Differentiation as a Vehicle of Integration

  • Erik O. EriksenEmail author


This chapter asks whether differentiation can be seen as just a temporary break, leaving space for reluctant parties to rethink their position, and change their mind. Can it facilitate learning so that states can join the integration train later? The chapter addresses the moral permissibility of differentiated integration, and the idea of learning from setbacks or evil consequences. Although there are good reasons for reform, there are limits to the motivational force of good reasons. The chapter illustrates learning through the case of Brexit, and discusses factors that inhibit learning, such as identity, populist nationalism and the lack of a European public sphere. Lastly, it suggest Core Europe as the pacemaker of integration, given the responsibility of this group as the makers of the EMU.


Learning Brexit Political duties Evil consequences Moral permissibility 


  1. Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2014. Opting Out of the European Union: Diplomacy, Sovereignty and European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adorno, Theodor W. 1980. Negative Dialektik. In Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. 6, ed. Theodor W. Adorno. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, Hanna. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arendt, Hannah. 1973 [1951]. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  5. Boffey, Daniel. 2018. UK’s Brexit Proposal Threaten the Future of EU, Says Barnier. The Guardian, 2 August.
  6. Brändlea, Verena K., Charlotte Galpin, and Hans-Jörg Trenz. 2018. Marching for Europe? Enacting European Citizenship as Justice During Brexit. Citizenship Studies 22 (8): 810–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunkhorst, Hauke. 2002. Solidarität: von der Bürgerfreundschaft zur globalen Rechtsgenossenschaft. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, Tom. 2018. Exclusive Poll: Public Now Thinks EU Referendum Was “Unfair and Illegitimate”. Prospect Magazine, 9 November.
  9. Crerar, Pippa. 2018. Second Brexit Referendum Still an Option, Labour MPs Told. The Guardian, 11 November.
  10. Dewey, John. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. Chicago, IL: Gateways Books.Google Scholar
  11. Elster, Jon. 1984. Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elster, Jon. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksen, Erik O. 2009. The Unfinished Democratization of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eriksen, Erik O. 2014. The Normativity of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eriksen, Erik O. 2018a. Getting to Agreement: Mechanisms of Deliberative Decision-Making. International Theory 10 (3): 374–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eriksen, Erik O. 2018b. Lessons from Norway: The Case for a Second Referendum on Brexit. LSE Blog. Accessed on 30 November 2018.
  17. Eriksen, Erik O., and Jarle Weigård. 2003. Understanding Habermas. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. European Union. 2012. The Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), 2012/C 326. Accessed on 12 January 2019.
  19. European Union. 2018. Public Opinion in the European Union, First Results. Standard Eurobarometer 90, Autumn 2018.
  20. Ferrera, Maurizio. 2014. Solidarity in Europe After the Crisis. Constellations 21 (2): 222–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraser, Nancy. 2008. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fukuyama, Francis. 2018. Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  23. Garton Ash, Timothy. 2018. Pulling Back from the Brink. Prospect Magazine, 9 November.
  24. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  25. Gurzu, Anca. 2016. Norway to Britain: Don’t Leave, You’ll Hate It. Politico, 15 June.
  26. Haas, Ernst B. 1958. The Uniting of Europe: 1950–1957. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, Jürgen. 2016. For a Democratic Polarisation: How to Pull the Ground From Under Right-Wing Populism. Social Europe, 17 November. Accessed on 26 May 2017.
  28. Habermas, Jürgen. 2018. “New” Perspectives for Europe. Social Europe, 22 October.
  29. Holmes, Martin. 1996. The Eurosceptical Reader. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Honneth, Axel. 1996. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hooghe, Lisebet, and Gary Marks. 2009. A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kant, Immanuel. 1996 [1784]. The Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? In Practical Philosophy, ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kant, Immanuel. 1996 [1785]. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In Practical Philosophy, ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kant, Immanuel. 1996 [1795]. Toward Perpetual Peace. In Practical Philosophy, ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kant, Immanuel. 1996 [1797]. The Metaphysics of Morals. In Practical Philosophy, ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kierzenkowski, Rafal, Nigel Pain, Elena Rusticelli, and Sanne Zwart. 2016. The Economic Consequences of Brexit: A Taxing Decision.OECD Policy Papers No. 16.
  37. Majone, Giandomenico. 2014. The General Crisis of the European Union: A Genetic Approach. In The European Union in Crises or the European Union as Crises?, ed. John Erik Fossum and Augustin J. Menèndez. ARENA Report No. 2/14. Oslo: ARENA Centre for European Studies.Google Scholar
  38. March, James G. 1994. Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Menéndez, Agustín. 2017. The Crisis of Law and the European Crises: From the Social and Democratic Rechtsstaat to the Consolidating State of (Pseudo)-technocratic Governance. Journal of Law and Society 44 (1): 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mudde, Cas. 2018. The Far-Right and the 2014 European Elections: Consequences for the Eurosceptic Debate. In Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism, ed. Benjamin Leruth, Nicholas Startin, and Simon Usherwood. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Müller, Jan-Werner. 2012. Militant Democracy. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, ed. Michel Rosenfeld and András Sajó, 1253–1269. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Müller, Jan-Werner. 2016. What Is Populism? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  43. Offe, Claus. 2013. Europe Entrapped: Does the EU Have the Political Capacity to Overcome Its Current Crisis? European Law Journal 19 (5): 595–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, Matthew. 2018. For the First Time, More People Support a Second Referendum. YouGov, 27 July.
  45. Snyder, Timothy. 2018. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  46. Stilz, Anna. 2009. Liberal Loyalty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Streeck, Wolfgang. 2016. How Will Capitalism End? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  48. The Economist. 2018. Life in the Centrifuge: Lessons for the EU from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Charlemagne, 1 September.
  49. Tooze, Adam. 2018. Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  50. Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003 [1958]. The Uses of Argument: Updated Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Trenz, Hans-Jörg. 2016. Narrating European Society: Toward a Sociology of European Integration. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  52. Tusk, Donald. 2017. Speech by President Donald Tusk at the Ceremony of the 60th Anniversary of the Treaties of Rome. 25 March.
  53. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Sciences 185 (4157): 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Waldron, Jeremy. 2002. Redressing Historic Injustice. University of Toronto Law Journal 52: 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weinrib, Jacob. 2013. Permissive Laws and the Dynamism of Kantian Justice. Law and Philosophy 33: 105–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wells, Anthony. 2018. How Public Feel About Brexit Options. YouGov, 12 September.
  57. WhatUKThinks. 2018. If There Was a Referendum of Britain’s Membership of the EU, How Would You Vote?
  58. Wintour, Patrick. 2018. Brexiteers Failed to Grasp Significance of Single Market to EU, Says Brussels Chief. The Guardian, 27 September.
  59. Zielonka, Jan. 2018. Counter-Revolution: Liberal Europe in Retreat. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARENA Centre for European StudiesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations