💁♂ Patreon: www.patreon.com/eumadesimple Thank you for your AMAZING support. Your view, like and comment mean a lot, but if you want to do more, please sign up to Patreon. Correction: 10:03 - the Left currently have 38 seats. NOT 176.
Before I watch it. Full integration is not possible and even not wanted. It is concept lurking somewhere from the foundation. But realistically EU is currently in too large power imbalance. With Germany and France playing too big role and neglecting needs of Eastern European countries. Who start forming own alternative in form of Three Seas Infinitive. What is not because of Europe of two speeds. It is to prevent it, as West part of EU neglect East part and go through its own internal crisis. While concept of singular army was competently discredited by the structural weakens of the West. What can't agree even on the army model, with more COIN focused france, navy focused UK (when they still were in EU) and inept politic of the Germany. While everyone else was doing own thing as Iberia, Italy and Nordics, have own things and no one ask them about opinion. What lead to East Europe loosing patience and going into alliance with US. Still EU is far from falling apart. Everyone still profit too much from the deal, including those openly opposing EU. I think those crisis actually make EU stronger, promoting organic unification over pipe dreams. United Army is a basically a joke. But I do see local unification, done rather in standard of the NATO, who should be the one doing that. Nordic states create joint air force, what would more effectively cooperate during conflict. East Europe also go through its own Army standardisation and unification. As they may need fight together against common threat. While France and Germany can't agree what canon put in they shared Tanks. But at the same time, they are not in direct threat. And that goes also in the other zones. I actually do see unified migration polity, but it must acknowledge needs of all sides. It is note worthy that Germans talk about redistribution, when they lost control over own unregulated migration, while they start hesitate when East European countries. Actually did something with problem of weaponized migrants. But I think everyone can and should agree on some bottom line there. Fiscal policy is consolidated, but Eurozone must first solve its own problems. So in short. I expect something in between. A strong confederacy. With united, what should be united and relatively high level of independence, where it should be independent. In a sense I don't hate Brexit. It was really bad idea, but it also prove the concept in that zone.
INGLÊS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Which is better, multi-speed or cohesive evolution? It's just that I'm a bit of epp and sed -I think voting by qualified majority is very positive, a stronger parliament and defense, greater autonomy for the EU even though we lose a little sovereignty, because united we are stronger and that is the pure truth, but also justice, freedom and equality. I think these factors are very important, I'm a bit of both parties: sed and epp and I wanted to know which party defends all this. -to evolve, I think we need a more cohesive, robust and autonomous EU on general issues such as economy, climate, immigration, defense, and also a union of all, which could be problematic if differences of ideas arise, such as Hungary, the more countries the better, for me even the whole world could enter if they had the same values, freedom, justice above all, but also the slower the laws will be approved if they are all by total 100% consent, I think that's what the EU need and - 3 types of voting, some things with a 100% vote from all countries (e.g. entry of new members), other things with a qualified majority vote 75%, and others by (majority) on some things 50%, a Stronger parliament and defense, greater EU autonomy, justice, freedom and equality. - only in this way can we evolve and help other nations to evolve. - whether we like it or not, we are all in the same boat (planet) and because the last few years it has been peaceful, this is not a premise for everything to remain the same in the future, only by adapting and improving can we survive the other adversities present in societies and beliefs (wars), internal (volcanic eruptions) and external (comets) of the planet, etc... PORTUGAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -qual é melhor, uma evoluçao em varias velocidades ou coesa? é que eu so um poco de epp e sed -eu acho muito bem a votação por maioria qualificada, um parlamento e defesa mais fortes, maior autonomia para a EU mesmo perdendo um poco de soberania, pois unidos somos mais fortes e essa e a pura verdade, mas também justiça, liberdade e igualdade eu acho fatores muito importantes, eu so um poco de ambos os partidos: sed e epp e eu queria saber qual partido defende tudo isto. -para evoluir eu acho que precisamos de uma EU mais coesa e rubusta e autónoma em questões gerais como economia, clima, imigração, defesa, e tambem de uma uniao de todos, o que pode ser problematico se hover divergencias de ideias como a hungria, quantos mais paises melhor, por mim ate o mudo todo podia entrar se tivessem os mesmos valores, liberdade, justiça a cima de tudo, mas tambem mais devagar serao aprovados as leis se forem todas por total consenço 100%, acho que o que a EU precisa e de - 3 tipos de votaçao, algumas coisas com uma votaçao de todos os paises 100% (ex: entrada de novos membros), outras coisas com uma votaçao de maioria qualificada 75%, e outras por (maioria) em algumas coisas 50%, um parlamento e defesa mais fortes, maior autonomia EU, justiça, liberdade e igualdade. - so assim podemos evoluir e ajudar outras naçoes que entre a evoluir. -querendo ou nao, estamos todos no mesmo barco(planeta) e la porque nos ultimos tem sido uma paz, isso nao é premissa para que no futuro continue tudo igual, so nos adaptando e melhorando podemos srobeviver as demais advercidades presentes nas sociedades e crenças (guerras), do planeta internas (erupçoes vulcanicas) e externas (cometas) etc...
This is kinda already happening, such as how the benelux is integrated on some aspects, and how the dutch army leases german tanks, and works togheter. Also some countries implement laws faster then other countries, like how France already implement allot of stuff around plastic, where others don't, or where countries don't have the euro, but eventuelly need to implement it. I wouldn't favour a multi-tiered EU regulated on a EU level however, cause that is basicly splitting the EU, as we have a long standard in the EU, that EU law is above national law. And this would dissappear if you say you can integrate or dissintegrate. And like I said, there is no reason to regulate this on the EU level, since you already can sign multi-lateral/bi-lateral agreements within the EU amongst the nation. Lets just integrate like you said, its way easier, cheaper and better.
It will never happen, you want that, but have you ever thought what eastern countries want? As example, I'm from Romania, and we've been treated like shit many times by countries like Austria, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium. We're treated like second class citizens, I cannot imagine a integrated EU because it would mean Germany, France and Belgium would rule over the rest. No Thanks
There will be no unified EU. The western, most developed and richer countries have a superiority complex that doesn't allow this integration. For example, Romania and Bulgaria are fulfilling the criteria for entering schengen, but they are not allowed to join, despite the recommendation of the EU commission. Just imagine France or Germany seeing eastern EU countries as equals and actually asking the opinion of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, or any eastern country before actually doing something for their interest. They only see us as cheap labor. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro EU and I want an integrated unified EU. I'm aware of the benefits of being in the EU, and I know that more developed countries are paying more contributions for the EU funds, funds that are allocated for development of less developed countries. Overall they are making a difference for the better for us, but they don't see us as equals and never will, despite the propaganda they show on public declarations.
@@andyangel9818 Exactly, I am pro eu but very Against an European Federation, and that is because of the German and French majority, they will have all the power, you could call it the Franco-German empire at that point, as the rest of us will have 0 power
@@andyangel9818 You're not wrong. I'm from Germany and viewing Eastern Europe as inferior is a bit of a cultural tradition here. Has been for hundreds of years. But I think a unified EU would only help with that, slowly making nationality less important until we all call ourselves EU citizens first and our nationality second. I hope that eventually this extends to the political level and every European country gets treated fairly by the EU. I think isolating from the EU would make these issues worse. The EU isn't perfect but I believe it has a lot of potential and can be changed for the better. In fact, despite it being such a young institution, I think it has already done a lot of good.
