This is *not a EU plan* but merely an academic report (Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century) which specifically says that it does not represent the views of German or French governments on the cover page. In 60 pages there is only one mention of the UK: 'Associate Members: A first outer tier could allow for streamlining the different forms of association with the EEA countries, Switzerland or even the UK'.
This whole idea of a multi tiered EU is purely a way of enticing the UK back, which was the second highest net contributer. The UK political class didn't wish to leave. Those of us in the English regions dragged the country out. What ever you see in the media forget it, we don't want back in ever. It's just medis BS.
@@jeffsmith3392 Enticing the UK back? The only media outlets reporting this 'news' are the British ones. Brexit is done and the EU moved on. The UK is neither wanted nor needed back.
My proposal is to call the 4 circles: 1) Core 2) Inner Rim 3) Expansion Region 4) Outer Rim I would also suggest to add a fifth circle, comprising everything else past the Outer Rim, to be called "Unknown Regions". On a side note, from now on in official EU documents the United Kingdom shall be known as "Confederacy of Independent Systems" (abbreviated in CIS), at least until successful reintegration of all its members in the -Galactic Republic- European Union.
Maybe I'm missing here, but I feel like a multitier Europe already exists. It's just not formally so. It seems to me that the plurality (not necessarily the majority) of these reforms would just realize such a tiered system that Europeans already perceive. But then again, this is outside my expertise, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
there have already been tiers in EU membership/relationship, but only at the fringes and in particular cases. introducing tiers in the core of the EU itself poses a danger to one of its main principles-integrating the entire continent together to prevent another destructive war.
Yes, but right now every single non-member associate has it's onw set of exceptions and regulations. It's just streamlining everyone into one single policy that would make everything easier for the future.
@@RMProjects785 But I think generally the UK and other members understand now, that cancelling EU membership entirely turned out to be much worse overall.
These "second hand" memberships are a really dangerous way of integrating countries.The reason why the entry rules are so strict is because once a country becomes member,they have to be on the same standards of other EU nations,or else this inequality will have catastrophic affects on both sides of the population...
You missed the Eurozone members Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Due to the upcoming enlargement of the Eurozone with Bulgaria, I can live very well with its adition to the zone right now.
Just 2 tiers is enough. Those that want to follow and have EU laws enforced by a european police and switch to a stronger federation can be part of the EFU, while others can remain part of the EU. The EFU members can then withdraw from the EU and essentially remove the baggage (eg Hungary and poland).
I don't think the idea is to make a multi-tiered Europe with second- class countries, I think the idea is to restructure and reform the pathway to the full integration so that more resources can be allocated to the whole process. There are a lot of countries that want to join the EU that do not align with EU values and have made no real efforts to change.
@@AdventuresOfAzeth At the very least it was supposed to be functioning democracy, adherence to human rights values, and fair judiciary. Which is a very low bar. And even that seems too much for some.
It's a great way to let only those who wish to integrate do so without stripping autonomy from others but other EU members will no doubt start feeling second class
@@hamdepaf6686 Seems like it's just going to be a more dysfunctional organization. What do EU citizens want? To form a country? Because if that's not the goal, I think the EU won't be around for long. The rest of the world is made up of countries and no desire to move beyond that. And then there's whatever the EU is working toward.
Will, it is like marriage - if you do not want to commit to that you do not get the benefits of marriage either (like inheritance etc.). But if you commit you also can't fuck around as before to your pleasure. You can't have your cake and eat it
Honestly even if some member states have more leverage due to size and their overall status to influence things, it would be way worse without the EU, because there would be no platform to moderate. Not to mention the EU is built to give more protection to the smaller member states (eg. smaller states get proportionally more MEPs per capita, EU organs have equal amount of seats per member state and rotate leadership etc.). The EU is far from perfect, but way better than what we had before.
@@SniperiusForeveryeah take the Netherlands for example. Currently they gain all the benefits from the EU that Germany does, with Germany having a larger pull on the EU as a whole (tough less per capita so a German citizen actually gets less individual power then the smaller countries). If the EU didn’t exist Germany could just decide trade policy that the Netherlands would need to follow because of their integrarion and dependence on Germany without actually getting any say
@@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547 Not quite, the ruhrgebied gets more than 75% of it's resources via the netherlands, that gives a huge leverage..they need the dutch just as much as the dutch need the gemans,
@@ozzie2545 the Ruhrgebiet does, but it can replace that, not the whole of Germany and The Ruhrgebiet isn’t exactly a dominating or even powerful force on German federal politics
this is why TLDR News EU is the most profitable, no major news network ever covers the paperwork foundation of the European Union along with how the EU affects current events.
There are people which said this would happen years ago. It's something that's been on the agenda for a long time now. You can find reports from 10+ years ago also advocating for a multi-tiered EU. It's one of the things they keep discussing at these endless events/conferences/dinners/parties that those guys keep going to. They really want countries like Turkey or Ukraine to join, but it's pretty difficult to get them to join under the usual rules, so they want to get them to "half join", and once they've half joined that can speed up the process to them fully joining, at least that's the hope. UK Column have been reporting on this since at least 2016. Contact them and they will be able to provide you with a LOT more information if you are interested.
@@patricko9479 its called making sure they start fighting each other make russia more prominent in the discussion and eventually the hungarians and the poles will rip each other into twenty pieces
Why should they fully join if they already enjoy enough benefits? See the UK for example. They didn't adopt the Euro or joined Schengen, because the UK already enjoyed the benefits of the EU. It even backfired because of Brexit.
I think a more flexible EU is more robust. What doesn´t bend, will break. Maybe the UK would still be in the EU if they could´ve just desintegrated one step. There are also always populists in every country that will use the the perception of the EU as this faraway tyrannical force that control their everyday life as reason for leaving. A more flexible EU would undermine that narrative (true or not). Hungary for example could desintegrate and be allowed more autonomacy, whilst simultaneously losing some benefits of course.
That is a strange way of interpreting the core values of the EU. Every member state that has the feeling that " the EU is a faraway..." has the right to LEAVE !! Nobody FORCES anything onto a member. When Hungary signed to become a member it KNEW what it signed up to e.g. independence of the judicial system for example ! The EU is as flexible as TWENTY-SEVEN different sovereign countries ALLOW the EU to be !!
The EU is already more flexible than most nation-states are. Every major event or crisis since 1939 has led to a complete reorganization of the EU and its predecessors. From the oil crises in the 70's to the end of the Cold War, from WW2 to the current Russo-Ukrainian war, every time a new treaty was made and the communities reformed. Compare that to how often nation-states completely rewrite their constitutions...
The UK leaving the EU was a good thing. I'm glad they re no longer part of the club. They never had the intend to work for a common goal within the Union. They only wanted to destroy it. Now the UK seems to desintegrate. The irony...
These proposals sound quite good. I would add that countries that do not adhere to the principles of the inner core would be obliged to move to a less integrated part with, as you mentioned, a loss of benefits.
From a Hungarian perspective: The EU needs more central control over regional development funds, to prevent corrupt governments from misusing (stealing) the funds. Unfortunately democracy allows the election of corrupt and autocratic governments, but those governments lose their power if they couldn't divert EU funds to fund their corrupt system. The worst offender is Hungary, but Slovakia and Ukraine can quickly become "good" contenders, with the election of Fico, and Ukraine has always been very corrupt. Unfortunately the Soviet Union and the former Eastern Bloc countries were built on corruption (like China and Russia are to this day), and even after switching to free elections, the systems are hard to change, and the remnants of the old system still haunt us today.
The reforms are a good idea, but i think it should really be that the 1st two tiers should basically stay like they are now... with no law and eu government differences, because the EUs non Euro and non Schengen members are still full members .
