Search

This policy brief aims to present to policy-shapers and policy-makers at the national and European level some selected recommendations based on the main outcomes of EU IDEA – Integration and Differentiation for Effectiveness and Accountability. We found that differentiated integration and cooperation have been and will remain a necessity in Europe in order to allow the resilience and functioning of the EU system, but a number of corrective actions should be taken to make it not only compatible with, but also conducive to a more effective, sustainable and democratic Union.

This research paper aims to offer an innovative and comprehensive assessment of the impact of differentiation on EU governance. It addresses the organizational, constitutional and socio-political factors affecting differentiation and integration in the EU in order to assess the effectiveness, sustainability, accountability and legitimacy of differentiated arrangements within the EU and between the EU and participating third countries. The ultimate aim is to provide an overall appraisal of how much and what form of differentiation propels European integration forward – as a whole and for specific policy areas – and what kinds of differentiation should be avoided to prevent disintegration in the future. The empirical research shows that formal arrangements of differentiation are not only compatible with, but also conducive to a more effective, cohesive and democratic Union when they have a direct link to EU institutions, are established with clear objectives in line with EU core values, and are equipped with adequate mechanisms to ensure accountability and to connect ins and outs. On the contrary, excessive flexibility entailed in looser forms of differentiated cooperation that are established outside the EU Treaties are likely to produce fragmentation dynamics and ultimately jeopardise the EU’s political unity and normative consistency.

The leading policy objective in EU differentiation underlying border, asylum and police cooperation has been to achieve the abolition of internal border controls to create a borderless European single market. Germany has been the main proponent kickstarting and maintaining such agenda through differentiation. For roughly two decades, differentiation has proved effective to abolish internal border controls, integrate the related cooperation in EU structures, enlist the cooperation of non-EU member states, and produce joint policy outputs on asylum, external borders and police affairs. Yet, growing external migration challenges have undermined the effectiveness and legitimacy of existing arrangements, ushering in disintegration tendencies.

The UK’s departure from the EU represents a unique process of disintegration that fundamentally changes EU–UK relations. This paper discusses the nature of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) as the new basis of EU–UK relations, as well as its sustainability, legitimacy and effectiveness. It finds a thin and unfinished relationship with inbuilt possibility for better or for worse, but with politics pointing to growing estrangement and divergence over time. The loss of trust over the last five years has been bleeding into all levels of the relationship, raising the question whether the technocratic governance structure can work in the high-friction context of EU–UK relations. Given the UK’s economic and political weight in Europe, the paper looks at the implications for differentiation within the EU and between the EU and third countries. It illustrates how the introduction of a new mode of external differentiation in Europe – a former member state with no intention of membership in the future – impacts existing modes of differentiation. It finds that the reality of Brexit suggests a more hard-line approach towards third countries, sending the message to members and non-members alike that membership matters. Flexibilities are thus a benefit for EU member states that have signed up to the EU’s core principles in full. The paper concludes that the EU needs to stay attentive to evolving perceptions of Brexit, and show that EU membership remains attractive, also for candidate countries, and is a relevant framework for dealing with global challenges that cannot effectively be addressed at the national level.

Differentiation is a frequent modus operandi in European foreign, security and defence policy. EU treaties have introduced legal frameworks for various types of formal differentiated integration in this policy area. However, they have rarely been used in the field of foreign policy and were only recently launched in the field of defence policy. On the other hand, empirical analyses show that EU member states have engaged in a range of informal practices of differentiation, such as regional groupings, contact and lead groups, and various defence initiatives. This article reviews the scholarly literature and recent empirical analyses of differentiation in EU foreign, security and defence policy. In doing so, it assesses their legitimacy and accountability, and calls for a more explicit focus on effectiveness. Drawing on case studies of differentiated cooperation with non-member states, the article argues that effectiveness depends on shared interests rather than on the level of institutionalisation of the partnership. In a second step, the paper focuses on EU foreign policy in the Western Balkans, the Middle East and the Eastern neighbourhood. It contends that differentiated cooperation has had largely positive outcomes when it has adhered to common EU values and positions. Conversely, when this has not been the case, differentiation has undermined EU foreign and security policy.