True, but I can see many that don't want integration not wanting that idea, the main reason being, even though the countries that don't want integration, don't have to do so in that system, they likely know that by not doing so, would put them at a disadvantage compared to others that do integrate. Longer term, the countries that do further political and economic integration will have more advantages over the rest, that would likely put more pressure on the others to follow and integrate, especially if they see it working. So on the surface, a multi speed EU might seem like it's allowing countries to integrate, to do so and the ones that don't want to, to stay on the side, the reality is, over the longer run, it's likely going to pull almost all countries in, we kinda see that with the Schengen zone and the Euro Zone, starts out with a few and more and more join overtime until almost all are in it. With all that said, I do think a multi speed EU could work, let countries move forward at their own pace whiles allowing others to hang back and move at their own pace, and we kinda already have that with the Euro Zone, which is the vast bulk of political and economic power in the EU and is by far the core of the EU, which if I'm being honest, these are the countries that matter, as for the rest, most of the eastern bloc will in time join the Euro Zone, but the ones that don't, they could find themselves being isolated in the EU as more focus goes on Euro Zone countries because their policies in a lot of areas will match up closer with each other, which puts the remaining countries at odds or their interest being overshadowed, which in turn will either put pressure on these countries to integrate further or to leave entirely.
@@paul1979uk2000 Further integration does not automatically construe an advantage. For more poor countries who wealth is being directed to, integrated budgets will be an advantage; for wealthier countries, the opposite. For policy packages - you do not need to integrate to copy a more successful policy, so regardless, integration in and of itself is not what grants the advantage. For economic cooperation - no reason that can't happen under the current system. I'm neither pro nor anti integration, but I think claiming that integrationist countries would automatically be advantaged is a baseless assumption.
@@paul1979uk2000 That actually sounds as an advantage since it gives the not-that-bright-voters-and-their-populist-parties club the power to pretend that it was their choice to integrate and that that was their plan all along. People don't like being told that they're a bit slow in their water melon on the neck but do like to be the ones to brag about how they were the ones that did the great move. On the other hand as you've said... With such people you never know when they'd get the brilliant idea of repeating Brexit... But tbh sometimes you just have to let the rot fall away...
@@bicker31 Reminds me of me not willing to eat out or buy anything else than gasoline during the week when I was in Bulgaria simply because I didn't want to be bothered with a different currency (and I have such attitude everywhere - to the extent that I had to be forced to go out of Schengen area to begin with... which means that since Brexit I don't buy anything from UK [the country that also got my "different currency" treatment when I was there but at least got money out of me via online shopping until the Brexit] and no longer go on vacation there since it's too much hustle to be bothered with). So yeah... I agree with you... If most people in EU are not lazy enough to ignore countries that are too different in rules etc. then there's no advantage in integration. But... If there's more people like me... Then the not integrated countries would quickly start becoming the underdogs. It'd be an interesting experiment to see which type of EU citizen is in majority so you've just convinced me to be in favor of multi tier EU :) thx :)
Yeah vote for a George Soros financed pro mass migration and green nonsense party😂 Cause nothing says United Europe with demographics that look like Brazil😂
The graph was super helpful to place the different parties and their approaches! Even though there are a few parties whose policies I don't really agree with, I'm kind of relieved to see no major party in the bottom left
Now with a longer video🤩🙌! Scenario 3 & 4 please (one step back, two steps forward)! Favorite RUclips-Channel for 2023! Keep Going! Big greetings, now from The Netherlands! 🇳🇱🇩🇰
@@EUMadeSimple Happy to see you fulfill my wishes! All my donations are defiantly worth it🙌🇪🇺! - Feel free to reach out if wanna meet for a coffee and discuss EU-politics one day😉🇳🇱 Wishing you and your channel all the best!💙💛
To be competitive you will need resources, what the EU now doing is make them 100 percent dependent to the US with high prices. Looks to all weapons they are US made.
@@TheAstrobiologistOW As things stand, scenario 5 would only be possible and feasible if we first go with scenario 1 or 3. A successful scenario 3 would be the best thing for europe, because it would embolden everyone to give a serious try to scenario 5. However, if it fails horribly it would mean scenarios 2 and 4 would come next. At the very least, it seems that scenario 6 is impossible right now. Which is something, I guess.
@@doomerbloomer6160 i think it is possible to reach scenario 5 via scenario 4. As scenario 4 includes deeper Integration, but on less fields. And on that could then be expanded upon again
I honestly don't think scenario 3 is a viable option, since you already can sign agreements amongst the nation states, so there is no reason to make law on the EU level to do so. The only thing scenario 3 can do, is cause'ing the debate on what rules more, nation law or EU law. Which basicly puts the whole of the EU law on shakey grounds, if you don't have to listen to EU anymore, cause you dissintegrated that part you didn't like, cause reasons. I agree with the original comment, 1, 4, 5.
I'd take option 5, together we can develop to a nation which might be able to compete with China & US in economical & geopolitical areas. Each EU nation alone won't stand a chance.
@@Oneath Economically, it'd be Southern Europe benefiting from a united EU. The North would have to compensate, making it a not so popular decision for half of Europe.
@@d3d952 Yeah, that's true. More growth potential. Though countries like Norway and Denmark do have do have huge deposits of natural resoures. So if we're looking at overal potential, I suppose both halfs are kind of in a symbiotic relationship either way.
@@csibesz07 Why not? thats the Only logical thing to do, the one step to go. Just imagine a European Army would be so much cheaper and could react so much better to Threats to the EU because of the same Training. I Think it wouldnt be like all membering Country would loose their Culture, indeed i Think the Cultural Diversity is the Strength of Europe and must be preserved. I also would use the Presidential System in every State, no Bundeskanzler and Bundespräsident for Germany, we would have the German President and his Prime Minister and Europes Chief would be the Prime President or the Premier President, what ever sounds nicer ;D.
I really love your videos about the EU it's well designed and simple.Furthermore I would suggest you to make videos on controversed subjects in the EU like the von der leyen/Pfizer scandal or the recent qatargate events it will help bringing the truth about this because many eurosceptics wonder why mainstream medias are silent to these issues. The main consequence of this is a lack of trust in the EU institutions.
I am inclined towards scenario 5, but I believe that European countries should have more autonomy on some things, for example taking a step back on fishing laws, could favor the entry of the Nordic nations, who see this policy as an obstacle to the entrance.
@@fintonmainz7845 Not now, but in a future where Schengen and NATO no longer exist, they might change their minds, whether for security or travel reasons.
I want option 5, or option 3. I love EU, there has been peace since 1945 in Europe thanks to EU except for 2 times, the balkan war in the 90's and the late russian invasion of Ukraine. But it has never been a war inside EU. EU can much more easily stand up against USA, Russia, China and India united as one union, and I hope in the future a United States of Europe, than 27 countries on their own
Great overview, thanks! I believe you left out an important area of integration that is supported across most political groups: healthcare and public health. There have been unprecedented moved in this field, namely the EU pharma strategy, the European health Data Space, and more.