We should call the inner most call the „EURO-Federation“, with federal Agencies such as Europol (similar to FBI in USA), Frontex (similar to Boarder patrol and coast guard in the USA), stronger EEAS (similar to the US state department), ECB, European court of justice, EU court of auditors, stronger EAHC (like OSHA, WILG, NIOSH, NSC, MSHA, ASSP, ATDR, EPA or other departments of public health in the US) but also a federal intelligence agency (like CIA or NSA in the USA), a federal army, a federal Revenue Service (like the IRS in the USA), a federal social security program, a federal program which funds education and scientific research (like U.S. Department of Education or FNMA - Fannie Mae). These new federal government agencies should get competencies of the nations/states of the new Federacy.
We could also reform the EU Parliament so that the federal countries have a mixed member proportional parliament, where half of the MEPs are elected by the NUTS-2 regions, these could become like EURO-states. There are roughly 200 NUTS-2 regions in the EURO-countries. Another 200 MEPS could be elected proportionally. This one chamber of the EURO-Federation could pass laws concerning just the EURO-states by its own (they would be located in Brussels) When it comes to decisions concerning the outer cores such as the EU, these members are joined by all the MEPs of the other EU members (without the EURO) in Strasbourg and laws have to pass the second chamber (Council of the EU - could be renamed in European Senate) then. We already talked about changes to unanimity. This would roughly stay the same. For the outer most regions, the only legislative branch would be the Council of Europe and legislature would be integrated bilaterally.
The Commission president should also be approved by popular vote in the EURO-Federacy. Here is how this would work: Firstly the Council of Europe suggests a president candidate, then the broader EU-parliament (~400 MEPs of the federal parliament plus MEPs of the non EURO EU members = around 600 MEPs) vote on the suggested candidate (this is just like the current system works), then there is a public election in only the fully integrated EURO-states, where people can vote Yes or No for the president candidacy. Only if the president is elected by the majority of voters (popular vote), the candidate officially becomes the President of the EURO-Federation (USE), as well as President of EU commission. This would greatly increase public support for the EU executive branch. Additional to the president of the EU parliament (which has mostly organizational tasks, the leading coalition should also elect a „chancellor of the EU“, similar to Germans head of government. The chancellor is elected by the greater EU parliament (Euro + non Euro countries) and doesn’t need to be an MEP (could be an MEP from a non Euro country), but there are also no official tasks of the chancellor, but he or she is the vice head of state (second most important person of the Euro-Federacy) and can act in the behalf of the president of the commission in emergencies (nuclear launch codes). The combination of chancellor and president of the Euro-Federation is explicitly possible (despite Nazi Germany) but absolutely not mandatory. This would transform the EU to a more presidential system with a strong and broadly accepted executive branch. But with this reform separation of power becomes even more essential.
If the popular vote on the federal president fails, the candidate is still acting president of the commission as long as another president of the commission is found and voted into office (by larger EU parliament). In the meantime the EU functions just like now, without democratic legitimacy. This lack of legitimacy still applies for the second EU tier (EU members that are not states of the Euro-Federation). But because the EU has way less competencies in those countries this is ok. Letting them also vote in the election for federal president, would let them influence policies that don’t affect them. And these citizens can influence the presidency in indirectly twice: in the council of Europe as well as in the European parliament. But the official name of the EU president would be something like federal president, so explicitly not the president of the European Union as a whole. Their heads of government and heads of state remain their national ones. Getting another election and a powerful president (one of the worlds most powerful leaders) is a good argument for citizens pushing for total integration of their nation into the Euro-Federation. Some totally useless head of states such as the German Bundespräsident could be abolished and the federal Euro-president becomes the head of state of those countries. Of course this change would be more difficult in countries with presidential systems or constitutional monarchies.
Could you do a video about the new EU Agency AMLA (Anti-Money Laundering Authority); its implications, competencies, race to host its headquarters, etc. Thank you!!
Main difficulty is that trade deals go sour owing to exchange rates, which are often speculatively driven when the values must lie within some range, as was the case with the infamous snake-in-a-tunnel exchange rate controls prior to the euro. To use the euro, you really must be up to full standard. So, multi-tier is likely to be a necessary mess, as was the pre-euro EU itself. Ensuring only a core group are involved in, say, Schengen-style free movement and a common currency, mostly Franco-German-Benelux, is preferable to continent-wide migration.
I think it's about time! But also it needs a stronger emphasis on the defense of the continent. We did it for the energy, agriculture, and immigration (somewhat), we need a better integrated defense as well.
EU technically has The Common Security and Defence Policy, but I agree it isn't as ambitious as it should be considering the neighborhood situation. I wouldn't be against European Defence Agency having increased budget and responsibilities as well.
I don't really like the idea of capping the amount of seats in the European Parliament, it would really undermine the idea that EU is democratic. I'd even argue that 750 MEP is too few for a Union of 450 million citizens. 900 MEPs should really be the number of seats today, 1 MEP representing 500 thousand people, which is similar to Malta's population today. Today, Malta is overrepresented in seats while Germany is underrepresented. higher number of seats should alleviate the lack of representation in the parliament.
The EU has a variable mep to citizen ratio with 17 countries already having representation better than 1:500,000. The range is 1 MEP for every 77,000 Maltese citizens to 1 MEP for every 860,000 German citizens .
One problem with enlarging a chamber is that it becomes increasingly difficult to for said body to actually govern. Doubling the number of seats means doubling the number of MEP that wish to have their voices heard, doubling the time spent debating or halving the percentage of people heard. You’re more likely to get scenarios where whole countries could be ignored whether by accident or intentionally because there are enough MEPs from other countries that got in the queue first and there’s some kind of time limit thanks to an emergency that prevents the debates from running on forever, which would be perceived as very undemocratic and targeting of said country. 750 MEP is a lot of people, and 450 million people is a lot of people to be represented. Unfortunately there is a tradeoff between increasing MEPs and how effective the EU will be able to govern with such a diverse array of opinions available and politicians that want to be heard to get re-elected.
I am rather for fewer seats, and I mean a lot of fewer seats like every country have very very few seats like (One seat per area): 1 main, 1 climate, 1 economy, 1 army, 1 transport. Per country, then every country have their own assembly per area. The main seat would take up the position about things which would affect the country overall, while also adding topics which came up late in their own assembly for different reasons. For this to really work so would all member countries need to give a list of topics they want to take up/talk about at least one month before the meeting so their respective assemblies can talk about it, come up with questions etc. for every topic, and the topics gets taken randomly if not decided in an earlier meeting. After a topics is taken up every country gets to ask a question about it and the country which took it up would then spend up to 30min organizing answers to answer their questions, then after like 3 hours (maybe more, maybe less) they can vote for : accept, reject, postpone, continue. It would need MASSIVE reform, but I think member states would feel like they get more power, they can organize themselves better, etc. I personally feel that any move in this kind of direction would be good.
Poland and Hungary want expansion before reform. But they keep demonstrating how we absolutely need reforms before expansion, or else we will transform the EU in some sort of statue unable to move in anyway or decide anything.
As polish I just want to add, that it looks like right now EU is able to move and decide, but moves in the wrong direction. Who would've thought that there will be streets burning with temporarily allowing illegal immigration? Who would've thought that the governments that are against the changes made by EU will be forced into submission by taking EU-wide loans that everyone gets to pay, but some won't get the money from the loan. Who would've thought that blindly following Germany and France in disarming the continent would make a war at the border? Who would've thought that forcing the fake ecology changes (scrapping the old, already produced and rarely used cars and polluting the earth by producing EVs while leading towards an energy crisis) would destroy the economy of germany more than anything since WW2. You might pretend that nothing bad is happening in EU, but overall, the crime rates are increasing, the economy is collapsing and was really unhealthy for over a decade now. The free market is dying and being replaced by companies that can impact governments and the EU law.
