Brussels in the small hours of a December Thursday to Friday night was the scene for something rather extraordinary as apparently exactly those previously vociferous proponents of a single, ever-closer political union have now at least theoretically resorted (or shall we say given in) to hypothetically promoting a Europe at two speeds -- in this case, with one group supposedly comprised of those EU member states located within the eurozone, and another group intended to be made up of those countries that by their own free will are positioned outside of Euro-land. But let us be careful here: the EU of 27 as we know it has not disappeared, and the potential inter-governmental “Euro-Group” will not replace it either, but the consequences both for the EU and in particular for the entire remaining EU enlargement process may be significant.
In net EU law-making terms, what happened in Brussels was simply a technical, legal matter. A proposed change to the current EU Treaties was blocked by one of the EU’s 27 member states, Britain. Treaty changes require the approval of all current member states and not just a qualified majority vote in the council. At stake was the proposed exercising of greater fiscal, financial and national budget oversight -- controlled by Brussels in the wake of the recent economic meltdown as experienced in a number of EU member states. The United Kingdom regarded this envisaged treaty modifications as a threat to London’s role as a global financial marketplace and hence said “no.” However, the issue is not off the EU’s table; to the contrary, it is very likely that by the time this newspaper goes to print those EU countries that nearly a decade ago had swapped currencies and adopted the euro as paper money (and those states that have plans to follow suit) will have agreed to brainstorm about a future inter-governmental pact allowing them to better coordinate their economic and fiscal policies.
On the one hand, Paris and Berlin will for a long time refrain from admitting that this is the beginning of the end of today’s “one size fits all” -- European Union. On the other hand, other’s will rejoice by declaring yesterday as the birth of either a two-speed Europe or an EU based on the concentric circles model in which some countries forsake all of their sovereignty in favor of a federal Europe, others decide to cooperate on a number of key issues yet not on political union related items or a common foreign and security policy, and a third group will bring all those countries together that wish to join forces on a day-to-day policy-making basis once the issue at stake is acceptable to their elected governments and the electorate.
The Brussels’ summit rings in challenging times from the perspective of Turkey as a candidate country. If Europe begins to manage affairs according to varying degrees of integration, those who argue that a privileged partnership is best for both the EU and Turkey will have a field day as a closely harmonized Euro-Group within the EU will have great influence over other issues, too, and will most definitely not concede Turkey’s full EU membership simply because the UK would ask for it, this time not adding another “opt out” but asking for Turkey to be “opted in.”
Ankara’s EU negotiation team will be aware of the danger zones that lie ahead. For example, Ankara all too quickly jumping on the bandwagon of those who ask for a “Europe a la carte” (Britain) will result in even greater reluctance by Berlin and Paris to ever offer Turkey a seat at the EU table -- after all who wants to invite his own doomsayer. Hence, Ankara has no alternative but to hope for the best and that the inter-governmental Euro-Group -- if indeed established -- helps to strengthen the EU as such and continue its preparations for joining both the EU and whatever other core group of states emerges within. In other words: full EU membership in the center, not the periphery.
