At the end of last year, Eurozone finance ministers came to an agreement over the handling of the Greek debt crisis. “This is not just about money”, said eurogroup chairman Jean-Claude Juncker, but a “promise of a better future for the Greek people and for the euro area as a whole”. However, Dan Steinbock, research director of international business at the India, China and America Institute (USA), argues the opposite.

Steinbock claims that this new agreement is simply another step in Brussels’ efforts to contain the Eurozone debt crisis, and as such, a further cause for increasing the gap between the countries in Europe. The other axis of division between the Member States runs in parallel to the debt crisis and takes the form of discussions over the next EU budget framework. In this debate, the heavy contributors, such as the UK, Netherlands or Sweden, call for big cuts. On the other side, net receivers are naturally seeking to limit the cuts.

“Both the EU budget debate and the Greek debt deal reflect Europe’s deepening divisions”, argues Steinbock. “In the first case, the divide is between the net payers in the West and the net receivers in East Europe. In the second case, it is between Northern Europe, which suffers from bailout fatigue, and Southern Europe, which is struggling with austerity fatigue.”

Concern remains that the struggle between the two could lead to disproportionate cuts in the EU’s development aid budget as it is perceived as being less of a direct contributor to Member State economies. European Parliament President Martin Schultz told EurActiv that for other areas of the budget, such as regional aid within the EU and farm spending there are stronger advocates within the Member States than for the EU’s global role. He warned that cuts to external actions would “weaken the EU's role and weight as a player on the global stage and its ability to promote its values and interests”. He insisted that the Commissions proposals were the bare minimum.

• EUObserver
• EurActiv