@@Maronicam And this is exactly the reason why people want Poland and Hungary gone. Completely untethered from reality and forcing everyone to deal with their madness
@@ausoleil8269it's that kind of rhetoric which pushed Britain to leave. "We will continue to Bury our head in the sand when it comes to immigration, accept open border or leave the EU" not very democratic
The reason I watched was because Finland wasn't in the thumbnail and I was interest in what group we would be put into. Yes I am Finnish, how did you guess?
Majority voting is a very naive idea. Analyze the recent crisis in relations with Ukraine, which has become a hostile country towards Poland. Anyone following the situation knows that Ukraine attacked Poland and Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania because these countries protected their agricultural markets while transferring grain through their territories. If the principle of majority voting existed, countries such as Poland would have to block their borders regardless of the EU's verdict in the vote or leave the EU. Maybe in Germany and France politicians should think about what they are aiming at. Populists enjoy high support precisely because EU politicians are too extreme. The EU is on the verge of collapse, and accepting new members (such as Ukraine) too quickly may result in a split.
As usual a very clear description. But how does the concept of “ coalition of the willing” fit into the concentric circle concept? What the report describes is quite what exists today. The reality is much more complicated, maybe overlapping circles with different configurations of members. Report also doesn’t as described deal with the differing concept of integration of existing members. So if a current member wants less integration their only option is to leave the EU to join an outer ring?
Different ideas about the structure and the future of the EU exist and there is an ongoing debate about that. That doesn't change with the tier structure. A member can propose a change. If a member wants less integration and can't get the necessary majorities for it's proposal in the Council and the Parliament, it can either accept this outcome or move to a ring that suits its preference. If the EU would grant exceptions again, the tier model would be pointless. As for the "coalition of the willing", I'd assume that this coalition would consist of the Inner Circle countries, which also happen to be the countries which are contributing most of the EU funds. The notion that a "coalition of the willing" could proceed on its own if the other members don't want to support the plan, is a thinly veiled threat that the richer countries could leave the EU to set up a new organisation if the EU isn't going to reform to their liking.
3:02 Switzerland is actually not in the European Economic Area! I discovered this the hard way: my phone had free roaming in the EEA, and upon arriving in Switzerland I found that it didn't work there
The “Schengen” mention in the inner-most circle is a bit confusing, since current EFTA members (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and Switzerland, are all part of the Schengen area. As well as micro-countries like Monaco, San Marino, Vatican (but not Andorra though) that are de facto part of it. So Schengen doesn’t necessarily feels like the deepest integration when you consider that 25% of the 30 member states are not even part of the EU
Small correction: while Switzerland could be considered having an associate membership, it is not part of the EEA in contrast to what was mentioned here.
As a french, I think the veto thing has to go before we agree to more people getting in, how are we supposed to lead a democracy that need 100% agreement on important subject? I'm willing to unify europe more and enlarge it but not the union behave only as an economic union that is held by a few countries. The more country enter the union curently, the harder it will be to unify and I have suspission that it's the aim of somme countries that actually want the EU to remain divided extremely decentralized with no power uppon it's member states.
The veto protects nations from undesirable conditions. We are not a federation, just an economic union, no one else as anything to dictate over polish or hungarian policy other then their own citizens
@@foicex i'm a european citizen, the european constitution protect my right everywhere in the EU, and if I want to wok in peace in poland it's my right without the risk of being intimidated by the government for being gay and not actively hidding it. If we were just an economic union we would have a parlement
@@foicex the veto is what makes the european union so weak, just one country against and nothing is done, if poland and hungary wants to fully dictate what they want to do then leave the union as simple as that.
@@angemalaurie6074 Uou do have the right to go to poland as a EU citizen, but you also have the right to not go to poland if you dont like the conditions there, leaving the fact that you are paiting an image over poland that is just false
@@javierrojo1153 exacly right, nothing should get done unless all members are glad with the change, otherwise you have some countries dictating over others. Thats how the EU was setup, if you dont like it, just leave the EU and make a federation with diferent rules
They will always be the hegemons of Europe since their economy and population is bigger then all the other members states, the only nations that have a potential to compete with them is Poland and maybe Iberia if Portugal and Spain worked together
Right now we have a 27 tier project with at least 30 satellites, circling around uncoordinated. As soon as two start to cluster they can create black holes from where escape isn't possible. Reforms are needed, but it's impossible to even get two willing ones on one line.
eu. stay stong, stay connected. dont need to agree on absolutely everything but its crucial to be able to cooperate and stay friendly for all people within the eu circles
Just hope that adding Ukraine to the EU won't cause more problems with Russia ending in ww3. We also don't want Turkey in the eu especially as it is not a european country.
That would be lovely to have the EU support Ukraine indefinitely. Russia never objected to Ukraine joining the EU, it was about not joining NATO (defacto or dejure doesn't matter). The US is not gonna drop such gift as Ukraine, they will supply it with weapons until the last Ukrainian.
The problem is most people put Ukraine in the same pot as Hungary and Poland. However, Ukraine is fundamentally different. the spirit of Ukraine is much more aligned with Western Europe. It is already obvious that Ukraine will be integrated into a top tier.
As a Republic of Ireland passport holder with extended family still living in my home village in Rural Ireland, living in the U.K. 21 years, I voted firmly in favour of Brexit here in the U.K. despite being in a Labour controlled area and I believe that Brexit should have happened far sooner, which my native Ireland should have done the same, regardless of Scotland’s, Wales’, Channel Islands, Isle of Man’s or Northern Ireland’s position on same, as the EU is a failed entity - many of my English friends here believe that a “Celtic Alliance” for these islands is the best way forward for us, as we have very little in common with the EU despite Ireland’s significant levels of migration to other EU countries, as this is really about protecting national sovereignty given our history - already the Channel Tunnel is facing financial problems and it was a huge mistake to even build it, we have the disaster that is HS2, which forced the shelving (yet again) of the high speed Irish Sea rail Tunnel between Holyhead - Dublin
UK has increased bureaucracy since leaving. Standards work both ways. More to comply with but less paperwork than between countries with different standards
Reform will only go so far if the EU remains bound to unanimity among its member states, but what country will consent to empowering the EU to impose its laws upon them regardless of their own vote?
Ireland, everything the government has done and proposed goes against the wishes of the Irish population. This government has very little legitimacy as well. The current Tániste Micheal Martin was only elected back to his constituency on the 6th count. You might’ve expected the people or other politicians to have put an end to this regime, but they’re all afraid of reprisals if they fail aka five years for ‘hate crimes’
I am sure the Greek government will be happy to do this. O7r governments hav served the interests of the eu despite our country spiraling down since 15 years ago
@@sarantis1995 that’s why so many people are getting out to places like Australia, while they still can, who knows what the EU governments will do to restrict our freedoms next. It’s sad to see what a dumpster fire that Ireland, once a prosperous, industrial and tertiary powerhouse, has become
It should be highly incentivised to rise to the highest tier of membership. But I think that it's suuuper important that there is a smaller tier. Strongest benefits should be part of the top tier.
I see what you try to achieve by this, but I’m worried this will give ammunition for other “exiters” organisation who will argue that EU is set to serve only France and Germany. In Poland where I come from it will be case for 100%. My point is - it will be to easy to turn this into divisive political battle against EU.