Whichever direction the EU goes, there's a lot more talk about it in the EU and among its members, it also looks like momentum and support is building to do some real change and as for when there are serious talks of treaty change, I suspect 2025 onwards with the gauntlet more or less being set to no later than 2030. The reason I say that is because, if there is no progress happening by then and there are no real signs of new members being able to join the EU by 2030, a lot of these countries could give up on the idea of joining the EU and look at other options, after all, they are not going to wait forever. But this isn't a blank cheque for these new countries that wants to join the EU, there's still a lot of work and reforms they need to do, but the EU needs to get its act together and show that the door is actually open for these countries to join, it would encourage more reforms in those countries, whiles at the same time, give the EU and its members enough time to discuss and reform the EU, so it can work better internally and with new future members and I think 2030 is being seen as the limit, that if there are no signs of change, no hope of these countries joining, I suspect a lot of them will give up and find other solutions away from the EU. So the clock is ticking on both side that I think serious talks need to start happening by around 2025, even if it takes months or even years to come to a conclusion, there are needs to be signs that progress is happening, after all, just look at Turkey, they more or less abandon the idea of joining the EU because real progress wasn't happening and fair enough, a big part of that problem was Turkey not doing enough reforms, but part of the problem is the EU and some of its members more or less shutting the door, many of these eastern European countries feel like they are in the same boat that joining the EU is a pipe dream, if many of these countries act on that, the EU could lose a lot of support from these countries, which will harm it's future plans of expanding in those regions, which longer term will hurt EU and it's members interest, especially if the EU wants to compete with the US and China long term. To put it bluntly, the EU and it's members have been wasting too much time over the last decade and now are playing catch up and need to find solutions to make this work, and there are many options if the political will is there to make it happen. Also, let's be blunt about this, you can't have economic integration without political integration, if we want to reap the benefits of further economic integration, we're going to need further integration to set standard laws, rules and regulations throughout the EU countries, on top of that, if European countries really want to compete better with the US and China, we're going to need further political and economic integration, especially on the political side, because that is where we are weak and both the US and China already take advantage of that, whereas it's a lot harder for them to do that on the economic side because we are a lot more integrated there, which makes us stronger. Also, when it comes to integration, it's not an absolute and in one direction, there are many things that can be done at a local level and done better, and not so much national level but local city level, but there are also many areas that are better being done at a supernational level with the EU, especially on the economy and external political matters and it's a fine line in getting the right balance, but things will need to change if the EU and it's members want to remain competitive with the US and China long term and I suspect it's going to be external forces like the US and China that's going to dictate the direction the EU goes, mainly because of the reality check that's needed for us to compete with the bigger players, so unless that reality changes, I don't see many alternatives but to integrate further and the European elections is not going to change that reality, regardless of outcome, all it can do is delay it. The alternatives if Europeans do go in the opposite direction, it's going to be a lot harder for the EU and it's members to protect its political, economic and social interest, which over the long run could weaken many of those areas as pressure from both the US and China builds on them trying to push their values on us, for now, we are strong enough to push that back, but without further integration, I think it could be hard for Europeans to protect these values and let's be blunt, the US have tried many times to push it's own values and standards on Europeans, they've failed because the EU is strong enough to stand up to them, but that can change in the future and likely will if we don't change, basically with further integration and more new EU members.
I think personally, scenario 1 is most likely , if only for the pure reason that doing nothing is always more convenient and easier than changing everything. My personal preference is either a scenario 3 or 5 though.
@a.m.4148 I don´t like the fake ,,liberal,, governments in western Europe, and overall the thinking with green politics, immigration and lgbt agenda and est. I don´t like which direction western Europe goes, I rather stay happy in my own country than go down a path that I know is not right. If the western politics changed to something like Poland I would be happy to unite, but not like this right now.
I prefer more integration, but I recognise that the growth of far-right movements throughout Europe (and the world) would make that difficult. Therefore, a multi-speed/tiered EU is probably the most practical solution, where the closer aligned countries can integrate further, and others can eventually join suit once they have proven their case for the effectiveness of such integration.
what do you mean "we want". Everyone has different visions for the EU. As a white nationalist I want to preserve the ethnic identities of every European nation and stop all immigration from Muslim and African countries.
I’ll go with 4 on this one. “Doing Less But More Efficiently” Soft-Power Economic Giant is the way to go. Especially for overall democratic or technocratic institutions.
All economic power is backed up by military might. There is no such thing as pure soft power. If you're rich but defenseless, that just opens you up for blackmail. The US Dollar is the world's reserve currency precisely because of the US military. Global trade is possible because of the US military (otherwise piracy would be rampant). Sadly we seem to have forgotten this in Europe after WW2. US protection, at the cost of submitting to their foreign policy, has weakened us.
As a Brit who voted Leave I think the EU should demand that all member states adopt the Euro by Jan 1st 2030….or leave the EU. And also any country that wants join the EU have to adopt the Euro upon accession to the EU.
Good one, and nice effort to graphically map the “univers des possibles”. In a broader perspective, I however struggle to agree with the underpinning premise EU institutions work top-down, as a parliamentary federation. First, although some topics are sometimes brought forward by EU bodies (Commission and Council mostly) out of nowhere, the EU is a crisis-solving mechanism in essence. It reacts rather than it acts, and it has done so since its inception. The Schuman Declaration doesn’t let much room for ideology: let’s take one real problem at a time, and let’s see whether and how EU-level policies can or cannot help fixing it. Who would have thought, just five years ago, EU-wide health or defence policies would be a matter for debate? The point is the EU is very much bottom up, and member-states’ appetite and will for integration will mostly depend on external geopolitical factors, as it always did. Second, the main EU powerhouse is not the Commission (and obviously not Parliament), it’s the Council. EU citizens elect their MEPs mostly based on domestic reasons, and they don’t even really do it, as turnouts are always very low. It leads to some serious distorsion between how the EP looks like and what the EU as a whole does. For instance, the winner of last European elections in France was clearly Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National. Yet the french voice and influence within EU institutions are E. Macron’s. The Italian case is even more striking, where the same physical person, G. Meloni, has to perform an impressive contortionist show everyday to reconcile conflicting views on what to do and how to do it. And that’s even without elaborating on how EP works (mostly on cross/trans-groups agreements). At the end of the day, I believe the main real drivers of European integration and policies elude your exposé. Very good job still 👍
I really want both country's is Schengen and don't know why they aren't yet. About euro, it need both people's approval AND economical stability. Some members just don't want to join eurozone.
Evropa nije sa istim indetitetom i nije jedinstvena i pri tome okupirana od strane SAD NIJE VISE SAMOSTALNA MORA DA SLUSA BAJDENA USKORO RASPAD EVROPE NIKO NECE DA BUDE KOLONIJA AMERIKE
I'm half swiss and half Italian. So on one hand I understand that member states want to remain sovereign, I also see and understand that for Europe to be considered relevant in the global landscape we have to unite. The EU has it's issues but I think all of Europe would be worse off without it.
For me europe should be a federation with many rights to the national parlaments but more important things like army would be merged into one european army
No matter who carries on, they should do something about migration... people have a limit to their patience and when that runs out, they might vote right wing as a revenge... and that might be the most humane and civilized thing they do. And let me tell you something... that limit is very close.
Is there some libertarian party in Europe? As far as i can tell there are only left wing parties of different shades, some of them closer to center - those that don't want to tax you to death while pretending to spend the money they they took from you for your own benefit.
Have you wondered why so many migrants come? If more resources were left to Africa, their economies would probably develop and there would be far fewer migrants. The solution would be a Marshal plan with more stable African nations, they earn because they grow, we earn because we become commercial partners and we don't leave them to the Chinese.
@@thomasmerlin4990 Yeah, that's the real problem in Africa, that we take all of their resources; tribal warfare, dictatorships, socialism, slavery and the occasional genocide or American intervention (Libya) have nothing to do with Africa's underdevelopment. For those from the Middle East I blame Islam and American interventions/wars. Merkel's open invitation to millions of migrants also might have had something to do with it. Then there are the coyotes and ONGs facilitating their migration, not to mention the generous welfare programs. There are a myriad of complex causes for the recent waves of immigrants to Europe. Your "solution" is just a more naïve version of China's belt and road initiative.
@@rutessian It is the same Western governments that do business with the dictators of those areas without even considering how resources are managed. Instead, the EU could try to put conditions in place to ensure that it is in the nation's interest not to exploit the populations. Middle East ? coincidentally there are almost never immigrants from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, but always from poor nations at war.
Option 4/2 seems to be the most sensible, followed by 1. Option 3 - multi-speed is probably the worst long-term one, as it means deepening the gap between the countries in the EU, rather than shrinking it. I don't think many people really want options 5 and 6.
2 major party's in the Netherlands haven't aligned them selfs to one of te European partys. I am interested to see what NSC and BBB will do, me guessing they will both join EPP. Also Groenlinks and PVDA (Dutch green and labor party) have merged, so it is unsure who they will join for the EU votings.
I would like to see further integration in matters of foreign policy and defence, but more autonomy regarding internal policy, especially internal security issues. I support further EU expansion, closer political ties between the EU members and a multi-tiered EU.
Option five seems the very best, both for environmental and, more urgently, geopolitical reasons, in my view. It seems particularly essential to consolidate responses to Russia's attempts at westward expansion. However, option three also bears many clear benefits, the greatest seeming to be the strength of the potential political force thy Macron and the New Europeans party are becoming.
