Discussions about a multi-speed Europe
The concept of a two-speed Europe is not new, being one of the controversial ideas related to the future of the European Union.
Corina Cristea, 13.02.2026, 13:00
The concept of a two-speed Europe is not new, being one of the controversial ideas related to the future of the European Union. It starts from the reality that the member states do not develop at the same pace and proposes the establishment of a core, formed mainly by the developed West European countries, that advances faster in areas such as economic, fiscal or military integration, while other states remain in an outer circle, with a slower pace of integration. Supporters of a two-speed Europe argue that this model is necessary to avoid decision-making blockages, given that the European Union, made up of 27 states with different interests and levels of development, sometimes encounters difficulties in quickly adopting common policies. They say that by allowing the states that are ready to go further to do so, the Union could become more efficient, more competitive and better adapted to global challenges.
On the other hand, critics of this concept warn of the risk of fragmentation and of the fact that a two-speed Europe could increase the differences between East and West, between rich and less developed countries. Motivated now by the idea that “in order to survive in an increasingly unpredictable geopolitical situation, Europe must become stronger and more resilient, and the status quo is no longer an option”, the theme has been brought back into focus by the German Finance Minister, Lars Klingbeil. He proposes the establishment of a core of six states, which would advance more quickly in key policies, with the aim of strengthening the economy and autonomy of the community bloc, but also of consolidating the sovereignty, resilience and competitiveness of the EU. These are the strongest economies of the Union, namely Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Netherlands.
Diplomat Ovidiu Dranga, former ambassador of Romania explains: “The idea of discussing the issue of competitiveness seems to me to be a good one, but it is not the only subject that must be touched upon in a discussion regarding a multi-speed Europe. We must also think about security, we must also think about other dimensions that would make Europe more relevant in a competition of the future, a very tough competition, in which the stakes change almost from one year to the next. A more resilient Europe means a Europe more aware of the risks we are all facing at the moment and, above all, Europe’s position in relation to several important global players, primarily in relation to the US. A resilient Europe does not mean, in my opinion, a Europe decoupled from America. On the contrary, it means a Europe more sensitive to what is happening in the US and to the current Administration’s positions on security issues at a global level.”
According to Reuters, which quotes a letter addressed to by German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil to his five counterparts from the aforementioned countries, the proposal put forward by Germany includes a four-point plan to advance the capital markets union, strengthen the euro, better coordinate defense investment and ensure access to raw materials. Thus, the coalition of countries must accelerate the process of creating the Economic and Investment Union to offer better financing conditions for European companies. The second point focuses on the international role of the euro as a safe haven currency based on predictability and the rule of law, the German minister says, advocating for reducing bureaucracy and strengthening sovereignty in the sphere of payments. Regarding defense spending, he advocates for better cooperation between member states and the firm inclusion of defense as a priority in the next multiannual EU budgetary framework, “transforming defense into an engine for economic growth”.
Efforts to strengthen the supply chain of critical minerals must also be intensified, through increased strategic engagement with international partners. A two-speed Europe requires very careful consideration of the sensitivities of all member countries, warns Ovidiu Dranga: “A discussion about a two-speed Europe is comparable, in importance, to the one about the EU Constitution, which was a project that unfortunately failed at some point, because it did not pass the citizens’ vote in several important member states. I do not think we are there. That is, I do not think that there is a critical mass, in most member states, for a decision on a Europe with more speeds. We have to decide what kind of Europe we want to have, in the next 10-20 years. A competitive Europe, a Europe that is more integrated than before, which is a first-rate global geopolitical player? Or do we settle for a role that is not necessarily secondary, but it is not a first-line role in the global geopolitical competition, where we, Europeans, might decide that it is sometimes better to be in a reconfigured, rebalanced tandem with the US?”
For now, according to Ovidiu Dranga, it is difficult to say to what extent the idea of a two-speed Europe will be put into practice. (EE)