@@PiotrKuczaj >that EU is set to serve only France and Germany I mean, even right now it serves mostly them though (among a few others), so these people wouldn't be wrong. The EU (and NOT the ECSC. I have to point this out just in case. The EU is not the ECSC. The ECSC later on morphed into the EU and changed its goals) was meant to become a singular country, a federation, something the like USA Still, the way it's been going for a while now, I wouldn't be surprised if it completely vanishes to exist. The Treaty of Lisbon completely broke the vision of a United States of Europe (of which I still am a fan, if my bias isn't evident), thanks to cumulative national pride among certain nationalities (cough, the French and Dutch). Just wonderful This multi-tiered EU doesn't exactly help avoid that disastrous fate. If anything it will alienate (for legitimate and, I assume, some illegitimate, reasons) huge portions of the European population, especially, I think, those that are currently a part of the EU with full rights, like, as you mention, Poland, among many others; but to a similar degree people from countries who wish to join the EU, like mine, as well I just don't see anything beneficial coming out of this
@@vikt it's all about the details. Strategically it's important for aspirant EU members to get tied in stronger and stronger. While they synchronize laws and battle corruption, they also gain more access to the EU economy. As EU grows it can also have more power to force global actors to listen. It's also important that not only there's a lot of people in the EU, but also people with strong household income. That's the bargaining chip of the EU. If you have more than 300 million people with more than 30k income a year, that's a market you cannot miss out on. And when you want access you're going to make compromises. Also the aspirant status would shield the country somewhat from authoritarian influence like Russia of china, and it's much more successful than the American way of democratization. Stabilizing the European neighborhood is a goal that should be pursued at the same time as all other goals
@@ayoCC I suppose i agree with you an all points. And i also like that new decisions could potentially be made without agreement from all countries, so only a certain majority will have to agree to it. That makes it feel like a real federation However, still, making certain states, and by extension, their people, feel like they're 2nd class citizens isn't the brightest idea ever made to put it lightly I dont know. Maybe letting aspiring countries enter a 2nd class in the EU for a while would be fine, if it wasnt for the fact that some countries (including mine) have been waiting for more than a decade to join the EU. And not because we havent met certain standards, we have, but, speaking for my country, because our neighbors dont want it to happen because of their own nationalism (although my country did push it a bit far with our own nationalism a decade or two ago, etc, etc) I would like it a lot more if when a certain country meets these standards, and the majority, maybe 2/3 or 3/4 (note: not all, like it is today) of EU countries agree to it, this aspiring country could join, say, a 2nd class within the EU, and after a while, eventually, join the EU with full rights and, by extension, obligations. And all the countries who are currently a part of the EU to keep all of their rights, of course Other than that, eventual federalization with an actual EU federal government that has actual power would be great (and not what we have today with a very weak eu commission and eu parliament), so a defined and powerful executive, legislative, and judicial branch, that can make, enforce, and judge those who (supposedly) break the laws of Europe But as i said in my previous comment i don't see it happening, like, ever. There's probably too many people who fall for the myth of the nation to ever proudly proclaim themselves as European brothers and sisters from the westernmost to the easternmost and from the northernmost to the southernmost border of the European continent, sadly
@@PiotrKuczaj You can choose the EU: freedom, human rights, social market economy or you can choose Russia. You have been there. You should know what to expect.
What people don't understand is that the Inner Circle, most likely the Inner Six, the former founding members will integrate further and the other members who are not part of said Inner Cirlce will have no say in how ot develops as they are no part of it.
Yes, they admit they did wrong by giving the same rights to each member. Now they want to change it according to merits. This will end up reshaping EU. The rich countries don't want to have anything to do with the poor, except for the cheap working force and access to markets. And the poor countries can't handle the Democratic ideals
Thats why the veto is crucial. It stops larger countries to just dictate over the policy of smaller members. The slower the EU moves the better, that way members are protected
@@foicex and it allows small countries to blackmail does who desire further integration, if you want to have full sovereignity then leave the union, no one is stopping them to leave, i do not understand what is so hard to understand.
I have never liked the idea of a multi-tier europe, because i feel like some countries would only want to grab the advantages of being in the eu without any of the drawbacks, i always wanted a huge reform of the union and get rid of the unanimity principle, but at this point i think the only way for a more integrated union is a multi tiered one
Multitier EU is a good option. I watched interview with one former Director General from EU Commision and he said its a good option to allow willing countries to cooperate more, his experience is that countries not included look at inner circle and dont want to be leaved out and all one by one get involved. 😅 Even though it was something about defence...and many were sceptical but when they saw things will work and they are not in...😂 they jumped in. So I believe its a way to show to the more cautios countries how things can work and all them will jump in. 😊
@@ruzicas.5819 the problem is that we could end with countries like czech republic or sweden, (who in theory are obligated to adopt the euro) in an eternal state of being a "tier 2" country because of his nationalist people fearing further integration, but as i said in my comment at this point the only solution in my opinion is to proceed with a multi tier europe, or refound it with those who truly want an european federation and getting rid of countries like poland or hungary.
Well then you offer them extra incentives for closer cooperation, as a mutual relationship. And they can make their own decisions. Rather than the EU's previous strategy which is just to bully every member into ever-closer union.
@@andybrice2711 "Extra incentives" or more like bribery right? no thanks, if some country does not want to be part of the european project is fine, i have solution: leave, what is so hard to understand? the union is not "bullying" every member for integration, that was the objective of the union from the very beggining, if what they want is just economic cooperation then leave the union and join EFTA, Why should the members who desire a more integrated europe be hostages of those who surrendered to nationalism?
@@javierrojo1153 Because trade, diplomacy, and geopolitical allegiance is all built upon reciprocity. If the EU adopted your rhetoric of _"Commit fully to the European Project or leave."_ It would rapidly disintegrate. Some people do want a federal Europe. And even some countries may have an electoral majority supportive of it. But the vast majority of Europeans do not want unlimited integration. Pushing it would be a losing policy. It's far more pragmatically effective to offer several tiers of mutual cooperation. They've already done that somewhat with the EEA, EFTA, Eurozone, and Schengen Area. But it makes sense to clarify those tiers.
Trade deals are well and fine for industry, currency integration may be a nice way for governments to limit their own financial sovereignty, but I suspect for citizens, the only important bits are the freedom of movement, and actual freedom, in a charter of rights. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t hear which of the tiers these would be fit into.
Freedom of movement a.k.a. Schengen agreement - Tier 1/Core and Tier 3/EEA. Charter of rights a.k.a. independent judiciary. - Tier 1, 2, 3/Core, the EU, EEA
some reasonable things in here, but the fact that there is a provision for a "coalition of the willing" and that this is drawn up mainly by France and Germany makes it hard to not worry about it becoming a system of permanent limbo for some...
I do not think countries not in the EU itself should benefit from the Single market like Norway and Switzerland, it just seems a bit hypocritical. If non EU members get that benefit then any country should be able to access the single market such as the US. Canada, Mexico etc
Norway and Switzerland pay for the access to the single market, have to follow all the rules and have no voting rights. If the US would like to join to the same conditions, it would be a no-brainer to sign that deal as fast as possible.
