When member states realize that their own projections and the future of the union are dissimilar, these problems generate crises. The European Union summit that took place last week is an example of this. The EU has tried since 2004 to determine what kind of Europe will be constructed for the next decade. This is an issue that should be resolved quickly. There are two proposals at this point: The first relates to a quasi-federation of Europe, in which member states are closer and their partnership is deeper. This project obliges member states to transfer most of their national practices and policies to the common policy area. If the EU was an ensemble of six countries, as it was in the beginning, or even of nine or 12 countries, this kind of evolution would be easier to realize. The actual EU’s dimensions, the number of its members and the size of its population now make it hard to adopt a common line. This makes difficult the determination of a common area where national policies will be transferred. At the summit Poland opposed the decision making system reform and the UK criticized some of the common policies. This showed that some countries don’t perceive the EU as the only option for their future. This leads to diverging future designs. When the area of common policies extends and these are framed with basic treaties, member states must prioritize the EU when they organize their economic dynamics and their means of existence in other parts of the world. But countries like the UK, which have succeeded in being a member without being a part of all common areas, don’t want to witness shrinkage in their economic and diplomatic relations.
The second project relates to a non-rigid partnership. This means that a member state can deepen the partnership as much as it desires. This could create a Europe in which the future is not that common. However this kind of Europe won’t face too many crises, unlike today. This Europe would be nothing other than an economic giant. A non-rigid union could constitute the key to keeping the 27 states together, because each member state has different social and economical realities, different positions on the global stage, different fears and concerns. These differences can not be easily adjusted through social and economic structures and the priority list established for the French-German couple.
The establishment of a rigid or a non-rigid union will depend on the understanding between the members. If these need to cooperate with each other more closely on the political and economic level they will also become more dependent on each other. But this need for cooperation will increase only if international circumstances are favorable. The actual crisis in the EU is about the search for a common remedy to member states’ different problems. Each country’s attitude toward international developments is also important.
Economic risks in today’s international system are not threatening all EU member states to the same degree. Moreover a common political threat that could unite all EU members doesn’t exist. If such a threat doesn’t appear in the near future, the EU should wait a little longer to make its vital decisions.