Europe sets contradicting goals: - inviting more eastern countries like Balkan countries and Ukraine that increases the cultural and political differences - trying to make the EU more uniform like a federal state The only solution is the two or even three speed Europe.
Comment un bloc qui utilise comme langue familière une langue qui ne vient même pas du continent et qui vient également d’un pays qui n’est même pas dans l’UE peut-il être pris au sérieux en tant qu’Européen?
Qu’on l’aime ou non. L’anglais est devenu la lingua Franca, la nouvelle latin. C’est la langue de commerce de tous les échanges. C’est la langue que la Chine et l’Inde utilise pour communiquer avec le mondeC’est la langue que les espagnols et italiens, les suédois et les grecques, les allemands et les français et parfois les wallons et les flamands utilise pour communiquer entre eux. Le plupart des documents écrits et des réunions à Bruxelles sont en anglais. L ‘alternatif serait une véritable tour de Babel. Il me sembles qu’il y aurait une pénurie des finlandais que comprennent maltais ou portugais que comprennent estonien et vice versa.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 Oui, je comprends. Mais dans l’UE, la langue commune devrait être celle du continent européen, c’est l’Union européenne après tout. Tout comme dans le monde arabe où dans chaque pays, ils ont leur propre version locale de « l’arabe » (une personne d’Irak ne serait pas capable de comprendre l’arabe parlé au Maroc). Mais ils utilisent tous « l’arabe classique » pour l’éducation, les nouvelles et les conférences internationales, pas l’anglais. De même, dans l’Union européenne, nous devrions choisir une langue européenne enracinée sur le continent européen, comme le font les Arabes avec « l’arabe classique ». Cela pourrait être le premier pas vers une VRAIE Union européenne, loin d’une colonie américaine.
I feel so helpless. I am 15 y/o and I would love really much to vote given that many of the voters that I know DON'T EVEN KNOW about what the EU actually does. I would vote for Renew Europe or The Greens given that I would love a fully integrated EU so that it can challenge the other superpowers and maybe be less influenced by the US. I feel that Europe could continue to be prosperous in the future only with the EU alongside the European nations cause no European nations (even Germany) could compete alone with China or the US.
Option 5 should happen (and should be the end goal), but as long as eurosceptic members such as Poland and Hungary operate the way they do, it will prove difficult.
Trueee, I am kinda fed up with Poland and them not adopting the euro. I understand why some countries cannot do it, like bulgaria is a great example, they fit all the requirements, but for all the wrong reasons. But Poland can, but just tricks the EU into saying they cannot, and I feel like taking adventage off.
I can't think of any arguments against a multi-tiered EU, and I'm sad to see Renew Europe lose so many seats. You will never get 27 countries to agree on everything, even in the US states are divided, so multiple tiers are needed, and already exist. Particularly when it comes to defense, I would like to see a strong core of two countries, such as France and Germany, starting an EU defense tier. I suspect many smaller countries would join, and suddenly you have 200+ million Europeans pooling resources together into defense, allowing for a much more respectable army, navy and air force than any one country by itself. Right now we are 27 countries which each maintain their own underfunded militaries, that's just stupid. The US is strong because it's basically 50 countries withba united military. We can do the same to protect our interests, and we wouldn't need nearly as much money to do it.
💁♂ Patreon: www.patreon.com/eumadesimple
Thank you for your AMAZING support. Your view, like and comment mean a lot, but if you want to do more, please sign up to Patreon.
Correction: 10:03 - the Left currently have 38 seats. NOT 176.
@@My_life_hello_World no
4:34 Imaooo so compitent,by Shooting your self in foot
Can you make a video about Volt Europa Party and other Volt Party.
Before I watch it. Full integration is not possible and even not wanted. It is concept lurking somewhere from the foundation. But realistically EU is currently in too large power imbalance. With Germany and France playing too big role and neglecting needs of Eastern European countries. Who start forming own alternative in form of Three Seas Infinitive. What is not because of Europe of two speeds. It is to prevent it, as West part of EU neglect East part and go through its own internal crisis.
While concept of singular army was competently discredited by the structural weakens of the West. What can't agree even on the army model, with more COIN focused france, navy focused UK (when they still were in EU) and inept politic of the Germany. While everyone else was doing own thing as Iberia, Italy and Nordics, have own things and no one ask them about opinion. What lead to East Europe loosing patience and going into alliance with US.
Still EU is far from falling apart. Everyone still profit too much from the deal, including those openly opposing EU. I think those crisis actually make EU stronger, promoting organic unification over pipe dreams. United Army is a basically a joke. But I do see local unification, done rather in standard of the NATO, who should be the one doing that. Nordic states create joint air force, what would more effectively cooperate during conflict. East Europe also go through its own Army standardisation and unification. As they may need fight together against common threat. While France and Germany can't agree what canon put in they shared Tanks. But at the same time, they are not in direct threat.
And that goes also in the other zones. I actually do see unified migration polity, but it must acknowledge needs of all sides. It is note worthy that Germans talk about redistribution, when they lost control over own unregulated migration, while they start hesitate when East European countries. Actually did something with problem of weaponized migrants. But I think everyone can and should agree on some bottom line there. Fiscal policy is consolidated, but Eurozone must first solve its own problems.
So in short. I expect something in between. A strong confederacy. With united, what should be united and relatively high level of independence, where it should be independent. In a sense I don't hate Brexit. It was really bad idea, but it also prove the concept in that zone.
INGLÊS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Which is better, multi-speed or cohesive evolution?
It's just that I'm a bit of epp and sed
-I think voting by qualified majority is very positive, a stronger parliament and defense, greater autonomy for the EU even though we lose a little sovereignty, because united we are stronger and that is the pure truth, but also justice, freedom and equality. I think these factors are very important, I'm a bit of both parties: sed and epp and I wanted to know which party defends all this.
-to evolve, I think we need a more cohesive, robust and autonomous EU on general issues such as economy, climate, immigration, defense, and also a union of all, which could be problematic if differences of ideas arise, such as Hungary, the more countries the better, for me even the whole world could enter if they had the same values, freedom, justice above all, but also the slower the laws will be approved if they are all by total 100% consent, I think that's what the EU need and
- 3 types of voting, some things with a 100% vote from all countries (e.g. entry of new members), other things with a qualified majority vote 75%, and others by (majority) on some things 50%, a Stronger parliament and defense, greater EU autonomy, justice, freedom and equality.
- only in this way can we evolve and help other nations to evolve.
- whether we like it or not, we are all in the same boat (planet) and because the last few years it has been peaceful, this is not a premise for everything to remain the same in the future, only by adapting and improving can we survive the other adversities present in societies and beliefs (wars), internal (volcanic eruptions) and external (comets) of the planet, etc...
PORTUGAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-qual é melhor, uma evoluçao em varias velocidades ou coesa?
é que eu so um poco de epp e sed
-eu acho muito bem a votação por maioria qualificada, um parlamento e defesa mais fortes, maior autonomia para a EU mesmo perdendo um poco de soberania, pois unidos somos mais fortes e essa e a pura verdade, mas também justiça, liberdade e igualdade eu acho fatores muito importantes, eu so um poco de ambos os partidos: sed e epp e eu queria saber qual partido defende tudo isto.
-para evoluir eu acho que precisamos de uma EU mais coesa e rubusta e autónoma em questões gerais como economia, clima, imigração, defesa, e tambem de uma uniao de todos, o que pode ser problematico se hover divergencias de ideias como a hungria, quantos mais paises melhor, por mim ate o mudo todo podia entrar se tivessem os mesmos valores, liberdade, justiça a cima de tudo, mas tambem mais devagar serao aprovados as leis se forem todas por total consenço 100%, acho que o que a EU precisa e de
- 3 tipos de votaçao, algumas coisas com uma votaçao de todos os paises 100% (ex: entrada de novos membros), outras coisas com uma votaçao de maioria qualificada 75%, e outras por (maioria) em algumas coisas 50%, um parlamento e defesa mais fortes, maior autonomia EU, justiça, liberdade e igualdade.