@@thomasbohl6924 while French Guiana , eu territory, eu citizens , French citizens don’t have access to the Schengen area while eu citizens have Schengen like access to the territory
A multi speed EU could work, but power will always remain in the inner core of countries, which for now is Euro Zone countries, in other words, countries that are at arm's length, would they really be comfortable with the idea of more powers shifting more towards inner core countries? Inner core countries will end up with far more advantages, not to mention that they are more likely willing to integrate, which will give them more advantages over the other core countries. I do think it can still work, but I have to wonder about the countries that are hanging back, their influence overtime would become smaller over time, it would also put more pressure on the outer core countries to want into the inner core, a bit like how gradually, more countries keep joining the Euro and to put it another way, the inner core countries make the rules, the other ones abide it, in the case of the EU now, you've got a few layers, the Euro Zone, the EU and EEC countries, it's not hard to imagine over the long run where the voting patterns are going to go, especially in Euro Zone countries as they become more integrated with each other, that puts the rest in a difficult position, especially the ones that don't want to integrate, it basically means they become rule takers or it pushes them fully out of the EU and it's only going to get worse for the likes of Poland and Hungary as more eastern EU countries join the Euro as it ends up isolating the remaining countries and that will in time translate into political power in favour of Euro Zone countries. So even though a multi speed EU can work and might be the best solution for the time being, I think eventually, it's going to lead to most if not all countries being pulled into the inner core, otherwise, their inelegance will in time become weaker, almost to the degree that they could become rule takers, which ironically could be the best way to get rid of the countries in the EU that don't want the project to work or are in for selfish reasons, after all, if you look at it, countries that drag their feet, the UK, Poland, Hungary and the likes, these will hold back on many areas like the Euro, now that might not be an issue for them now, but it's a given that more powers will be concentrated on the inner core groups of countries and that is Euro Zone countries, or to be blunt about it, the rest are not that important and let's not kid ourselves, power is always going to shift towards the inner core countries because of integration, the UK found that out by more or less being pushed aside by others in the inner core of the EU when the UK was in the EU, the same will very likely happen to those other countries unless they become more integrated.
The main problem with the current EU is that not every country that got accepted can execute EU policies on the same level as more "advanced" countries with more seniority inside the EU. Even if a country does get accepted after years of probation mumbo jumbo, the said country might not be able to keep up with the rest of EU's members. This new multi-tier solution, in my opinion, is trying to address this problem. But it can also potentially give birth to jealousy, slanders, and lack of unity. Regardless, ppl should not look at this multi-tier system as a way to divide membership within the EU, but more like different kind of memberships - each catered for different circumstances of the EU members. Maybe changing the way this system being called or described can help it to gain more approval. Using terms "tiers" or "circles" is inherently problematic and should be avoided.
As soon as you start making distinctions between members, you're going from a union to a hierarchial structure. It's political and economical subjugation, effectively proclaiming yourself a vassal of a greater power. I mean that's what the EU already pretty much is, but at least it isn't on paper.
@@mrgalaxy396 well remember ERM? It was a failure due to England n Italy couldnt keep up with the peg on Germany's Mark. What I mean is, it is a fact that every country isnt the same in term of capability. To expect every country to equally perform well is impossible. Hierarchy is something that keep civilization going. What's so bad about it? It's not like EU is some kind of a ruthless empire. It consists of more than 1 country in a democratic system.
@@mrgalaxy396and what is your proposal to keep the clusterfuck the eu currently is alive? If we do nothing the eu is going to be dissolved sooner or later, i do not like the multi tier solution either, i prefer a smaller but more united union, but the multi tier proposal is the only pragmatic proposal to further integration, if a country does not want to be "subjugated" it can always join the inner circle or leave the union.
@javierrojo1153 Why does it need to be kept alive? If it can't work as an equal-footing union, dissolve it and start over. Regions which share the same values can form their own unions and then sign trade agreements and other joint-effort agreements between each other. You already kind of do this with countries such as Switzerland and Norway anyways. The EU creeped into political territory it doesn't belong in, which is why you see it cracking today.
@stefanusunicorn7483 There is a difference between implicit and explicit hierarchy. An implicit hierarchy could be changed on your own efforts and will, like changing economic balance of power through smart investments and a lot of hard work. An explicit hierarchy you no longer have power in your own hands, you submit undersomeone else who will impose their will on you. The balance of power thus becomes fixed and you are stuck lower on the totem pole. Why would you voluntarily submit to being lower in the chain when you started on an equal-footing position?
Ironic. Britain argued some of these ideas pre-Brexit and were told "non-non" and "nein-nein". QMV will mean that Germany-France and inner circle will always get their way. Britain better off charting our own course.
For sure, for sure, the only thing missing in our marvelous project "Utopia Britannia" - resurrection of Thatcher. On second thought, she don't even need be alive, we can dig out her bones and place those on stool in Westminster, as display of our undying genius and monument to our eternal prosperity.
Britain is struggling to chart its own course, but that is still preferable to hitching itself to a sinking ship. The real question is if it can carve out some sectors in the US-led Third Industrial Revolution.
Britain has nothing more to do with a multi tier EU than France or Germany. What britians politicians did the last decades was finger pointing to the EU every time their people got annoyed with them. Keep your island, we are fine over here. And keep your superfluous nose up attitude with you.
Please, what britain wanted is only the benifits of being an eu member without any of the drawbacks, or in other words, to create cherrypicks treaties with the union, the union is better without britain, at least until the britsh people understant that we no longer live in the victorian era and the age when european countries ruled the world is long gone.
Isnt the outer tier what Cameron was requesting of EU before the to referendum? Could a lot of bad blood have been avoided not only internally within the UK, but also between the UK and Brussels if the EU have accepted then that these reforms are probably necessary for their future expansion?
This concept is not even discussed yet, let alone accepted as necessary. The first similar reports about multi tier EU date back as far as 2004, and pop up every 5 years or so. An organisation that is well led will taken it's time to investigate and discuss options and consequences, and will never make a decision on such a huge change on demands and threats from one of its notoriously recalcitrant members. So no, from that perspective Camerons decision to have a referendum could not have been prevented.
The minute, the SECOND this garbage is passed all countries east of Vienna will get out. We have been slave to the USSR. We will not be your slaves too!
The suggestion that a multi-speed EU is under development called forth the vision of a multi-cog bicycle. The device which allows smooth-ish operation of such a bicycle is called a derailleur. There, but for the gratuitous extra ‘l’ …
Both Moldova and Ukraine are countries without control over their territory, or put it in other way, with part of their territories disputed. So the talks are empty, there is no possibility of such countries joining the EU.
“Unruly members” :):):) I.e. if a country does not submit to the colonizers’ rules, then Germany and France are unable to exploit, therefore you are labeled “unruly”.
Ah, but do all tiers are subject to EU council in the same way?? Not enjoying full integration, but obyeing all decisions even if no vote. If so, is another cast system.
It is. You only get to vote if you are a full member. So only the two inner tiers. The Inner Circle will allowed to vote on everything, the other full members on everything but Schengen and the EURO and presumably a common defense etc. the other tiers are just servants. They take orders or they leave it.
@@popelgruner595 then join or leave, is not so hard to understand, the european union is not mandatory, you can leave, what you cant do is to take all de advantages and expect to retain full sovereignity like poland and hungary want.
This isn't what the EU needs. What the EU needs is humongous cost cutting and the biggest anti-corruption drive ever seen to man. The fact that Hungary has Meszaros, who has become a billionaire off the back of EU funds, should be a major red flag to the EU's ability to govern. If a country cannot use EU funds as intended, those funds should be instantly cut off. Full stop. AND the EU should have explanations for that made public VERY OBVIOUSLY and in clear language in that country.
Well that is what OLAF is for in tge end. They check each larger project and pay to country only if the tenders and deliverables were OK. If any concerns they halt the payment.
We should but it's all DEAD. EU said 2030 is the earliest date. So possibly even 2035 or 2040. EU enlargement story is dead for every candidate country. I don't know why people even talk about it anymore. We will have average salary of 1000 euros in 2025, similar to Greece or Portugal and we are THE fastest growing economy of the Europe right now with 6,9% of the growth. So maybe better to stay out of the EU. Ukrainian, Russian and Turkish refugees boosted our economy to the max.
@@greendsnow No that's not true at all. First time i hear about it actually. Main reason is that absolute majority of the refugees that get here are wealthy to start with and they buy great houses or apartments at our Adriatic coastline and they drive some great expensive cars, so no. They can enjoy peacefull life very much.
