Last year was full of events of critical importance. In addition to the victory of Donald trump in the presidential election in the United States, became fully apparent, certain weaknesses of the European Union, clearly manifested in the voting for UK withdrawal from the EU. But Breaksit should not lead to the death of the EU. On the contrary, it can be a call, which would prompt specific actions in order to solve the problems of the European Union.
Some European leaders are trying to take advantage of this signal and call on the EU “to complete the formation of the Union.” According to them, without the UK the integration will go easier because the rest of the country is somewhat less heterogeneous, and hence, they are more likely able to negotiate the steps, which the enemy would be Britain.
One such step is the creation of a banking Union. After the start of the crisis in the Eurozone, this issue is constantly in the spotlight. But even on this front, significant progress has been made, the process of European banking integration is far from complete. Among the unfinished business is the insurance system of Bank deposits and the creation of a senior tranche is safe sovereign assets-that is, the total for the Euro area, risk-free securities
Another potential measure, motivated by a deep asymmetry in the economic condition of the Eurozone countries during the crisis, could be a joint system of unemployment insurance. In this system, unemployment benefits, due to cyclical reasons, could be financed from the EU budget. Finally, the refugee crisis has provoked a debate on the joint system of protection of external borders of the EU, the order of placement of refugees among EU countries, as well as funding their integration.
All these and many other ideas have been discussed for a long time, to the extent that even developed specific action plans. However, the progress made is very small. As it turned out, Britain is not the only source of political resistance to deeper integration.
Of course, the answer to the question of who resists this integration may be different and depends on specific proposals, which in each case are best one EU countries more than others. In some cases, the proposed measures can be very beneficial for all countries in the long term, but they require a significant initial outlay on the part of individual States. Meanwhile, in conditions when part of the large EU countries preparing for national elections, and politicians who oppose the establishment and begin to moderate ahead of the party, many national leaders have lost the will to risk their political capital by advocating for such reform.
And what if to make these reforms more attractive? To overcome political resistance, perhaps as simple as packaging all of these proposals together. Those proposals that are advantageous to some countries, you can join with suggestions that are more profitable to others, achieving, thus, balance. While the short term costs of one measure could offset short-term income from the other.
Take, for example, efforts to resolve the refugee crisis. Once it became clear that some of the EU countries, especially in Central Europe, I do not agree with imposing EU quotas on immigrants, there was a proposal to allow refugees themselves to choose where they would like to settle. The associated costs would be met from the EU budget (potentially using a specially issued premium bonds).
However, this idea can also be tricky, in particular because those countries who will attract the majority of refugees who already have a strong economy, and hence they are less in need of financing from the EU. To solve the problem would another measure that creates a flow of transfers in the direction of the unhappy countries and adopted in tandem with the policy of assistance to refugees.
The best candidate for this role could be the joint system of unemployment insurance. Countries, which due to its high cyclical unemployment are undesirable for refugees could receive disproportionately more benefits from this system, especially in the short term. And the expectations that these transfers will eventually be offset by the allocation of funds for refugee resettlement can be just what you need for support of countries with low unemployment.
Of course, there may be additional complexity, especially on the issue of refugees. Public resistance to immigration in such a country as Germany, fueled by terrorist attacks and political rhetoric of populists, may weaken the attractiveness of this program. But in this case the particular package can be adjusted.
The idea of a package of reforms with the aim to increase their attractiveness may sound too trivial. However, it is not just ordinary agreements. It is the completion of (and thus, protection) of the European Union by creating a more sustainable set of institutions. To the EU remained a beacon of openness and liberal democracy, it is necessary to continue integration. And for its success, EU leaders will have to ensure that all countries in the Union was equally advantageous.
