Two-speed EU?

[Winner]

So, because the Irish voters were stupid enough to dump the Lisbon treaty, it's time to talk about the alternatives to the present way of changing the founding treaties.

One of the possible solutions to the apparent impasse, when countries like Britain, Ireland or Denmark refuse further integration and rather want the EU to remain non-political intergovernmental organization, is to form a two-speed Europe.

What would it mean? Well, first the EU would be 'divided' into two parts. The "core EU" would go on with integration as far as it would please, perhaps even to forming a federation. Only countries ready for closer integration would be a part of this core. The remaining members would stay in the EU, but they'd abstain from any further integration, while enjoying the benefits of the membership in its present form.

I used to be against it for many reasons, such as the legal mess which would ensue if some parts of the bloc had different rules, the obvious end to the unified approach etc. Now I am starting to believe that these disadvantages don't outweigh the advantages.

It is clear that if we want to move forward, some of us anyway, we simply can't wait for the rest. The pack is only as fast as its slowest member, which means that if the slowest member is not moving at all, we all are moving nowhere.

EU, in my opinion, simply can't afford to stagnate, that would doom the project. EU can't enlarge without institutional changes which allow it to cope with the new situation.

Moreover, two-speed Europe would once again ignite competition in Europe, and competition has brought us where we are. It would soon become clear what is better - to integrate more, or to integrate less.

So, what's your opinion? Vote in the poll.

EDIT: I made a map. I am not sure about the undecided countries, so posters from these countries should feel free to explain their country's standing:

 

[scy12]

I prefer a Europe that remains as it is today but more willing to make progress. And a club of a very few countries which would lose status and rights to decide the future of the Union but also have less responsibility about it. Neutrality that is. The thing is we must attempt to make the second "club" not quite as numerouss as the other.

If you don't accept the responsibility of being a part on those who decide on a better European future , you shouldn't have the right to do it.

 

[Steph]

I am in favour of a two speed EU, where countries who want a common defense, common foreign policy, etc. can do so, while we other countries can just keep the current common market.

I hope that the core EU will work well, and then slowly attract more countries into it (ie come back to the way EU was initially enlarge), but this time with proper rules for decision making, so that when the core expand, it can do so while remaining efficient.

 

[Winner]

I prefer a Europe that remains as it is today but more willing to make progress.

Wouldn't that be nice...

And a club of a very few countries which would lose status and rights to decide the future of the Union but also have less responsibility about it. Neutrality that is. The thing is we must attempt to make the second "club" not quite as numerouss as the other.

If you don't accept the responsibility of being a part on those who decide on a better European future , you shouldn't have the right to do it.

To the bolded part: Exactly.

 

[Till]

I like the idea of an European Union, but i have had just about enough of the current setup.
If not even the Irish support it, who benefited more than most from transfer payments, then it's time to put an end to it.
France and Germany can stand on their own in international politics and close cooperation between the two countries would be an acceptable substitute
for the EU. Between the two of us, we could draft a readable and sensible constitution, without having it messed up by years of haggling over special clauses to satisfy all national self interests.
Once the framework is ready, other nations would be welcome to take it or leave it.
It's fair enough if some countries prefer to go back to just being business partners. They won't get nearly as good a deal as they do now, but that would be their problem and our gain.

 

[scy12]

Greece and Cyprus are not undecided. The general populace may be because it's ignorant but it is well within both our opinion of a better European right and our national interests to support both the treaty and everything that ensures a more independent EU.

One of the several reasons is the undenied support of US to Turkey in both war and peace. In peace while it is bad because Turkey controls areas of European Cyprus and denies use of areas in Greece sea water , in worse it will be much worse because the US will deny selling war material in Greece all sell faulty ones so that they can support their ally. Continuing with the lazy European way of US paying for defense , it effectively makes us much weaker in all aspects.

We see that their are many instances where A more independent from foreign powers Europe better ensures their interests of all it's member. Whatever ignorant Eurosceptics will say.

So it all boils to all sharing of interests. Which interests would you rather share with the rest of Europe with and so make all European countries more independent in the process or the US and make yourself also independent due to the backing of the US but have Europe suffer in the process. Or you would be mr neutrality and don't choose either one screwing both. Unwise when EU benefited you so.

As every action requires a reaction a two speed Europe is the only way to assure that such things will not be always an issue.

 

[Winner]

I am in favour of a two speed EU, where countries who want a common defense, common foreign policy, etc. can do so, while we other countries can just keep the current common market.

I hope that the core EU will work well, and then slowly attract more countries into it (ie come back to the way EU was initially enlarge), but this time with proper rules for decision making, so that when the core expand, it can do so while remaining efficient.

That's what I think too.

But I'd advise first to push the integration as far as possible before taking other countries in, or we'd be back where we started.

The proponents of the pseudo-democracy based on referendum would be happy too: any country which would like to enter the core would have a referendum giving the government a blank cheque in matters of further integration.

 

[Steph]

But I'd advise first to push the integration as far as possible before taking other countries in, or we'd be back where we started.

That's what I meant with "proper rules for decision making, so that when the core expand, it can do so while remaining efficient".
This sentence is meant for expanding to other country, and also expanding to more integration if needed.

 

[Pannonius]

I think it's a good idea. Lack of flexibility is one of the reasons previous treaties failed. Not everything should be rigid and bureaucratic, Brussels should realize that allready.

 

[Winner]

I think it's a good idea. Lack of flexibility is one of the reasons previous treaties failed. Not everything should be rigid and bureaucratic, Brussels should realize that allready.

That's funny - Brussels is the main proponent of treaties, which would in fact make it less bureaucratic and more democratic, but those who claim they want that vote against any proposal which would accomplish that.

Talk about hypocrisy...

 

[Mise]

You realise, don't you, that most governments are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, but the voters are against it? The British government flaked on its commitment to a referendum on the treaty, mainly because they'd lose like the Irish government did. When the Constitution went to the polls, it flopped disastrously -- in France of all places!

The point is, Winner, you're going to have to convince the people, not the governments, that integration is in their interest. And while you can probably convince the young people on this board -- most of whom having grown up not knowing a Europe that wasn't integrated in some way -- you'll have a much tougher job of convincing the baby boomers (you know, the people who actually go out and vote...).

 

[Mise]

That's funny - Brussels is the main proponent of treaties, which would in fact make it less bureaucratic and more democratic, but those who claim they want that vote against any proposal which would accomplish that.

Talk about hypocrisy...

It's not hypocrisy, it's just terrible marketing. Most people simply don't know that it would trim the bureaucratic fat!

 

[jessiecat]

It's not hypocrisy, it's just terrible marketing. Most people simply don't know that it would trim the bureaucratic fat!

Which isn't helped by people like Winner who dismiss one of the most-educated populations
of people in the world, the Irish, as "too stupid" to understand the proposed treaty.
In fact, the opposite may well be true. It could be the less -educated voters of Central Europe
who blindly go along with whatever their government tells them and believe every extravagant promise that is made who are really the "stupid" ones.
Is it any accident that the most sophisticated electorates of Western Europe like the English,
the French, the Dutch, the Danes and the Irish are the most sceptical about the supposed
"benefits" of greater European unity?
How dare you, Winner, insulting the people of Ireland like that!
Where is Red Ralph when we need him most?

 

[Steph]

You realise, don't you, that most governments are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, but the voters are against it? When the Constitution went to the polls, it flopped disastrously -- in France of all places!

You do realize, don't you that the French people who voted no were not really against the constitution, but against many offer thing,s including the government, and only a fraction of them actually voted against for a serious reason?

 

[Steph]

the French, the Dutch, the Danes and the Irish are the most sceptical about the supposed
"benefits" of greater European unity?

What makes you think the Frnch are sceptical about the supposed benefits of greater European unity?

 

[lovett]

You do realize, don't you that the French people who voted no were not really against the constitution, but against many offer thing,s including the government, and only a fraction of them actually voted against for a serious reason?

The same arguement given to explain the voting behaviours and attitudes of almost every body of people against the EU...

 

[jessiecat]

What makes you think the Frnch are sceptical about the supposed benefits of greater European unity?

So you have proof, do you, that the French didn't reject the treaty for any
"serious reason"? And if not sceptical, what was their NO vote for then?

 

[Cato the Elder]

I'm rather undecided about a 2-speed Europe. I completely agree with Mise however. If the EU is to work it's got to be better advertised. Make people feel more at peace about it, or at least convince them that the Union isn't all bad. Why do you think that Americans, across the entire line, are so much more supportive of their governments than Europeans? Because in America, politicians sell themselves much better. We need to have charismatic EU-officials go on speaking tours throughout our country. Put a human face on the idea. And then we might get somewhere.

 

[Steph]

http://www.ipsos.fr/CanalIpsos/poll/8074.asp

Reason for no:

1)I don't like the social and economic situation in France = 52% (ie I don't like the government domestic policy, so I vote no to piss the government)

2) It's to liberal = 40%, I disagree, but on topic. Despite I'm not sure the new parts of the constitution (compared to former treaties) was really about this issue.

3) So we can negociate it again = 39% (of course, after years of negociations, all the other countries will be happy to listen to the whinning French and change everything so the French alone are happy)

4) So we can oppose the entry of Turkey in EU = 35%. I don't remember Turkey being mentionned in the constitution

5) It is a threat for France identity = 32%. I disagree, but I can accept this argument, it is on topic.

6) You want to show your discontent to the politicians in general = 31%

7) The results of the EU building is negative for France = 27%. I disagree also, but this is also on topic.

8) It is an opportunity to oppose the government and Jacques Chirac = 24%

So, out of 8 main arguments, I consider only 3 are related to the topic.


And now, if you scroll down further:

Are you ready to support further European construction : yes = 72%, no = 23%

So I maintain that the French people didn't reject the constitution because they are not in favour of EU

 

[Cato the Elder]

All the more proof that the EU needs to stop selling itself as a coalition between governments but as a coalition between people. Because in the end it's the population of a country that matters and not its officials.