I imagine the EU would want the UK as part of EPC 2.0 to legitimise it as a tier, making it more appealing to countries like Ukraine or Serbia that are preparing for EU integration
We in Serbia don't agree. We think that after years/decades of promises after promises that we will join EU, it would feel like slap in the face. And it's already beginning, with ppl starting to think that maybe EU is not the best way forward for our country and Euroscepticism and Russian influence is at record high....And we all know that EU don't need little Russia in hart of it ...
The EU should become more of a federation; closer inter-state integration, a nore empowered European parliament and a diminished council to act more as an upper house for sober second thought and perhaps even an actually parliamentary elected "prime Minister of Europe" office with limited powers
I am rather for fewer seats, and I mean a lot of fewer seats like every country have very very few seats like (One seat per area): 1 main, 1 climate, 1 economy, 1 army, 1 transport. Per country, then every country have their own assembly per area. The main seat would take up the position about things which would affect the country overall, while also adding topics which came up late in their own assembly for different reasons. For this to really work so would all member countries need to give a list of topics they want to take up/talk about at least one month before the meeting so their respective assemblies can talk about it, come up with questions etc. for every topic, and the topics gets taken randomly if not decided in an earlier meeting. After a topics is taken up every country gets to ask a question about it and the country which took it up would then spend up to 30min organizing answers to answer their questions, then after like 3 hours (maybe more, maybe less) they can vote for : accept, reject, postpone, continue. It would need MASSIVE reform, but I think member states would feel like they get more power, they can organize themselves better, etc. I personally feel that any move in this kind of direction would be good.
The idea of a tiered Europe is intriguing, but I can't help but feel it might dilute the core essence of the EU. The shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting could be a game-changer, but I wonder how many nations would be on board? Also, the mention of Skillshare felt a bit out of place in such a heavy topic, but hey, we all gotta learn somehow, right? 😅🇪🇺
Considering that almost all eastern countries are againt of removing the veto i dont think it Will happen any time soon, our best bet is to create a multi tier europe and get rid of the veto system in the inner circle.
But yeah, this is exactly the kind of EU reform the UK was pushing for over a decade ago, and was rebuffed on this at every attempt. If a multi-tiered system for EU membership like this was in place, I'm quite sure the UK would have never left the EU at all but instead chosen an outer tier to keep free trade while skipping out on the politicial union and integration stuff.
Good morning TLDR! Love your content. Could you please make a video on the upcoming parliamentary elections and referendum in Poland? The campaign of each side and the impact the results could have on Europe?
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 >cool kids club > the "west" Pick one. Last time I checked France was busy burning down in riots and scrambling for Africa. Germany as always: special, little untouchable priness - Queen bee dishing out double standards.
If your child was in a school club, and upon choosing to leave, was bullied, Isolated and had to pay money as a penalty simply to scare other club members to remain... would you really want your child in such a club?
It is the same plan that has always been proposed before any enlargement because it is the only sensible one. But political leaders have always been too cowardly to block any enlargement before it is actually implemented. There should be no single new member state before it is.
This is *not a EU plan* but merely an academic report (Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century) which specifically says that it does not represent the views of German or French governments on the cover page. In 60 pages there is only one mention of the UK: 'Associate Members: A first outer tier could allow for streamlining the different forms of association with the EEA countries, Switzerland or even the UK'.
This whole idea of a multi tiered EU is purely a way of enticing the UK back, which was the second highest net contributer. The UK political class didn't wish to leave. Those of us in the English regions dragged the country out. What ever you see in the media forget it, we don't want back in ever. It's just medis BS.
@@jeffsmith3392 Sure buddy.
Let's ignore that actually you took more out then you put in.
@@jeffsmith3392 Enticing the UK back? The only media outlets reporting this 'news' are the British ones. Brexit is done and the EU moved on. The UK is neither wanted nor needed back.
@@Seth9809UK was supposed to be richer after Brexit, right... didn't happen.
@@jeffsmith3392I don't have to be UK citizen to know that you can only speak for yourself, not an entire nation.
My proposal is to call the 4 circles:
1) Core
2) Inner Rim
3) Expansion Region
4) Outer Rim
I would also suggest to add a fifth circle, comprising everything else past the Outer Rim, to be called "Unknown Regions".
On a side note, from now on in official EU documents the United Kingdom shall be known as "Confederacy of Independent Systems" (abbreviated in CIS), at least until successful reintegration of all its members in the -Galactic Republic- European Union.
Man I love this comment :D
man the eu is a bearaucratic hellhole, i wish that could happen
I was all set to hammer out a clever comment on this, but I'm certain this one is about as good as it gets. 😁😄🤣
Long live the Empire
The EUmpire must be prepared to defend against the People's Republic of the Yuuzhon Vong
Maybe I'm missing here, but I feel like a multitier Europe already exists. It's just not formally so. It seems to me that the plurality (not necessarily the majority) of these reforms would just realize such a tiered system that Europeans already perceive. But then again, this is outside my expertise, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
It's like how the UK always saw itself as not being properly 'part' of Europe, but almost as an observer state.
there have already been tiers in EU membership/relationship, but only at the fringes and in particular cases. introducing tiers in the core of the EU itself poses a danger to one of its main principles-integrating the entire continent together to prevent another destructive war.
Yes, but right now every single non-member associate has it's onw set of exceptions and regulations. It's just streamlining everyone into one single policy that would make everything easier for the future.
@@Besthinktwice Iceland is also far away from continental Europe so it doesn't make much sense.
@@RMProjects785 But I think generally the UK and other members understand now, that cancelling EU membership entirely turned out to be much worse overall.
These "second hand" memberships are a really dangerous way of integrating countries.The reason why the entry rules are so strict is because once a country becomes member,they have to be on the same standards of other EU nations,or else this inequality will have catastrophic affects on both sides of the population...
Hence requirements need to go up by tier. Integration takes decades regardless, but this makes it more gradual.
Like euro currency integration isn't really necessary but meeting all the trade and law harmony is more important
The euro has certainly done a good job at exacerbating the economic inequality between North and South Europe
Europe is already unequal. The industrialized north is slowly destroying the developing south.
" this inequality will have catastrophic affects on both sides of the population" Uhm...
You missed the Eurozone members Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Due to the upcoming enlargement of the Eurozone with Bulgaria, I can live very well with its adition to the zone right now.
What do you mean?
Yeah a bit misleading thumbnail, minor fix
@@RafaelW8 The thumbnail is not correct.
Bulgaria is not part of Schengen and it won’t be for now because of na*is in Austria and The Netherlands.
@@_o..o_1871 Maybe your Gov. should start working on anti-corruption measures!
Perhaps the plan could be simplified further into just two tiers: EU and Hungary.
or better Hungary with Turkey so they eliminate each other...
Poland too. Unless PiS loses the next election.
Just 2 tiers is enough. Those that want to follow and have EU laws enforced by a european police and switch to a stronger federation can be part of the EFU, while others can remain part of the EU. The EFU members can then withdraw from the EU and essentially remove the baggage (eg Hungary and poland).
@@WhiteMouse77oddly enough France and Germany are the ones eliminating themselves with their open borders
@@loenk2651 Well if you like to let decide how to rule your country for foreign powers you should vote Tusk.
I don't think the idea is to make a multi-tiered Europe with second- class countries, I think the idea is to restructure and reform the pathway to the full integration so that more resources can be allocated to the whole process. There are a lot of countries that want to join the EU that do not align with EU values and have made no real efforts to change.
Yeah, I can understand including more blending to see about benefiting the continent while avoiding unworthy states getting what they wanted.
I think you should expect the idea is to make second class countries considering its Germany and France behind this.