- so assim podemos evoluir e ajudar outras naçoes que entre a evoluir.
-querendo ou nao, estamos todos no mesmo barco(planeta) e la porque nos ultimos tem sido uma paz, isso nao é premissa para que no futuro continue tudo igual, so nos adaptando e melhorando podemos srobeviver as demais advercidades presentes nas sociedades e crenças (guerras), do planeta internas (erupçoes vulcanicas) e externas (cometas) etc...
I want a unified, integrated EU. But option 3 with everyone choosing their level of integration is a decent alternative.
This is kinda already happening, such as how the benelux is integrated on some aspects, and how the dutch army leases german tanks, and works togheter. Also some countries implement laws faster then other countries, like how France already implement allot of stuff around plastic, where others don't, or where countries don't have the euro, but eventuelly need to implement it.
I wouldn't favour a multi-tiered EU regulated on a EU level however, cause that is basicly splitting the EU, as we have a long standard in the EU, that EU law is above national law. And this would dissappear if you say you can integrate or dissintegrate. And like I said, there is no reason to regulate this on the EU level, since you already can sign multi-lateral/bi-lateral agreements within the EU amongst the nation. Lets just integrate like you said, its way easier, cheaper and better.
It will never happen, you want that, but have you ever thought what eastern countries want? As example, I'm from Romania, and we've been treated like shit many times by countries like Austria, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium. We're treated like second class citizens, I cannot imagine a integrated EU because it would mean Germany, France and Belgium would rule over the rest. No Thanks
There will be no unified EU. The western, most developed and richer countries have a superiority complex that doesn't allow this integration. For example, Romania and Bulgaria are fulfilling the criteria for entering schengen, but they are not allowed to join, despite the recommendation of the EU commission. Just imagine France or Germany seeing eastern EU countries as equals and actually asking the opinion of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, or any eastern country before actually doing something for their interest. They only see us as cheap labor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro EU and I want an integrated unified EU. I'm aware of the benefits of being in the EU, and I know that more developed countries are paying more contributions for the EU funds, funds that are allocated for development of less developed countries. Overall they are making a difference for the better for us, but they don't see us as equals and never will, despite the propaganda they show on public declarations.
@@andyangel9818 Exactly, I am pro eu but very Against an European Federation, and that is because of the German and French majority, they will have all the power, you could call it the Franco-German empire at that point, as the rest of us will have 0 power
@@andyangel9818
You're not wrong. I'm from Germany and viewing Eastern Europe as inferior is a bit of a cultural tradition here. Has been for hundreds of years.
But I think a unified EU would only help with that, slowly making nationality less important until we all call ourselves EU citizens first and our nationality second.
I hope that eventually this extends to the political level and every European country gets treated fairly by the EU.
I think isolating from the EU would make these issues worse. The EU isn't perfect but I believe it has a lot of potential and can be changed for the better.
In fact, despite it being such a young institution, I think it has already done a lot of good.
Realistically speaking, a multi tiered EU is the most reliable way to federalize, since not all countries are equal due to various factors.
True, but I can see many that don't want integration not wanting that idea, the main reason being, even though the countries that don't want integration, don't have to do so in that system, they likely know that by not doing so, would put them at a disadvantage compared to others that do integrate.
Longer term, the countries that do further political and economic integration will have more advantages over the rest, that would likely put more pressure on the others to follow and integrate, especially if they see it working.
So on the surface, a multi speed EU might seem like it's allowing countries to integrate, to do so and the ones that don't want to, to stay on the side, the reality is, over the longer run, it's likely going to pull almost all countries in, we kinda see that with the Schengen zone and the Euro Zone, starts out with a few and more and more join overtime until almost all are in it.
With all that said, I do think a multi speed EU could work, let countries move forward at their own pace whiles allowing others to hang back and move at their own pace, and we kinda already have that with the Euro Zone, which is the vast bulk of political and economic power in the EU and is by far the core of the EU, which if I'm being honest, these are the countries that matter, as for the rest, most of the eastern bloc will in time join the Euro Zone, but the ones that don't, they could find themselves being isolated in the EU as more focus goes on Euro Zone countries because their policies in a lot of areas will match up closer with each other, which puts the remaining countries at odds or their interest being overshadowed, which in turn will either put pressure on these countries to integrate further or to leave entirely.
@@paul1979uk2000 Further integration does not automatically construe an advantage. For more poor countries who wealth is being directed to, integrated budgets will be an advantage; for wealthier countries, the opposite. For policy packages - you do not need to integrate to copy a more successful policy, so regardless, integration in and of itself is not what grants the advantage. For economic cooperation - no reason that can't happen under the current system.
I'm neither pro nor anti integration, but I think claiming that integrationist countries would automatically be advantaged is a baseless assumption.
@@paul1979uk2000 That actually sounds as an advantage since it gives the not-that-bright-voters-and-their-populist-parties club the power to pretend that it was their choice to integrate and that that was their plan all along.
People don't like being told that they're a bit slow in their water melon on the neck but do like to be the ones to brag about how they were the ones that did the great move.
On the other hand as you've said... With such people you never know when they'd get the brilliant idea of repeating Brexit... But tbh sometimes you just have to let the rot fall away...
@@bicker31 Reminds me of me not willing to eat out or buy anything else than gasoline during the week when I was in Bulgaria simply because I didn't want to be bothered with a different currency (and I have such attitude everywhere - to the extent that I had to be forced to go out of Schengen area to begin with... which means that since Brexit I don't buy anything from UK [the country that also got my "different currency" treatment when I was there but at least got money out of me via online shopping until the Brexit] and no longer go on vacation there since it's too much hustle to be bothered with).
So yeah... I agree with you... If most people in EU are not lazy enough to ignore countries that are too different in rules etc. then there's no advantage in integration.
But... If there's more people like me... Then the not integrated countries would quickly start becoming the underdogs.
It'd be an interesting experiment to see which type of EU citizen is in majority so you've just convinced me to be in favor of multi tier EU :) thx :)
@@DerDoMeN So you don't holiday anywhere else in the world because you need a passport and different money. Blimey that must be boring.
I'm in favour of option 3: a multi-tiered EU. I'll surely be voting for a party that's in the Renew Europe Group.
Demographics: tick tock tick tock tick tock
@@tomorrowneverdies567in 5 years Japan would be able to make humans in Lab..... Demographics will go 📈📈📈🤣🤣
@@Doge811 is this satire
Me too. I am with Renew Europe
yea I would most likely vote for Renew europe as well
Awesome. More then lives up to the chanel name!!! With everything covered I'm amazed it's under 15 minutes. Way to go!!!!!
Glad you enjoy it!
Everyone who want a United Europe should vote for Volt in the next EU elections 🇪🇺 🇪🇺 🇪🇺
Yeah vote for a George Soros financed pro mass migration and green nonsense party😂
Cause nothing says United Europe with demographics that look like Brazil😂
And they admitted they are financed by George Soros in Dutch Parliament before you call me a conspiracy
Number 4 is probably my favorite, but it will probably be number 1 for the near future
The graph was super helpful to place the different parties and their approaches! Even though there are a few parties whose policies I don't really agree with, I'm kind of relieved to see no major party in the bottom left
The "doing more together" scenario would be my choice
Now with a longer video🤩🙌! Scenario 3 & 4 please (one step back, two steps forward)!
Favorite RUclips-Channel for 2023! Keep Going!
Big greetings, now from The Netherlands! 🇳🇱🇩🇰
Wow! Thanks Kim. Haha - that is almost all your requests done. Only Swiss, Us, etc. model for the EU remaining. Thanks again !
@@EUMadeSimple Happy to see you fulfill my wishes!
