Abstract
The Article argues that differentiated governance within the Economic and Monetary Union has been reduced in recent times, thanks to the adoption of positive intervention programmes such as the Next Generation EU and SURE which apply to all the MS. It also explains that differentiated governance is not the preferable solution because it emphasises the differences between MS, whereas they need to be put on an equal footing if we want to reform EMU and the EU. The Article looks at the three phases in which different types of governance were legally established as a reaction to the crises that occurred over time, highlighting the various legal solutions and the consequences for the institutional fragmentation among the MS. Furthermore, it illustrates the pros and cons of some institutional solutions bearing in mind both the need for a more efficient and reactive union in the face of difficulties and a clearer allocation of responsibilities while ensuring greater legitimacy. Although the assessment of the new policy instruments is positive in terms of reducing fragmentation among States, a reform to make EU governance more responsive and efficient and based on homogeneous constitutional principles is necessary.