Differentiation has become an established feature of European integration in the past decades, and a variety of forms of differentiated governance have been established either within the EU Treaties, by the EU Treaties or outside the EU legal framework. At the same time, differentiated integration poses particular questions about how to organise accountability in an EU in which different groups of member states participate in very different forms of integration. Bringing together the accountability and differentiation literature, the paper develops an analytical framework allowing for an indicator-based assessment of accountability mechanisms. By proposing an analytical framework with concrete indicators for the assessment of accountability in various differentiated integration formats, this paper closes a gap in the literature and opens new paths for the comparative analysis of accountability across various shades of European integration.

This paper explores the ways in which national identities shape attitudes towards differentiated integration in two old member states, one relatively new member state and one candidate country – namely France, Germany, the Czech Republic and Turkey. It also observes how the impact of differentiated integration on European identity is perceived in these given countries in terms of preserving European identity (deepening), the dilution of European identity (disintegration) and the territorial/geographic limits of European identity (widening). By employing primary research and discourse analysis, the study finds that there is no single and monolithic national identity which produces a uniform attitude towards differentiated integration in member and candidate states, but rather that competing domestic national identity narratives produce differing attitudes within a state on differentiated integration. These national identity narratives can translate into starkly different policy positions concerning the policy area that is subject to differentiated integration, as well as on how differentiation is expected to impact the future of European integration and European identity.

This paper addresses the central question of the interplay between mostly informal differentiated cooperation formats in European foreign policy, and the foreign policy of the EU. It provides an overview of the Treaty-based mechanisms enabling differentiation in EU foreign policy and assesses why these arrangements have hardly been used. It then outlines the ways in which EU member states operate through flexible mechanisms and applies this analytical approach to two case studies covering important dimensions of European foreign policy – the Western Balkans and the Middle East Peace Process. The paper notes that the coherence between the initiatives of various groups of member states for on the one side, and EU decisions and goals on the other, is critical to advance the EU foreign policy agenda. It finds that the willingness of EU member states to let some of them play a leading role to attain broadly shared goals, the presence of established EU positions and instruments, the role of third powers and the involvement of EU institutions in arrangements for differentiated cooperation, are key factors for differentiation to effectively foster EU foreign policy.&nbsp

This EU IDEA paper engages with ideational origins and normative political theories of European differentiated integration. Specifically, it examines a “graduated” policy of integration backed by European-wide referenda in light of the work of Jürgen Habermas and Hannah Arendt – two theorists who are strong advocates of European political integration and constitutionalisation. The paper illuminates justifications, advantages, dilemmas and problems of such differentiated integration with regard to its democratic legitimacy and normative as well as political-theoretical plausibility. While Habermas has proposed and refined this model, Arendt’s radically pro-European ideas can work as a cautioning corrective alerting to the risks and potentially disintegrating effects of differentiated solidarity and integration on the European project. While she would arguably see the democratic legitimation benefits of a European-wide constitutional referendum as suggested by Habermas, her work also points to the risks of further fragmenting or even dismantling the EU altogether.

This paper describes and assesses the functioning of differentiated integration arrangements in the field of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). In detail, we describe and study how differentiated institutions work in key EMU policy areas: monetary policy, fiscal surveillance (the Stability and Growth Pact, the Fiscal Compact), financial assistance (the European Stability Mechanism) and policy coordination (including the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure and the European Semester). We start by presenting the regulatory and organisational dimensions of differentiation as well as their respective accountability mechanisms and procedures. The paper then assesses whether the deeper differentiated integration resulting from the early 2010s EMU reforms has strengthened the functioning of the EMU, as well as the implication for the Union’s political unity. We find that the EMU emerged less vulnerable to shocks, and better equipped to tackle future challenges, although some limitations remain, and political unity has weakened.

The paper discusses the nexus between the EU pre-accession conditionality and membership obligations to guarantee respect for the rule of law as a founding value of the EU, common to the Member States. It does so through the prism of the notions of legal uniformity and differentiation. The paper examines how the EU’s rule of law promotion in the accession process converges with and potentially inspires the progressive EU articulation of standards applicable to the Member States. By focusing on the judicial dimension of the rule of law, it is argued that while a certain diversity is conceivable in the manner in which the rule of law is observed, and more specifically in how judicial independence is achieved at the national level, there is a functional rationale for the EU to circumscribe the heterogeneity of national judicial systems – and accordingly, for elaborating common rule of law standards in the EU.

Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is a major initiative in differentiated integration within the EU in the field of defence. This paper assesses whether the legal framework (the 20 binding commitments), and the way the 25 participating member states have organised to implement it, are sufficient to achieve the purpose of PESCO. Moreover, it asks the question whether there is a clear sense of purpose at all. Analysing the ongoing debates between the member states about the future of the Common Security and Defence Policy as a whole, the paper then proposes recommendations to make PESCO work: by focusing on a more concrete objective, by prioritising strategically relevant projects and by enhancing compliance.

Heterogeneity among countries in the European Union has continuously grown through enlargement processes or the outbreak of specific crises. After reaching important outcomes such as the European Monetary Union or the Schengen Agreement, in the face of the “big bang” enlargement of 2004 both national and European Union representatives subsequently committed to the motto “united in diversity”, confident that the European project would progress and deepen. Nevertheless, the crises in the euro area posed a number of new internal and external challenges to the overall European integration process as well as the EU’s political unity in terms of member states sharing the same rights and obligations, making permanent forms of differentiated integration more likely. Against this background, the paper presents a new collected dataset to outline how the EU narrative of political unity changes during times of increasing political differentiation and consequent differentiated integration. As such, it conducts a narrative analysis in two selected cases, the period between 2000 and 2004 preceding the big bang enlargement as well as the years of the crises in the euro area between 2010 and 2014. Although the existing narrative of political unity in the EU has changed in response to the crises under the more sceptical phrase “divided in unity”, our analysis shows that differentiation is not a threat to political unity.

In light of rising internal cleavages and centrifugal tendencies, differentiated integration (DI) has (re)arisen as a major topic in debates on the future of the European Union. As new forms of participation below the threshold of full membership are needed, this paper provides a conceptualisation of effective and legitimate DI. Going beyond existing scholarship’s focus on the legal dimension of DI, the paper emphasises its organisational component, meaning the variegated participation of EU member states, sub-state entities and third-country actors in the panoply of EU policy-making institutions, such as regulatory agencies and transgovernmental networks. The paper subsequently discusses how to measure effectiveness of such differentiated arrangements in terms of their output, outcome and impact, before theorising under what conditions we are likely to see effective DI. Finally, the paper turns to the question of legitimacy of DI, discussing its meaning, measurement and determinants.

This paper analyses the debate about differentiated integration (DI) from the beginning of the European Union integration process to the 2016 referendum on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. This debate can be divided in three different periods, according to the main dilemmas that policymakers tried to address: (i) a political dilemma about the final “destination” of the EU integration project between the 1950s and the 1980s; (ii) a legal dilemma about the mechanism to adopt to promote DI in the 1980s and the 1990s; and (iii) an institutional dilemma about the growing complexity of EU institutions, begun in the 2000s and encapsulated in the Lisbon Treaty (2007). As the paper shows, every period of debate coincided with a specific type of crisis – respectively, a “crisis of design”, a crisis of (foreseen) enlargement and a crisis of economic adaptation.

FEUTURE Synthesis Paper The FEUTURE final synthesis paper accomplishes two principal aims. First, it synthesizes FEUTURE’s research findings that study EU-Turkey relations in the six thematic areas of politics, identity, economy, security, energy and migration, focusing on how their respective drivers generate different degrees of conflict and cooperation in the relationship. Based on this synthesis, it argues that the scenario of “conflictual cooperation” – where cooperation is likely to endure despite the prevalence of conflictual dynamics mostly emanating from politics – is set to define EU-Turkey relations in the foreseeable future. Second, it develops an institutional design for the future relationship which, given the fact that Turkey’s EU accession process has now become dormant, accepts conflict as an endemic feature of the relations but tries to mitigate it by deepening cooperation. Upon assessing differentiated integration models the EU follows with member- and non-member countries, the paper concludes that, as a result of geopolitical proximity as well as deepened, multifarious interactions over several centuries, the EU– Turkey relationship has become too complex and dynamic to be captured by any single such model. It thus suggests a new institutional framework, termed a “dynamic association”, that would be complementary to Turkey’s albeit stalled accession process. While being centered around a rules-based component represented by an upgraded EU-Turkey Customs Union agreement as a starting point, the association also includes more transactional dimensions of cooperation such as migration, security and energy. The paper concludes that conceptualized as such, the dynamic association promises to foster not only cooperative but also convergent trends between the EU and Turkey into and beyond the 2023 timeframe., This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 692976. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

FEUTURE EU 28 Country Report Cyprus The Government of the Republic of Cyprus generally supports Turkey’s accession to the European Union (EU). That support however is not unconditional. Nicosia blocks some important chapters in the EU’s accession negotiations with Turkey. There are basically two main reasons behind that mixed political posture. First, the Cyprus Government believes that Turkey’s potential accession to the EU increases the chances for the Europeanization of Ankara’s foreign policy and the adoption of a neighbourhood policy that, in accordance with EU standards, would aim for good relations with neighbouring countries.