All my donations are defiantly worth it🙌🇪🇺!
- Feel free to reach out if wanna meet for a coffee and discuss EU-politics one day😉🇳🇱
Wishing you and your channel all the best!💙💛
Thank you Kim :) I will do. I will dedicate a lot more time to the channel in the near future. So I will reach out then :)
And thanks for the wishes and donations !
Renew Europe to me has the best approach to staying competitive on the international stage and gradually unifying us as a whole.
To be competitive you will need resources, what the EU now doing is make them 100 percent dependent to the US with high prices. Looks to all weapons they are US made.
@@ferry602exactly, and until the EU doesn’t start doing a fully “made in Europe” and actually be competitive in tech and other stuff, we won’t prosper
I think either scenario 1, or scenario 4 followed by 5 in the future are the most likely.
Yes either way I think scenario 5 is the most likely in the long term
@@TheAstrobiologistOW As things stand, scenario 5 would only be possible and feasible if we first go with scenario 1 or 3. A successful scenario 3 would be the best thing for europe, because it would embolden everyone to give a serious try to scenario 5. However, if it fails horribly it would mean scenarios 2 and 4 would come next. At the very least, it seems that scenario 6 is impossible right now. Which is something, I guess.
@@doomerbloomer6160 i think it is possible to reach scenario 5 via scenario 4. As scenario 4 includes deeper Integration, but on less fields. And on that could then be expanded upon again
I honestly don't think scenario 3 is a viable option, since you already can sign agreements amongst the nation states, so there is no reason to make law on the EU level to do so. The only thing scenario 3 can do, is cause'ing the debate on what rules more, nation law or EU law. Which basicly puts the whole of the EU law on shakey grounds, if you don't have to listen to EU anymore, cause you dissintegrated that part you didn't like, cause reasons. I agree with the original comment, 1, 4, 5.
Great video. Well done.
Glad you enjoyed it
I'd take option 5, together we can develop to a nation which might be able to compete with China & US in economical & geopolitical areas. Each EU nation alone won't stand a chance.
Thankfully the nationalists of each EU nation would oppose that.
@@GeistInTheMachine why "thankfully" or is it irony?
@@Oneath Economically, it'd be Southern Europe benefiting from a united EU. The North would have to compensate, making it a not so popular decision for half of Europe.
@@thomaat460 True but Southern Europe has more ways of developing then the Nordic ones, it has more potential.
@@d3d952 Yeah, that's true. More growth potential. Though countries like Norway and Denmark do have do have huge deposits of natural resoures. So if we're looking at overal potential, I suppose both halfs are kind of in a symbiotic relationship either way.
I personally support scenario 5 but I'm quite confident that 1,3 and 4 are the most likey ones. At least the worst ones in 2 and 6 are very unlikely.
Golem
@@Anton43218 stone, iron or blood?
@@DaedaliusRE golem for isntrael
@@Anton43218 Huh?
@@Anton43218 you didn't answer my question
I'm hopping for the 5th scenario but the 1st is also good.
very good video, thanks
I hope for a fully integrated EU.
Why?
Never!
You fool!
That would be the best thing that could happen to Europe.
@@csibesz07 Why not? thats the Only logical thing to do, the one step to go. Just imagine a European Army would be so much cheaper and could react so much better to Threats to the EU because of the same Training. I Think it wouldnt be like all membering Country would loose their Culture, indeed i Think the Cultural Diversity is the Strength of Europe and must be preserved. I also would use the Presidential System in every State, no Bundeskanzler and Bundespräsident for Germany, we would have the German President and his Prime Minister and Europes Chief would be the Prime President or the Premier President, what ever sounds nicer ;D.
I really love your videos about the EU it's well designed and simple.Furthermore I would suggest you to make videos on controversed subjects in the EU like the von der leyen/Pfizer scandal or the recent qatargate events it will help bringing the truth about this because many eurosceptics wonder why mainstream medias are silent to these issues. The main consequence of this is a lack of trust in the EU institutions.
Great suggestion! will do.
ARD Mediathek
Fragwürdiger Impfstoff-Deal - wie Aufklärung verhindert wird
16.08.2023 ∙ Plusminus ∙ Das Erste
I am inclined towards scenario 5, but I believe that European countries should have more autonomy on some things, for example taking a step back on fishing laws, could favor the entry of the Nordic nations, who see this policy as an obstacle to the entrance.
Iceland and Norway? I can't see them wanting to join the eu.
@@fintonmainz7845 Not now, but in a future where Schengen and NATO no longer exist, they might change their minds, whether for security or travel reasons.
@@fintonmainz7845 I rather slit my own throat.
I dont see NATO going anywhere
@@thomasmerlin4990 Fantasy scenarios.
Totally loved your videos. I have a European Governance exam tomorrow and your help has been fundamental! Thank you
Best of luck!
Seeing as I'm someone who leans Volt, I'm partial to Scenario 5 (Doing Much More Together).
I have a dream
a mega coalition of EPP, S&D, Renew Euorope and Greens🔥🔥🔥
I want option 5, or option 3.
I love EU, there has been peace since 1945 in Europe thanks to EU except for 2 times, the balkan war in the 90's and the late russian invasion of Ukraine. But it has never been a war inside EU.
EU can much more easily stand up against USA, Russia, China and India united as one union, and I hope in the future a United States of Europe, than 27 countries on their own
Thanks to NATO, not eu.
@@SimonBrady-i1k I would say both
Scenario 5 is the best! Together we are much stronger 💪
Great overview, thanks! I believe you left out an important area of integration that is supported across most political groups: healthcare and public health. There have been unprecedented moved in this field, namely the EU pharma strategy, the European health Data Space, and more.
its a good point. Worth a video :)
Great video ! Thank you
Whichever direction the EU goes, there's a lot more talk about it in the EU and among its members, it also looks like momentum and support is building to do some real change and as for when there are serious talks of treaty change, I suspect 2025 onwards with the gauntlet more or less being set to no later than 2030.
The reason I say that is because, if there is no progress happening by then and there are no real signs of new members being able to join the EU by 2030, a lot of these countries could give up on the idea of joining the EU and look at other options, after all, they are not going to wait forever.
But this isn't a blank cheque for these new countries that wants to join the EU, there's still a lot of work and reforms they need to do, but the EU needs to get its act together and show that the door is actually open for these countries to join, it would encourage more reforms in those countries, whiles at the same time, give the EU and its members enough time to discuss and reform the EU, so it can work better internally and with new future members and I think 2030 is being seen as the limit, that if there are no signs of change, no hope of these countries joining, I suspect a lot of them will give up and find other solutions away from the EU.
So the clock is ticking on both side that I think serious talks need to start happening by around 2025, even if it takes months or even years to come to a conclusion, there are needs to be signs that progress is happening, after all, just look at Turkey, they more or less abandon the idea of joining the EU because real progress wasn't happening and fair enough, a big part of that problem was Turkey not doing enough reforms, but part of the problem is the EU and some of its members more or less shutting the door, many of these eastern European countries feel like they are in the same boat that joining the EU is a pipe dream, if many of these countries act on that, the EU could lose a lot of support from these countries, which will harm it's future plans of expanding in those regions, which longer term will hurt EU and it's members interest, especially if the EU wants to compete with the US and China long term.
To put it bluntly, the EU and it's members have been wasting too much time over the last decade and now are playing catch up and need to find solutions to make this work, and there are many options if the political will is there to make it happen.
Also, let's be blunt about this, you can't have economic integration without political integration, if we want to reap the benefits of further economic integration, we're going to need further integration to set standard laws, rules and regulations throughout the EU countries, on top of that, if European countries really want to compete better with the US and China, we're going to need further political and economic integration, especially on the political side, because that is where we are weak and both the US and China already take advantage of that, whereas it's a lot harder for them to do that on the economic side because we are a lot more integrated there, which makes us stronger.
Also, when it comes to integration, it's not an absolute and in one direction, there are many things that can be done at a local level and done better, and not so much national level but local city level, but there are also many areas that are better being done at a supernational level with the EU, especially on the economy and external political matters and it's a fine line in getting the right balance, but things will need to change if the EU and it's members want to remain competitive with the US and China long term and I suspect it's going to be external forces like the US and China that's going to dictate the direction the EU goes, mainly because of the reality check that's needed for us to compete with the bigger players, so unless that reality changes, I don't see many alternatives but to integrate further and the European elections is not going to change that reality, regardless of outcome, all it can do is delay it.
The alternatives if Europeans do go in the opposite direction, it's going to be a lot harder for the EU and it's members to protect its political, economic and social interest, which over the long run could weaken many of those areas as pressure from both the US and China builds on them trying to push their values on us, for now, we are strong enough to push that back, but without further integration, I think it could be hard for Europeans to protect these values and let's be blunt, the US have tried many times to push it's own values and standards on Europeans, they've failed because the EU is strong enough to stand up to them, but that can change in the future and likely will if we don't change, basically with further integration and more new EU members.
I think personally, scenario 1 is most likely , if only for the pure reason that doing nothing is always more convenient and easier than changing everything. My personal preference is either a scenario 3 or 5 though.
I think scenario 1 is most likely, but my personal preference is scenario 2 or 4
@a.m.4148 I don´t like the fake ,,liberal,, governments in western Europe, and overall the thinking with green politics, immigration and lgbt agenda and est. I don´t like which direction western Europe goes, I rather stay happy in my own country than go down a path that I know is not right. If the western politics changed to something like Poland I would be happy to unite, but not like this right now.
I prefer more integration, but I recognise that the growth of far-right movements throughout Europe (and the world) would make that difficult. Therefore, a multi-speed/tiered EU is probably the most practical solution, where the closer aligned countries can integrate further, and others can eventually join suit once they have proven their case for the effectiveness of such integration.
@user-nw8zm2wu6ogood thing we are not rome
No 5 seems to be the only future for the EU in an ever changing world.
5:50 Incorrect map, as of 2023 Croatia is using the Euro as its official currency and Denmark never used the Euro to begin with.
God I hope we roll back, and go back to a free trade only!
I think that some may not see the EU we want in our lifetime,to a more united Europe, but i will fight for it until my grave
what do you mean "we want". Everyone has different visions for the EU. As a white nationalist I want to preserve the ethnic identities of every European nation and stop all immigration from Muslim and African countries.
@@bookinsights1092weirdo
I feel you and I'm willing to fight for it too
@@bookinsights1092 kinda points out what i want and think that most people want
Cringe
I'll be voting Volt next year
Why do you want to destroy your country and the EU?
@@tomorrowneverdies567 it is what it is
🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺
Nice voting for Soros funded parties expect more crimes and diversity
Great overview!, eu should stay strong and united to face all these new challenges,advocating geopolitical and power strenght!,
How about it's falling apart scenario, or the most obvious one will take everyone by surprise?
Loved the video! Is it possible that when we get closer to the elections you could do a video explaining each party´s specific commitments and goals?
I’ll go with 4 on this one.
“Doing Less But More Efficiently”
Soft-Power Economic Giant is the way to go. Especially for overall democratic or technocratic institutions.
All economic power is backed up by military might. There is no such thing as pure soft power. If you're rich but defenseless, that just opens you up for blackmail.
The US Dollar is the world's reserve currency precisely because of the US military. Global trade is possible because of the US military (otherwise piracy would be rampant).
Sadly we seem to have forgotten this in Europe after WW2. US protection, at the cost of submitting to their foreign policy, has weakened us.
Scenario 5 please. But leave everything cultural to member-states always
Well, 2 or 4 please.
nop
Very informative mate 👍
As a Brit who voted Leave I think the EU should demand that all member states adopt the Euro by Jan 1st 2030….or leave the EU.
And also any country that wants join the EU have to adopt the Euro upon accession to the EU.
Von der Leyen continues with the ruination of the EU, massive debt, massive costs, low productivity. Won't work.
Option 2 is optimal
Good one, and nice effort to graphically map the “univers des possibles”. In a broader perspective, I however struggle to agree with the underpinning premise EU institutions work top-down, as a parliamentary federation.
First, although some topics are sometimes brought forward by EU bodies (Commission and Council mostly) out of nowhere, the EU is a crisis-solving mechanism in essence. It reacts rather than it acts, and it has done so since its inception. The Schuman Declaration doesn’t let much room for ideology: let’s take one real problem at a time, and let’s see whether and how EU-level policies can or cannot help fixing it. Who would have thought, just five years ago, EU-wide health or defence policies would be a matter for debate? The point is the EU is very much bottom up, and member-states’ appetite and will for integration will mostly depend on external geopolitical factors, as it always did.
Second, the main EU powerhouse is not the Commission (and obviously not Parliament), it’s the Council. EU citizens elect their MEPs mostly based on domestic reasons, and they don’t even really do it, as turnouts are always very low. It leads to some serious distorsion between how the EP looks like and what the EU as a whole does. For instance, the winner of last European elections in France was clearly Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National. Yet the french voice and influence within EU institutions are E. Macron’s. The Italian case is even more striking, where the same physical person, G. Meloni, has to perform an impressive contortionist show everyday to reconcile conflicting views on what to do and how to do it.
And that’s even without elaborating on how EP works (mostly on cross/trans-groups agreements).
At the end of the day, I believe the main real drivers of European integration and policies elude your exposé. Very good job still 👍
first lets get Bulgaria and Romania into schengen and more countries into the euro. Then we can talk about reform and expansion
First lets make Hungary and Poland actual democracys again.
(Speaking for Hungarian side) people are waiting for that damn Euro, but as the time passes, the euro is more far away than ever :(
@@Micha-qv5ufPoland IS A democracy, if it wasn't we wouldn't have elections in October.
I really want both country's is Schengen and don't know why they aren't yet.
About euro, it need both people's approval AND economical stability.
Some members just don't want to join eurozone.
Schengen pretty much destroyed tourism from outside EU, like Canada, US, UK , Ireland.
I believe the status quo will continue. Reforming EU is a monumental task.
We walk slowly. But never backwards.
The multi-speed approach seems to have a lot of potential, since it would provide flexibility to those that want to opt out of further EU integration.
Thank you.
It will look like Africa lmao
Considering it's in decline, hard to predict the future.
If you are aware of European history, you understand that a federal Europe would mean the end of European culture and identity.
Which is the goal buddy
Evropa nije sa istim indetitetom i nije jedinstvena i pri tome okupirana od strane SAD NIJE VISE SAMOSTALNA MORA DA SLUSA BAJDENA USKORO RASPAD EVROPE NIKO NECE DA BUDE KOLONIJA AMERIKE
3!!
I'm half swiss and half Italian. So on one hand I understand that member states want to remain sovereign, I also see and understand that for Europe to be considered relevant in the global landscape we have to unite. The EU has it's issues but I think all of Europe would be worse off without it.
As a outsider looking in i would say number 4 or 3 then slowly build into number 5
I'm for option 5. EU federalist for ever!
Voting for scenario 6
There will be NO such thing as EU in 2029
Not really, but the same can't be said for your braincells.
@@custodeseuropeaeGreat argument typical leftist drivel
Croatia is in Eurozone
Scenario 1 seems like the status quo situation. Personally hope for 5.
For me europe should be a federation with many rights to the national parlaments but more important things like army would be merged into one european army
And this one European army will be called Wehrmacht.
@@IcekSzechter
And with police-Geheime Staatspolizei
No matter who carries on, they should do something about migration... people have a limit to their patience and when that runs out, they might vote right wing as a revenge... and that might be the most humane and civilized thing they do.
And let me tell you something... that limit is very close.
Is there some libertarian party in Europe?
As far as i can tell there are only left wing parties of different shades, some of them closer to center - those that don't want to tax you to death while pretending to spend the money they they took from you for your own benefit.
