Two-speed EU?

[Winner]

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.

Then it won't happen, ever. With Turkey and Russia being in before federalization, it's simply not possible.

EU must unite while it is culturally relatively homogenous.

 

[Steph]

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.

When Sarkozy is closing bases in France, delaying the building of a second aircraft carrier...

What is the objective of pooling the resources but to project power abroad?

To increase efficiency and reduce cost. Do we need 5 different types of aircrafts or tanks, all filling the same role? We could have one type, saving cost on development, training and maintenance.

 

[Winner]

When Sarkozy is closing bases in France, delaying the building of a second aircraft carrier...

Closing bases and disbanding garrisons doesn't have to be a bad thing. Europe is literally full of Cold war military culture and most European militaries are like 95% cold war, 5% 21st century.

If we got rid of the cold war stuff (entire armoured divisions, expensive interceptor squadrons, artillery battalions etc.) and invested the money into changing our military into modern force capable of fighting in 21st century wars instead, it would be far more sensible.

To increase efficiency and reduce cost. Do we need 5 different types of aircrafts or tanks, all filling the same role? We could have one type, saving cost on development, training and maintenance.

Well, France is the one country which has a problem with that

 

[Ansar]

Then it won't happen, ever. With Turkey and Russia being in before federalization, it's simply not possible.

EU must unite while it is culturally relatively homogenous.

Well, that depends on who you consider culturally homogenous.

 

[Winner]

Well, that depends on who you consider culturally homogenous.

(ex)Christian countries which consider themselves European.

 

[ArneHD]

(ex)Christian countries which consider themselves European.

So, Albania?

 

[innonimatu]

To increase efficiency and reduce cost. Do we need 5 different types of aircrafts or tanks, all filling the same role? We could have one type, saving cost on development, training and maintenance.

Suppose we were to have only one. Want a bet it would be manufactured by EADS, or Wegmann? France benefits, Germany benefits... what's in it for the other european nations?

No thank you, I'd rather negotiate will all possible suppliers first, and then either choose one or see if joining an european project for a particular design was desirable.
NOT being forced to buy whatever the french, british & german with to sell.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I would welcome a two-speed EU. It would erode the current sense of unity among EU members and create a sense of separation between EU1 and EU2 members. This would help people like me, who want to destroy the EU, by letting them play one group of members against the other.

And the general rule is that if something makes me happy, it's a bad idea for pro-EU people.

 

[bhsup]

I would welcome a two-speed EU. It would erode the current sense of unity among EU members and create a sense of separation between EU1 and EU2 members. This would help people like me, who want to destroy the EU, by letting them play one group of members against the other.

And the general rule is that if something makes me happy, it's a bad idea for pro-EU people.

Why do you want the EU to fail? Mind you, it isn't that I want it to succeed so much as I figure as Americans, it really isn't our business how Europe does or does not integrate. Why not just wish them the best of luck whichever direction they end up going?

(and of course remind them, at every opportunity, of how they better be ready to lose UN seats the second they have a unified foreign policy)

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Why do you want the EU to fail? Mind you, it isn't that I want it to succeed so much as I figure as Americans, it really isn't our business how Europe does or does not integrate. Why not just wish them the best of luck whichever direction they end up going?

(and of course remind them, at every opportunity, of how they better be ready to lose UN seats the second they have a unified foreign policy)

Because I want the United States to be the most powerful country in the world, and a unified Europe has the potential to be more powerful than the United States.

 

[Mirc]

Because I want the United States to be the most powerful country in the world, and a unified Europe has the potential to be more powerful than the United States.

That's a dangerous attitude, IMHO. Possibly the most dangerous for humanity of those you can have in this matter. I understand the desire to be the best. I understand the desire to see someone fail as you disagree with their ideas and policies. But I do not understand intentionally keeping others "in darkness" simply so you can be stronger than them so you can rule over them.

And YES, I do think I would think the same even if I wasn't directly involved in this as an European citizen.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

There are enough threads at CFC about how I am a terrible person. This thread should focus on the pros and cons of the proposal mentioned by Winner, not on me.

 

[Cato the Elder]

Then it won't happen, ever. With Turkey and Russia being in before federalization, it's simply not possible.

EU must unite while it is culturally relatively homogenous.

Uhm, Winner, this is the European Union we're talking about, not the Third Reich.

Imo there's as much difference between a Brit and a Pole as there is between a Russian or Turk. A Portuguese has as much in common with a Finn as she does with a Ukrainian. The special bit about the EU is that it's a mix of so many different cultures, who still are, surprisingly similar in the end. And if you'd ever decently talk with a Russian or Turk you'd realise this counts for them as well. (spare those living in backwards rural areas, but people in backward rural areas are exceptions everywhere)

 

[innonimatu]

Uhm, Winner, this is the European Union we're talking about, not the Third Reich.

Come on, just check the armband:

 

[jessiecat]

That's a dangerous attitude, IMHO. Possibly the most dangerous for humanity of those you can have in this matter. I understand the desire to be the best. I understand the desire to see someone fail as you disagree with their ideas and policies. But I do not understand intentionally keeping others "in darkness" simply so you can be stronger than them so you can rule over them.

And YES, I do think I would think the same even if I wasn't directly involved in this as an European citizen.

I think you understand his attitude as well as I do. In order for American dominance to prevail he needs potential rivals like a unified Europe to fail. No mystery there at all. It just shows how insecure the supposed superiority of his America really is. So fragile that it depends on the weakness of others, and how sad.

 

[Ansar]

Come on, just check the armband:

So true.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Interesting Idea, not sure where Poland stands though.

On one hand, we want to be part of the "Core" EU, while on the other hand, we want to be a part of the EU but also want to enjoy the benefits of befriended the United States...

 

[TheLastOne36]

So, Albania?

Albanians were Christian EUROPEANS before the ottomans came along. The Turks forced most of the albanians to convert to Islam (some doing so willingly just to be in favor with the Ottomans). That is why 60% of the Population is islam while the 40% are christian.

What about Georgia and Armenia though?

 

[Mise]

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

Funny, because, I bet if you conducted the same poll on the British population, you'd get pretty much the same response.

Labour would lose the vote simply because it's an unpopular Labour government in power right now. There'd be almost no dialogue on the actual content of the document, and arguments would centre around issues only vaguely related to Europe and probably nothing to do with the treaty itself. If the Labour government was as popular as it was before Iraq, we'd probably favour it. The only statistic that would be different is the last, for this reason.

The real problem with EU integration in this country is that no-one actually discusses it.

 

[Winner]

I would welcome a two-speed EU. It would erode the current sense of unity among EU members and create a sense of separation between EU1 and EU2 members. This would help people like me, who want to destroy the EU, by letting them play one group of members against the other.

And the general rule is that if something makes me happy, it's a bad idea for pro-EU people.

Actually, it might be the other way round.

Optimistic scenario:

EU core develops and integrates fast. It's power and influence grows and eventually the EU light members decide that they don't want to stay out anymore. Result: an EU integrated more than ever before and much faster.

For people like you, the present state of deadlock is an advantage. It is obviously too big to be effective. Any step towards making it more effective should be against your interest.