It looks as if the idea of “two-speed Europe,” voiced almost 40 years ago by Belgium’s prime minister Leo Tindemans, is revisited in the formula “two Europes in one.” We would like to remind our readers that in his report on January 6, 1976 this Belgian politician proposed a division of the EU countries into those that can immediately go over to political and monetary integration, and those that cannot. Since then, Europe did see various processes go at various speeds, with some countries joining the euro and others staying outside, including some that have no intention to switch over to the single European currency.
It is through no coincidence that Project Syndicate published an article titled “Two Europes in One,” written by Kemal Dervis, vice president of the Brookings Institution. In the author’s opinion, establishing “two Europes in one,” rather than a “two-speed Europe,” would allow the continent to organize itself in a long-lasting way. “The more federal eurozone would be embedded in a larger union that cooperates on defense, foreign policy, climate-change measures, and migration policy. Free movement of European citizens within the EU would be upheld,” writes Dervis.
To enable this idea, the author proposes setting up two European parliaments. One of them would be still elected by the non-euro members, including Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and some other East European countries.
The other European parliament would be elected by the euro group, which would ensure democratic legitimacy and satisfy national constitutional courts (not least Germany’s).
Ukraine’s former foreign minister Volodymyr OHRYZKO in an interview with The Day dismissed Dervis’s proposals as speculations. In his opinion, the European project will be efficient and powerful if it is united. “Yet if there appear signs of interior distribution or redistribution, this will mean that it will slowly but steadily lose its attractiveness for others, because division into first, second, or any further sorts would automatically mean the participants’ different goals, different opportunities and, respectively, different responsibility. Divided into various stages, it will not withstand inner contradictions, and finally the project will be closed down.” Besides, added Ohryzko, the pursue of two Europes could mean indirect support of Putin’s intentions, because any divisions within the European Union would play into his hands.
Commenting on British Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement that the EU must show flexibility, Ohryzko remarked that the matter of balancing the joint European project and each member state’s national project is the most complicated.
At the same time, the former ambassador believes that in Britain’s case, the situation will follow a step-by-step negotiation process. After all, after weighing all pros and cons, the government and population of the UK will realize that negotiations are better than splitting up, trying to build up an own, separate world in the age of globalization.
The refugee crisis has shown that due to the lack of analytical approach to forecasting challenges and threats, certain mechanisms do not work or even are totally missing in Europe. “This crisis must become a very serious lesson for the European Union in the context of modeling its future and finding correct answers to eventual challenges. Thus, the analytical research sector in the European Union requires rather serious support,” emphasized the former minister.
He believes that an unreformed and corrupt Ukraine is and will remain a problem for the EU, rather than a solution (a statement made several years ago by Kyiv demanding membership prospects). And so it will be if Ukraine does not overcome corruption and does not have transparent mechanisms of public administration. “Many European capitals realize that it is time to look at Ukraine and help it, given that we will help ourselves, too,” summarized Ohryzko.