Have you wondered why so many migrants come?
If more resources were left to Africa, their economies would probably develop and there would be far fewer migrants.
The solution would be a Marshal plan with more stable African nations, they earn because they grow, we earn because we become commercial partners and we don't leave them to the Chinese.
@@thomasmerlin4990 Yeah, that's the real problem in Africa, that we take all of their resources; tribal warfare, dictatorships, socialism, slavery and the occasional genocide or American intervention (Libya) have nothing to do with Africa's underdevelopment. For those from the Middle East I blame Islam and American interventions/wars. Merkel's open invitation to millions of migrants also might have had something to do with it. Then there are the coyotes and ONGs facilitating their migration, not to mention the generous welfare programs.
There are a myriad of complex causes for the recent waves of immigrants to Europe.
Your "solution" is just a more naïve version of China's belt and road initiative.
@@rutessian It is the same Western governments that do business with the dictators of those areas without even considering how resources are managed. Instead, the EU could try to put conditions in place to ensure that it is in the nation's interest not to exploit the populations.
Middle East ? coincidentally there are almost never immigrants from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, but always from poor nations at war.
@@thomasmerlin4990HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Back to the EEC, ie trading block only would be best.
Thanks
A United Federal EU is the best scenario! Similarly but not a copy of the USA.
A federation with a parlementairy democracy sounds fine
let's carry on then
I'd prefer a more integrated union with more cohesion.
I'd be happy if I could see like a Federal Europe.
It already happened in 1939-1945 and everybody except you Germans were unhappy.
Scenario 2 !!!!!
Option 4/2 seems to be the most sensible, followed by 1.
Option 3 - multi-speed is probably the worst long-term one, as it means deepening the gap between the countries in the EU, rather than shrinking it.
I don't think many people really want options 5 and 6.
More than 100 Million People say no to EU Brüssel
It will break down in its current form.
2 major party's in the Netherlands haven't aligned them selfs to one of te European partys. I am interested to see what NSC and BBB will do, me guessing they will both join EPP. Also Groenlinks and PVDA (Dutch green and labor party) have merged, so it is unsure who they will join for the EU votings.
I think BBB seems more likely to join the ecr seeing as EU regulations on agriculture are the thing their base is most angry about
@@florianjongejeugd3902 yes I agree that would be the other most likely option
I would like to see further integration in matters of foreign policy and defence, but more autonomy regarding internal policy, especially internal security issues. I support further EU expansion, closer political ties between the EU members and a multi-tiered EU.
Option five seems the very best, both for environmental and, more urgently, geopolitical reasons, in my view. It seems particularly essential to consolidate responses to Russia's attempts at westward expansion. However, option three also bears many clear benefits, the greatest seeming to be the strength of the potential political force thy Macron and the New Europeans party are becoming.
As a 25 yr old EU citizen from Central Europe All I say is: Stop Islamic Immigration and dumb "Green Policies". Thank you.
Stop migration from Africa and the middle east
I think scenario 1 is most likely, but my personal preference is scenario 2 or 4
The spirit of the creation of the EU is scenario 5.
Corruption stopped that.
Europe sets contradicting goals:
- inviting more eastern countries like Balkan countries and Ukraine that increases the cultural and political differences
- trying to make the EU more uniform like a federal state
The only solution is the two or even three speed Europe.
Comment un bloc qui utilise comme langue familière une langue qui ne vient même pas du continent et qui vient également d’un pays qui n’est même pas dans l’UE peut-il être pris au sérieux en tant qu’Européen?
Qu’on l’aime ou non. L’anglais est devenu la lingua Franca, la nouvelle latin. C’est la langue de commerce de tous les échanges. C’est la langue que la Chine et l’Inde utilise pour communiquer avec le mondeC’est la langue que les espagnols et italiens, les suédois et les grecques, les allemands et les français et parfois les wallons et les flamands utilise pour communiquer entre eux. Le plupart des documents écrits et des réunions à Bruxelles sont en anglais. L ‘alternatif serait une véritable tour de Babel. Il me sembles qu’il y aurait une pénurie des finlandais que comprennent maltais ou portugais que comprennent estonien et vice versa.
@@patrickmccutcheon9361 Oui, je comprends. Mais dans l’UE, la langue commune devrait être celle du continent européen, c’est l’Union européenne après tout. Tout comme dans le monde arabe où dans chaque pays, ils ont leur propre version locale de « l’arabe » (une personne d’Irak ne serait pas capable de comprendre l’arabe parlé au Maroc). Mais ils utilisent tous « l’arabe classique » pour l’éducation, les nouvelles et les conférences internationales, pas l’anglais. De même, dans l’Union européenne, nous devrions choisir une langue européenne enracinée sur le continent européen, comme le font les Arabes avec « l’arabe classique ». Cela pourrait être le premier pas vers une VRAIE Union européenne, loin d’une colonie américaine.
i hope scenario 6
It’s inevitable, all empires collapse, especially European ones.
I feel so helpless. I am 15 y/o and I would love really much to vote given that many of the voters that I know DON'T EVEN KNOW about what the EU actually does. I would vote for Renew Europe or The Greens given that I would love a fully integrated EU so that it can challenge the other superpowers and maybe be less influenced by the US. I feel that Europe could continue to be prosperous in the future only with the EU alongside the European nations cause no European nations (even Germany) could compete alone with China or the US.
you are only helpless because of age, compared to a lot of "adult" posters you are far ahead when it comes to insight.
In max 10 years EU is going to be dissolved. This is the reality 😊
Neah it will be slavery run by non elected elites ! People divided by class and status just like ancient Egypt ! Hunger Games of europe !
4 is the best
5:51 the map is wrong, Croatia is in Eurozone, and Denamrk isn´t
good eye, but Denmark is also missing the islands and Bornholm
It's a very dark place because after running 🏃♂️ around in circles for decades, they will dissappear up their own arses.
I favour incremental improvements. I'm against significant steps towards a United States of Europe.
I would like a project where countries star getting together slowly like spain and Portugal, Benelux, nordics and other ones
5:51 You forgot that Croatia now also uses the EURO
Who else wants to live in a united ue?
me
nice
@@merjakotisaari9046
EPP and stronger EU army? Is it a joke? Here in Poland EPP members are against the army investments.
Option 5 should happen (and should be the end goal), but as long as eurosceptic members such as Poland and Hungary operate the way they do, it will prove difficult.
Trueee, I am kinda fed up with Poland and them not adopting the euro. I understand why some countries cannot do it, like bulgaria is a great example, they fit all the requirements, but for all the wrong reasons. But Poland can, but just tricks the EU into saying they cannot, and I feel like taking adventage off.
@@chinchillatwitch7234 Same goes with Sweden...
@@globuscola you are a 100% right, I forgot about them, but I agree with you!
@@chinchillatwitch7234good for them. Keep the Zloty.
@@Alto53 I'm Polish and would happily switch to the Euro. We're obliged to, after all...
I want to do more together to equalize competitive opportunities between states
Luvly jubbly. 👍
it won't exist...it is headed for the crapper...
I can't think of any arguments against a multi-tiered EU, and I'm sad to see Renew Europe lose so many seats.
You will never get 27 countries to agree on everything, even in the US states are divided, so multiple tiers are needed, and already exist.
Particularly when it comes to defense, I would like to see a strong core of two countries, such as France and Germany, starting an EU defense tier. I suspect many smaller countries would join, and suddenly you have 200+ million Europeans pooling resources together into defense, allowing for a much more respectable army, navy and air force than any one country by itself.
Right now we are 27 countries which each maintain their own underfunded militaries, that's just stupid. The US is strong because it's basically 50 countries withba united military. We can do the same to protect our interests, and we wouldn't need nearly as much money to do it.
Scenario 5 ALL THE WAY :)
It will be Hopeless!
I hope they finally gone figure out where they wanne hold their meetings.
Von Der Leyen just makes me chiller