FEUTURE EU 28 Country Report Latvia Historically, Latvia has been supportive of Turkey's integration in the EU. The diplomatic relations between the two countries date back to 1925 and, importantly, Turkey was one of the countries that never acknowledged the annexation and subsequent incorporation of Latvia into the Soviet Union. Turkey was also a staunch supporter of Latvia's NATO membership. This explains the Latvian government's positive stance towards Turkey's EU aspiration, and the friendly dialogue between the two governments.

In light of rising internal cleavages and centrifugal tendencies, differentiated integration (DI) has (re)arisen as a major topic in debates on the future of the European Union. As new forms of participation below the threshold of full membership are needed, this paper provides a conceptualisation of effective and legitimate DI. Going beyond existing scholarship’s focus on the legal dimension of DI, the paper emphasises its organisational component, meaning the variegated participation of EU member states, sub-state entities and third-country actors in the panoply of EU policy-making institutions, such as regulatory agencies and transgovernmental networks. The paper subsequently discusses how to measure effectiveness of such differentiated arrangements in terms of their output, outcome and impact, before theorising under what conditions we are likely to see effective DI. Finally, the paper turns to the question of legitimacy of DI, discussing its meaning, measurement and determinants.

In light of rising internal cleavages and centrifugal tendencies, differentiated integration (DI) has (re)arisen as a major topic in debates on the future of the European Union. As new forms of participation below the threshold of full membership are needed, this paper provides a conceptualisation of effective and legitimate DI. Going beyond existing scholarship’s focus on the legal dimension of DI, the paper emphasises its organisational component, meaning the variegated participation of EU member states, sub-state entities and third-country actors in the panoply of EU policy-making institutions, such as regulatory agencies and transgovernmental networks. The paper subsequently discusses how to measure effectiveness of such differentiated arrangements in terms of their output, outcome and impact, before theorising under what conditions we are likely to see effective DI. Finally, the paper turns to the question of legitimacy of DI, discussing its meaning, measurement and determinants.

FEUTURE EU 28 Country Report Cyprus The Government of the Republic of Cyprus generally supports Turkey’s accession to the European Union (EU). That support however is not unconditional. Nicosia blocks some important chapters in the EU’s accession negotiations with Turkey. There are basically two main reasons behind that mixed political posture. First, the Cyprus Government believes that Turkey’s potential accession to the EU increases the chances for the Europeanization of Ankara’s foreign policy and the adoption of a neighbourhood policy that, in accordance with EU standards, would aim for good relations with neighbouring countries.

FEUTURE EU 28 Country Report Latvia Historically, Latvia has been supportive of Turkey's integration in the EU. The diplomatic relations between the two countries date back to 1925 and, importantly, Turkey was one of the countries that never acknowledged the annexation and subsequent incorporation of Latvia into the Soviet Union. Turkey was also a staunch supporter of Latvia's NATO membership. This explains the Latvian government's positive stance towards Turkey's EU aspiration, andthe friendly dialogue between the two governments.

FEUTURE EU 28 Country Report Latvia Historically, Latvia has been supportive of Turkey's integration in the EU. The diplomatic relations between the two countries date back to 1925 and, importantly, Turkey was one of the countries that never acknowledged the annexation and subsequent incorporation of Latvia into the Soviet Union. Turkey was also a staunch supporter of Latvia's NATO membership. This explains the Latvian government's positive stance towards Turkey's EU aspiration, and the friendly dialogue between the two governments., This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 692976. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein

FEUTURE EU 28 Country Report Cyprus The Government of the Republic of Cyprus generally supports Turkey’s accession to the European Union (EU). That support however is not unconditional. Nicosia blocks some important chapters in the EU’s accession negotiations with Turkey. There are basically two main reasons behind that mixed political posture. First, the Cyprus Government believes that Turkey’s potential accession to the EU increases the chances for the Europeanization of Ankara’s foreign policy and the adoption of a neighbourhood policy that, in accordance with EU standards, would aim for good relations with neighbouring countries., This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 692976. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein