Two-speed EU?

[Winner]

No, Not really.

Interesting article. Did you read it?

Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost, and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:

(...)

Too imitative
Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an "information cascade"[2] can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once past decisions have become sufficiently informative, it pays for later decision-makers to simply copy those around them. This can lead to fragile social outcomes.

Too emotional
Emotional factors, such as a feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria.

Amen.

 

[Winner]

A two speed EU is a great idea.

If it were to happen then maybe by the 2050's/60's when what remains of the UK (assuming Scotland will get independance and maybe Wales/ Northern Ireland also leave UK) and other nations oppsed to integration who by now are just pawns, being bullied by the USA, Russia and China, will realise that EU was the way to go.

Interesting assertion about Scotland.

 

[Cutlass]

The future is dark I guess

Too much history I suppose. At least some of us in the US see Turkey as pretty critical in the foreseeable future. But that doesn't overcome the conflicts Turkey has with it's neighbors.

 

[Shekwan]

How on Earth does closely integrated EU mean "return to the good old days of european imperialism"? Explain, because that sounds utterly ridiculous.

Well further integration means integration of foreign policy and military power. The desire to do this means there must be a desire for states such as France and Germany to assert their will on a world stage... hence the imperialism. But hey better european imperialism then Chinese/Indian etc. or even US. I mean you've often posted about European states being ''toys'' in the hands of the US and other upcoming superpowers, what reason have you to believe that the EU as a superpower will not ''toy'' with smaller states that it can influence?

I don't mean imperialism as a negative term, I just hope those supporters of such a path remember the human cost of imperialism in europes past.

 

[Winner]

Too much history I suppose. At least some of us in the US see Turkey as pretty critical in the foreseeable future. But that doesn't overcome the conflicts Turkey has with it's neighbors.

Histor has nothing to do with this. I've never heard the argument "I don't want more integration because the Germans are evil Nazis and the French are Napolenoic maniacs". Not from anyone with half a brain anyway.

 

[Winner]

Well further integration means integration of foreign policy and military power. The desire to do this means there must be a desire for states such as France and Germany to assert their will on a world stage... hence the imperialism.

That's another word you should look up in the dictionary.

Many EU members believe that Europe is weak, incapable of its own military actions and other foreign policy initiatives. BUT that does not mean they want to act like the US or, Gods forbid, like they did in the 19th century.

Europe should be able to keep peace in its sphere of influence. For example, if genocidal war erupts somewhere in Africa and the US turn a blind eye as usual, EU should be able to send in its own forces to stop the bloodshed and restore peace.

Other uses for common military is to protect European borders (common taskforces have already been deployed to protect maritime borders during migrant waves) and assist the UN peackeeping missions.

Why people always expect the worst without a reason, that's beyond my understanding.

But hey better european imperialism then Chinese/Indian etc. or even US. I mean you've often posted about European states being ''toys'' in the hands of the US and other upcoming superpowers, what reason have you to believe that the EU as a superpower will not ''toy'' with smaller states that it can influence?

European Union is a differend entity. It is not a nation state, so it is more open to soft approach, it does not promote narrow national interests. EU has much better reputation than the US or Russia, although it has "swallowed" 12 countries in the last 5 years and it estabilished "protectorates" over 5 more, while others are trying to get in too.

In Africa, Asia or Latin America, EU is respected as a reasonable and honorable partner. The only thing you hear from countries there is not "you should back off" but "you should do more".

That's the point. We can't do more without having the capability.

I don't mean imperialism as a negative term, I just hope those supporters of such a path remember the human cost of imperialism in europes past.

What supporters? I've never met the people you're talking about here.

 

[T!ck]

Interesting assertion about Scotland.

Well the Scottish national party has proposed independance and both the Scottish and English public are in favour. The UK government were ok with it as far as I remember. All that remains is for the government to take formal action.

If Scotland goes then maybe the Welsh will also want to go, hopefully these steps will get through to the English public that we are no longer some sort of great empire dictating world events, that title passed to our puppeteer, the USA, a long time ago.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Well the Scottish national party has proposed independance and both the Scottish and English public are in favour. The UK government were ok with it as far as I remember. All that remains is for the government to take formal action.

If Scotland goes then maybe the Welsh will also want to go, hopefully these steps will get through to the English public that we are no longer some sort of great empire dictating world events, that title passed to our puppeteer, the USA, a long time ago.

As someone in the UK, I have to ask, what the blazes are you on about???

The SNP has proposed independence, but this is far from a popular idea in both Scotland and the rest of the UK, and certainly isn't "OK" with the British government. Furthermore, you shouldn't see the SNP in charge of Scotland as a cry for independence - they gained much support in the election due to their promise of not even talking about independence until nearer the end of their first term in office.

 

[Yoda Power]

I want more integration all around not a divided Europe.

Bad idea.

 

[Shekwan]

Well I would define an Empire as a state which exerts its will culturally and politically on others. Thats why the EU would become an empire in much the same way as the US is an empire today. Yeah sure the EU talks about using ''soft power'' and good intentions. If i believed the governments spin on such endeavors I would believe that the US is bringing democracy to Iraq. Again this is not necessarily a bad thing, I would prefer to see the EU pulling its weight in international issues.

Ok europe should have the ability to establish and keep peace worldwide. The US did this over the last century and became the most powerful and prosperous country in history. This doesn't mean that the US is not an empire. I don't mean that the EU would employ 19th century style imperialism by a long shot, but the modern US style approach. Again, I don't believe this is a bad thing or a ''doomsday scenario''. But what other reason do you have for a militarised EU other than an attempt at global power and the trappings of imperialism that comes with it. You can call it whatever euphemism you want and justify it with peace keeping capability, but it's still an attempt at hegemony.

You can protect your own backyard and establish peace in Africa without creating a federal EU. Look at the EU troops in Chad, as for Darfur I believe European and US troops are not wanted there by the governments of the region. ( Of course one can say, '' go in anyway they're corrupt''. This for me is an imperialistic move. )

By ''supporters'' in my previous post I mean supporters of european integration.

I'm not expecting the worst, I think your negative interpretation of the word empire makes you think I'm describing some sort of dystopian future where the EU is an evil empire USSR style. Hey, if you guys want to go out pursuing hegemony by setting up a two speed EU thats fine by me. All that will achieve is give all the economic benefits, whilst a select few are spending resources on military adventures. It's all good. I don't see how it solves your problem of so called ''eurosceptics'',

 

[Winner]

I want more integration all around not a divided Europe.

Bad idea.

What one wants and what's possible are often two different things...

 

[Steph]

But what other reason do you have for a militarised EU other than an attempt at global power and the trappings of imperialism that comes with it.

A common defense policy means more integration, standardization, resource pooling and streamlining of already existing armies.
It's not a militarization.

 

[Winner]

Well I would define an Empire as a state which exerts its will culturally and politically on others.

Then every nation on Earth is an empire. Do you want your neighbour to sign a treaty of friendship? You're an imperialist. Did you open an cultural center in other country's capital? Bloody imperialism!

Thats why the EU would become an empire in much the same way as the US is an empire today. Yeah sure the EU talks about using ''soft power'' and good intentions. If i believed the governments spin on such endeavors I would believe that the US is bringing democracy to Iraq. Again this is not necessarily a bad thing, I would prefer to see the EU pulling its weight in international issues.

Ok europe should have the ability to establish and keep peace worldwide. The US did this over the last century and became the most powerful and prosperous country in history.

No, actually the US first fought a hot war against Nazi Germany and Japan, and then it fought a Cold War against the Soviet bloc. Its motives were different.

EU wouldn't fight anybody, just protect its vital interest - stability. And EU, unlike Russia or the US, does not do that by means of invasions and regime change, against the will of the rest of the world.

This doesn't mean that the US is not an empire. I don't mean that the EU would employ 19th century style imperialism by a long shot, but the modern US style approach. Again, I don't believe this is a bad thing or a ''doomsday scenario''. But what other reason do you have for a militarised EU other than an attempt at global power and the trappings of imperialism that comes with it. You can call it whatever euphemism you want and justify it with peace keeping capability, but it's still an attempt at hegemony.

You can protect your own backyard and establish peace in Africa without creating a federal EU. Look at the EU troops in Chad, as for Darfur I believe European and US troops are not wanted there by the governments of the region. ( Of course one can say, '' go in anyway they're corrupt''. This for me is an imperialistic move. )

Do you have any idea how bloody hard it is to get even the most simple missions started? And even that can't be done without NATO offering its capacities, thus the EU is still indirectly dependant on the US.

We have 27 general staffs commanding militaries which are together just a shadow of the US one. Don't you think this is complete waste of time and effort? Why do we need so many reduntant commands? Why don't we coordinate our efforts to make the little we have matter more?

This is the point of the integration. Not some militarization or imperialism, as you say.

By ''supporters'' in my previous post I mean supporters of european integration.

I don't support any of what you say I do then.

I'm not expecting the worst, I think your negative interpretation of the word empire makes you think I'm describing some sort of dystopian future where the EU is an evil empire USSR style. Hey, if you guys want to go out pursuing hegemony by setting up a two speed EU thats fine by me. All that will achieve is give all the economic benefits, whilst a select few are spending resources on military adventures. It's all good. I don't see how it solves your problem of so called ''eurosceptics'',

How many times do I have to say that your idea of "common defense policy" is totally wrong?

 

[Shekwan]

A common defense policy means more integration, standardization, resource pooling and streamlining of already existing armies.
It's not a militarization.

I believe the during the French presidency they are going to push for more of members GDPs to be spent on defense. Crazy numbers like 6% of GDP have been thrown around, which I don't believe, but it's definately going to be proposed that we spend more.

What is the objective of pooling the resources but to project power abroad? And that can only be achieved through militarisation. It would be naive to believe this upped spending has any other aim.

Heres a link that makes for interesting reading, the French want all the states to spend the same GDP on defense. Which if implemented I would certainly class as militarisation, look at how much some states would have to spend to catch up with France, Germany etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/06/in_defence_of_europe.html

As for Winner's comments...

I said empires exert their will, not seek to. Look at the French and Germans in 2003, they were against war in Iraq, but were unable to exert heir will to stop it. This is the difference - the EU wants to exert their will on a global scale. This for me is an empire, it may be a ''benevolent empire'', but an empire nonetheless. Are there objections to this term because you genuinely don't believe this is the EU's aim or because I use the term ''empire'' and it's negative connotations?

You say the EU military is a shadow of the US one. Where'e the desire to become a rival to US military power coming from? I understand that EU forces would be dependant on the US, for mainly transport solutions, but this can be remedied without federalisation.

Ok you make a valid point about integrating commands. We don't need federalisation for that. Theres an integrated French-Irish force in Chad now. Theres an article above about group taskforces above - they seem to be working pretty well. Still doesn't explain why we need to federalise.

I'm not saying federalisation and the inevitable militarisation/ military deployment is a bad thing. It just annoys me that the supporters of such a thing blatantly deny that its an attempt for the EU to get into the thick of the international power game. To be able to do that a form of empire will emerge. Instead they say we need it for ''peace-keeping'' and ''border security''... Honestly who is going to invade an EU country as it stands?!

 

[Yoda Power]

What one wants and what's possible are often two different things...

I know.

But I have to draw a line somewhere. In theory I'm all for pragmatism, but come on Winner...

How are we ever going to have a united Europe if we accept division?

 

[REDY]

I think thats two-speed EU would be soon multi-speed EU...it would make only more mess.
I have voted last option.

 

[Disenfrancised]

As someone in the UK, I have to ask, what the blazes are you on about???

The SNP has proposed independence, but this is far from a popular idea in both Scotland and the rest of the UK, and certainly isn't "OK" with the British government. Furthermore, you shouldn't see the SNP in charge of Scotland as a cry for independence - they gained much support in the election due to their promise of not even talking about independence until nearer the end of their first term in office.

Echoing: T!ck you should also note that the other parties, unionists all, received the majority of the vote, its just that no single one of them managed to match the SNP. Frankly as VC said the SNP getting in isn't an endorsement of independence, if I was still in Scotland I'd probably have voted for them due to them actually getting things done/being annoyed at labour right now, whilst voted against in any independence referendum.

As to the Thread subject: I think a two speed voting EU would undermine its democratic creditability and provoke resentment between the two tiers. I might prefer a single EU parliament doing the legislating, whilst various opt-in committees are set up under that for things like the CAP, EU reaction-force, Schengen etc run by governments willing to contribute, and those that don't contribute don't get a say in that areas running...though that's just off the top of my head with no concern for any problems that might occur .

 

[Winner]

I know.

But I have to draw a line somewhere. In theory I'm all for pragmatism, but come on Winner...

How are we ever going to have a united Europe if we accept division?

I thought that too, but given how things are evolving now... If this treaty fails, I mean really fails, we won't have any other option. History shows us that if you can't convince the others, you need to set up an example. Only then will they follow you.

 

[Cato the Elder]

After having a good thought about it, a two-speed Europe isn't a good idea. Integration shouldn't be rushed, and countries such as the UK, Ireland, and the Scandinavian states are such important parts of Europe that they could not possibly be left out of a potential union. Hell, I'm going to go so far as to say that the EU should not be federalised until all European nations are part of it, including Turkey and yes, even Russia.

 

[gangleri2001]

I'm studying translation of german, so the EU might be one of my clients in the future (the mayor of my town works also in Strassburg). I'm enjoying an Erasmus. When I came here, in Germany, I did not have to change my money because they use euros.

And what's my conclusion after enjoying the EU like few people? DIMANTLE THE F***ING EU RIGHT NOW! SAY NO TO THE UNION!!!!

SCREW YOU, EUROPE!!!!