).
64. “Enhanced Cooperation”,Summaries of EU Legislation, http://europa.eu/legislation_ summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/lisbon_treaty/ai0018_en.htm (last visited 10 May 2015).
65. Filippa Chatzistavrou, “Is Flexible Integration Harming the Prospect of a Common Acquis?”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 1 (March 2014), pp. 98-112.
66. Valsamis Mitsilegas, Sergio Carrera and Katharina Eisele, “The End of the Transitional Period for Police and Criminal Justice Measures Adopted before the Lisbon Treaty. Who Monitors Trust in the European Justice Area?”, 2014, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/509998/IPOL_STU(2014)509998_EN.pdf(last visited 22 February 2015).
67. Chatzistavrou, “Is Flexible Integration Harming the Prospect of a Common Acquis?,” p. 103.
68. Ondarza, “Strengthening the Core or Splitting Europe? Prospects and Pitfalls of a Strategy of Differentiated Integration,” p. 5.
69. Mark Leonard, Jan Zielonka and Nicholas Walton, “Introduction”, in Nicholas Walton and Jan Zielonka (eds.), the Political Geoghraphy of Europe, London, European Council on Foreign Relations, 2013, p. 6.
70. Schweiger and Magone, “Differentiated Integration and Cleavage in the EU under Crisis Conditions,” p. 261.
71. Emmanouilidis, “Institutional Consequences of Differentiated Integration,” p. 9.
72. Ondarza, “Strengthening the Core or Splitting Europe? Prospects and Pitfalls of a Strategy of Differentiated Integration,” pp. 14-17.
73. Nicole Koeinig, “A Differentiated View of Differentiated Integration”, Jacques Delors Institut PolicyPaper, 23 July 2015, http://www.institutdelors.eu/media/ differenciatedintegrationjdibjuli2015.pdf?pdf=ok (last visited 12 August 2015)
74. Gian Luigi Tosato, “How to Relaunch Europe-The Reasons for Flexibility”, The International Spectator: Italian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 42, No. 2 (June 2007), p. 252.
75. Ondarza, “Strengthening the Core or Splitting Europe? Prospects and Pitfalls of a Strategy of Differentiated Integration,” p. 27.