On the Limits of EU Differentiated Integration: Lessons from the Eurozone Crisis and from Brexit
Variable geometry ought to imply “variably geometry Europe” as variable geometry or differentiated integration in the European Union has reached its limits. Drawing on the lessons of the Eurozone crisis and of Brexit, this chapter argues that (treaty-base
- PDF / 215,578 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 75 Downloads / 219 Views
Abstract Variable geometry ought to imply “variably geometry Europe” as variable geometry or differentiated integration in the European Union has reached its limits. Drawing on the lessons of the Eurozone crisis and of Brexit, this chapter argues that (treaty-based) variable geometry or differentiated integration in the core European Union (EU) institutions—especially economic and monetary union (EMU)—is not sustainable. EMU has in the meantime become the (economic and political) core of the Union and of the integration process. It is therefore the Euro area, and no longer the internal market, on which one would have to anchor EU integration. From an EU point of view, it does not make sense to accommodate member states’ preferences that are too divergent from the Union’s by means of more institutional flexibility at the Euro areas’ expense and the objective of ever-closer union. This would mean transforming the EU into a mere intergovernmental organization without a common currency (and for that matter without political ambitions). Therefore, all EU countries should be in all main EU (treaty-based) institutions, most notably EMU and Schengen, or leave the Union and opt for membership of the European Economic Area only or for a lesser preferential trade agreement like a free trade agreement. Keywords Brexit · Differentiated integration · Economic and monetary union · Sovereign debt crisis · Variable geometry
1 Introduction Jorge Braga de Macedo’s research agenda, intellectual curiosity, and policy and political engagements have spanned many diverse areas, some of which are discussed in the chapters of this Festschrift. In our chapter, we concentrate on one specific A. Bongardt (B) CICP – Research Center in Political Science, Universidade de Évora, Évora, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] F. Torres Católica Lisbon School of Business & Economics, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 L. Brites Pereira et al. (eds.), Economic Globalization and Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53265-9_11
149
150
A. Bongardt and F. Torres
topic of his very prolific contributions to the broader area of European integration, as an academic, policy advisor/maker and politician. This chapter’s object is variable geometry, which we defend ought to imply “variably geometry Europe” as variable geometry or differentiated integration in the EU has reached its limits and is no longer politically sustainable. Although Jorge Braga de Macedo is possibly mostly known as an international and development economist in his academic career, over the years he has contributed various essays and books to the political economy of European integration. Moreover, in late 1988, three years before chairing the ECOFIN Council as minister of finance and taking the escudo into the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) of the European Monetary System (EMS), he moved on from academia to the European Commission, as Director of National Economies at DG EcFin (at the time known as DGII
Data Loading...
