The European nations spent years trying to unify the countries in the continent and now after the financial crisis we can't be quite sure about how strong that unity is.
There have been many talks about the future of the European Union, but the option that the nations have settled on is not one that many expected. First, the EU will be split into two groups - 17 and 10. The big 17 will include all of the nations currently using the euro with France and Germany having the most significant say. The 17 have more power due to the use of the same currency and they will be the ones making the decisions. The reason for this move to a tighter central economic management is to prevent future defaults by members in debt.
The ten nations that maintain their own currencies will also retain control over their own interest rates. They will furthermore be allowed to follow their own economic policies rather than the ones set by the euro-zone members.
There are a few problems with this strategy. First, there will be a strongly-felt division among members. The 17 will be making all the decisions without any representation of the leftover 10. This is sure to cause much dissatisfaction. Denmark, Sweden, and Britain are all nations with strong economies and are important players in the European market, which is what makes it difficult to accept the fact they will not be a part of policy making. What is the euro-zone's response? The above-mentioned three can all join the 17 by foregoing their currency for the euro. However, this is unlikely to happen.
This division of the EU in two is causing concerns and raising questions. A system of regulation without representation will not work for too long for the ten leftover countries and no one can be sure what will happen then. There is no question that something has to be done and that the EU needs some drastic changes, but is this too much? Or is it just what is needed to ensure that in the future the strong players will not be in a position of bailing everyone else out of trouble?