Europe's Forever Alibis: The 'Two-Speed' EU is Just Old Wine in a New Bottle
FIRST INSTANCE: The Multi-Speed Mantra Emerges (1990s) The concept of a 'multi-speed Europe' gained traction in the early 1990s, particularly in the lead-up to the Maastricht Treaty (1992), as some founding members, notably Germany and France, pushed for deeper integration while others, like the UK, preferred a looser arrangement. The idea was to allow a vanguard of states to move ahead on certain
policies without being held back by others. It was framed then, as now, as a flexible approach to overcome perceived inertia. The reality? It created divisions and resentment from the outset, with smaller or less economically powerful nations fearing marginalization. REPETITIONS: 'Enhanced Cooperation' and Budgetary Bypass (2000s-2010s) The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) formally introduced the
mechanism of 'enhanced cooperation,' allowing a minimum of nine member states to pursue closer integration in specific policy areas without involving all members. This was subsequently codified and refined in the Treaty of Nice (2001) and the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). Curiously, it was often invoked when a consensus on a politically sensitive issue, such as judicial cooperation or divorce law,
proved elusive. For example, the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), established in 2017, operates under enhanced cooperation because not all member states (e.g., Ireland, Denmark) opted in. This mechanism, lauded as 'flexible integration,' often served to sideline dissenting voices rather than genuinely build consensus. OUTCOMES: Persistent Divisions and Democratic Deficits Despite the