What are those EU values that all members agree on?
Themissue then is that the crowd who demand reforms to veto before any new countries join
@@AdventuresOfAzeth At the very least it was supposed to be functioning democracy, adherence to human rights values, and fair judiciary. Which is a very low bar. And even that seems too much for some.
It's a great way to let only those who wish to integrate do so without stripping autonomy from others but other EU members will no doubt start feeling second class
But than the differences between member states will grow, just as the animosity towards those that don't reform, but still get the EU money
@@fjuvo I think it will actually be less because there will be less of a "they are holding us back" mindset
@@hamdepaf6686 Seems like it's just going to be a more dysfunctional organization. What do EU citizens want? To form a country? Because if that's not the goal, I think the EU won't be around for long. The rest of the world is made up of countries and no desire to move beyond that. And then there's whatever the EU is working toward.
Will, it is like marriage - if you do not want to commit to that you do not get the benefits of marriage either (like inheritance etc.). But if you commit you also can't fuck around as before to your pleasure. You can't have your cake and eat it
It should be mandatory in schools to push a European citizen notion. Nationalism is a cancer in Europe currently.
The reason ads are so annoying is because its the exact same ad for an entire week on like 5 channels, so by Wednesday I’m sick of it.
"All members are equal. But some members are more equal than others."
Some members are more stupid than others. (See: Hungary, Poland, and now Slovakia)
Honestly even if some member states have more leverage due to size and their overall status to influence things, it would be way worse without the EU, because there would be no platform to moderate. Not to mention the EU is built to give more protection to the smaller member states (eg. smaller states get proportionally more MEPs per capita, EU organs have equal amount of seats per member state and rotate leadership etc.). The EU is far from perfect, but way better than what we had before.
@@SniperiusForeveryeah take the Netherlands for example. Currently they gain all the benefits from the EU that Germany does, with Germany having a larger pull on the EU as a whole (tough less per capita so a German citizen actually gets less individual power then the smaller countries). If the EU didn’t exist Germany could just decide trade policy that the Netherlands would need to follow because of their integrarion and dependence on Germany without actually getting any say
@@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547 Not quite, the ruhrgebied gets more than 75% of it's resources via the netherlands, that gives a huge leverage..they need the dutch just as much as the dutch need the gemans,
@@ozzie2545 the Ruhrgebiet does, but it can replace that, not the whole of Germany and The Ruhrgebiet isn’t exactly a dominating or even powerful force on German federal politics
this is why TLDR News EU is the most profitable, no major news network ever covers the paperwork foundation of the European Union along with how the EU affects current events.
with great error in script
@@mad3721comes great nitpicking in the comments
@@minhluong4596 cope
There are people which said this would happen years ago. It's something that's been on the agenda for a long time now. You can find reports from 10+ years ago also advocating for a multi-tiered EU. It's one of the things they keep discussing at these endless events/conferences/dinners/parties that those guys keep going to. They really want countries like Turkey or Ukraine to join, but it's pretty difficult to get them to join under the usual rules, so they want to get them to "half join", and once they've half joined that can speed up the process to them fully joining, at least that's the hope. UK Column have been reporting on this since at least 2016. Contact them and they will be able to provide you with a LOT more information if you are interested.
Its also a way for the EU to move further without Hungary and Poland holding everyone back.
Turkey cannot join the EU ..... they are already a member . ; )
@@patricko9479 its called making sure they start fighting each other make russia more prominent in the discussion and eventually the hungarians and the poles will rip each other into twenty pieces
Turkey wont join unless it liberizes itself regardless of what reforms the EU strives for.
Why should they fully join if they already enjoy enough benefits? See the UK for example. They didn't adopt the Euro or joined Schengen, because the UK already enjoyed the benefits of the EU. It even backfired because of Brexit.
I think a more flexible EU is more robust. What doesn´t bend, will break. Maybe the UK would still be in the EU if they could´ve just desintegrated one step. There are also always populists in every country that will use the the perception of the EU as this faraway tyrannical force that control their everyday life as reason for leaving. A more flexible EU would undermine that narrative (true or not). Hungary for example could desintegrate and be allowed more autonomacy, whilst simultaneously losing some benefits of course.
That is a strange way of interpreting the core values of the EU.
Every member state that has the feeling that " the EU is a faraway..." has the right to LEAVE !! Nobody FORCES anything onto a member. When Hungary signed to become a member it KNEW what it signed up to e.g. independence of the judicial system for example !
The EU is as flexible as TWENTY-SEVEN different sovereign countries ALLOW the EU to be !!
The EU is already more flexible than most nation-states are. Every major event or crisis since 1939 has led to a complete reorganization of the EU and its predecessors. From the oil crises in the 70's to the end of the Cold War, from WW2 to the current Russo-Ukrainian war, every time a new treaty was made and the communities reformed. Compare that to how often nation-states completely rewrite their constitutions...
i wonder which one is the tier that doesnt enforce EU tax avoidance laws ...
The UK leaving the EU was a good thing. I'm glad they re no longer part of the club. They never had the intend to work for a common goal within the Union. They only wanted to destroy it. Now the UK seems to desintegrate. The irony...
These proposals sound quite good. I would add that countries that do not adhere to the principles of the inner core would be obliged to move to a less integrated part with, as you mentioned, a loss of benefits.
This would have been a good idea a few years ago. Would have saved alot of headache between the UK and EU if they had this idea before Brexit
I don't think so. The Brexit debate was mostly irrational and fact-free anways.
Brexit debate existed since the early nineties
I am truly thankful this wasn't an option in the UK / EU renegotiation. Britain may have still been trapped. Thank god the EU offered sweet F. A.
@@jeffsmith3392
F.A. as in financial agreement?
It wouldn't keep the UK in as they would be in a "2nd tier" which would only give them more reasons to leave
Marcon's vanity project will end when he goes out the door in 18 months.
I don't know... this reform feels like putting a lipstick on a pig and calling it a super model...
France and Germany trying to make a newer cooler group chat
From a Hungarian perspective: The EU needs more central control over regional development funds, to prevent corrupt governments from misusing (stealing) the funds. Unfortunately democracy allows the election of corrupt and autocratic governments, but those governments lose their power if they couldn't divert EU funds to fund their corrupt system. The worst offender is Hungary, but Slovakia and Ukraine can quickly become "good" contenders, with the election of Fico, and Ukraine has always been very corrupt.
Unfortunately the Soviet Union and the former Eastern Bloc countries were built on corruption (like China and Russia are to this day), and even after switching to free elections, the systems are hard to change, and the remnants of the old system still haunt us today.
Baltic states are in Schengen and in Eurozone and should be coloured accordingly in the thumbnail
This channel Is inaccurate, It Is not he's First mistake
Once again I thank you for putting the subtitles.
I really appreciated the depth you went into in such a short amount of time in this video! Much love TLDR.
Really? There is NO such plan!
The reforms are a good idea, but i think it should really be that the 1st two tiers should basically stay like they are now... with no law and eu government differences, because the EUs non Euro and non Schengen members are still full members .
Can we have the link to this Franco-German proposal?
We should call the inner most call the „EURO-Federation“, with federal Agencies such as Europol (similar to FBI in USA), Frontex (similar to Boarder patrol and coast guard in the USA), stronger EEAS (similar to the US state department), ECB, European court of justice, EU court of auditors, stronger EAHC (like OSHA, WILG, NIOSH, NSC, MSHA, ASSP, ATDR, EPA or other departments of public health in the US) but also a federal intelligence agency (like CIA or NSA in the USA), a federal army, a federal Revenue Service (like the IRS in the USA), a federal social security program, a federal program which funds education and scientific research (like U.S. Department of Education or FNMA - Fannie Mae). These new federal government agencies should get competencies of the nations/states of the new Federacy.
We could also reform the EU Parliament so that the federal countries have a mixed member proportional parliament, where half of the MEPs are elected by the NUTS-2 regions, these could become like EURO-states. There are roughly 200 NUTS-2 regions in the EURO-countries. Another 200 MEPS could be elected proportionally. This one chamber of the EURO-Federation could pass laws concerning just the EURO-states by its own (they would be located in Brussels) When it comes to decisions concerning the outer cores such as the EU, these members are joined by all the MEPs of the other EU members (without the EURO) in Strasbourg and laws have to pass the second chamber (Council of the EU - could be renamed in European Senate) then. We already talked about changes to unanimity. This would roughly stay the same. For the outer most regions, the only legislative branch would be the Council of Europe and legislature would be integrated bilaterally.
The Commission president should also be approved by popular vote in the EURO-Federacy. Here is how this would work: Firstly the Council of Europe suggests a president candidate, then the broader EU-parliament (~400 MEPs of the federal parliament plus MEPs of the non EURO EU members = around 600 MEPs) vote on the suggested candidate (this is just like the current system works), then there is a public election in only the fully integrated EURO-states, where people can vote Yes or No for the president candidacy. Only if the president is elected by the majority of voters (popular vote), the candidate officially becomes the President of the EURO-Federation (USE), as well as President of EU commission.
This would greatly increase public support for the EU executive branch.
Additional to the president of the EU parliament (which has mostly organizational tasks, the leading coalition should also elect a „chancellor of the EU“, similar to Germans head of government. The chancellor is elected by the greater EU parliament (Euro + non Euro countries) and doesn’t need to be an MEP (could be an MEP from a non Euro country), but there are also no official tasks of the chancellor, but he or she is the vice head of state (second most important person of the Euro-Federacy) and can act in the behalf of the president of the commission in emergencies (nuclear launch codes). The combination of chancellor and president of the Euro-Federation is explicitly possible (despite Nazi Germany) but absolutely not mandatory. This would transform the EU to a more presidential system with a strong and broadly accepted executive branch. But with this reform separation of power becomes even more essential.
If the popular vote on the federal president fails, the candidate is still acting president of the commission as long as another president of the commission is found and voted into office (by larger EU parliament). In the meantime the EU functions just like now, without democratic legitimacy.
This lack of legitimacy still applies for the second EU tier (EU members that are not states of the Euro-Federation). But because the EU has way less competencies in those countries this is ok. Letting them also vote in the election for federal president, would let them influence policies that don’t affect them. And these citizens can influence the presidency in indirectly twice: in the council of Europe as well as in the European parliament.
But the official name of the EU president would be something like federal president, so explicitly not the president of the European Union as a whole. Their heads of government and heads of state remain their national ones.
Getting another election and a powerful president (one of the worlds most powerful leaders) is a good argument for citizens pushing for total integration of their nation into the Euro-Federation.
Some totally useless head of states such as the German Bundespräsident could be abolished and the federal Euro-president becomes the head of state of those countries. Of course this change would be more difficult in countries with presidential systems or constitutional monarchies.
4:29 « democratic countries in North Africa ». Name one ! None are anywhere near the Human Rights in any country of the EU.
it was an esageration maybe could be counties like kazakhistan and azerbaijan under russian influence
I think EU should go in opposite direction. You either in EU or not. If a country is part of UE it should use euro, be in Schengen etc.
So basicly more power for top6? No, gonna pass...
Could you do a video about the new EU Agency AMLA (Anti-Money Laundering Authority); its implications, competencies, race to host its headquarters, etc. Thank you!!
Are the places that want its HQ high or low in money laundering?
Anti cash meaning if you are homeless you are dead they use this amla as excuse to make a totalatory civilization
For a second I thought the EU will be implement lootboxes and a new subscription service.
Main difficulty is that trade deals go sour owing to exchange rates, which are often speculatively driven when the values must lie within some range, as was the case with the infamous snake-in-a-tunnel exchange rate controls prior to the euro. To use the euro, you really must be up to full standard. So, multi-tier is likely to be a necessary mess, as was the pre-euro EU itself. Ensuring only a core group are involved in, say, Schengen-style free movement and a common currency, mostly Franco-German-Benelux, is preferable to continent-wide migration.
I think it's about time!
But also it needs a stronger emphasis on the defense of the continent.
We did it for the energy, agriculture, and immigration (somewhat), we need a better integrated defense as well.
EU technically has The Common Security and Defence Policy, but I agree it isn't as ambitious as it should be considering the neighborhood situation. I wouldn't be against European Defence Agency having increased budget and responsibilities as well.
In other words, the EPC gets upgraded from a talkshop to a Talkshop.
UK should leave the EPC. It's a French idea and a slippery slope.
I don't really like the idea of capping the amount of seats in the European Parliament, it would really undermine the idea that EU is democratic. I'd even argue that 750 MEP is too few for a Union of 450 million citizens. 900 MEPs should really be the number of seats today, 1 MEP representing 500 thousand people, which is similar to Malta's population today. Today, Malta is overrepresented in seats while Germany is underrepresented. higher number of seats should alleviate the lack of representation in the parliament.
The EU has a variable mep to citizen ratio with 17 countries already having representation better than 1:500,000. The range is 1 MEP for every 77,000 Maltese citizens to 1 MEP for every 860,000 German citizens .
One problem with enlarging a chamber is that it becomes increasingly difficult to for said body to actually govern. Doubling the number of seats means doubling the number of MEP that wish to have their voices heard, doubling the time spent debating or halving the percentage of people heard. You’re more likely to get scenarios where whole countries could be ignored whether by accident or intentionally because there are enough MEPs from other countries that got in the queue first and there’s some kind of time limit thanks to an emergency that prevents the debates from running on forever, which would be perceived as very undemocratic and targeting of said country.
750 MEP is a lot of people, and 450 million people is a lot of people to be represented. Unfortunately there is a tradeoff between increasing MEPs and how effective the EU will be able to govern with such a diverse array of opinions available and politicians that want to be heard to get re-elected.
I am rather for fewer seats, and I mean a lot of fewer seats like every country have very very few seats like (One seat per area): 1 main, 1 climate, 1 economy, 1 army, 1 transport. Per country, then every country have their own assembly per area. The main seat would take up the position about things which would affect the country overall, while also adding topics which came up late in their own assembly for different reasons.
For this to really work so would all member countries need to give a list of topics they want to take up/talk about at least one month before the meeting so their respective assemblies can talk about it, come up with questions etc. for every topic, and the topics gets taken randomly if not decided in an earlier meeting. After a topics is taken up every country gets to ask a question about it and the country which took it up would then spend up to 30min organizing answers to answer their questions, then after like 3 hours (maybe more, maybe less) they can vote for : accept, reject, postpone, continue. It would need MASSIVE reform, but I think member states would feel like they get more power, they can organize themselves better, etc. I personally feel that any move in this kind of direction would be good.
look up the size of Indian and Chinese parliaments
@@eruno_ Chinese parliament is a really, really bad example. China is not a democracy.
Recommendation: upload the audio of these videos to podcast platforms for an even wider reach!
Adjusting to reality is the best world can do.
It shows that some countries are more equal than others.
Poland and Hungary want expansion before reform. But they keep demonstrating how we absolutely need reforms before expansion, or else we will transform the EU in some sort of statue unable to move in anyway or decide anything.
As polish I just want to add, that it looks like right now EU is able to move and decide, but moves in the wrong direction.
Who would've thought that there will be streets burning with temporarily allowing illegal immigration?
Who would've thought that the governments that are against the changes made by EU will be forced into submission by taking EU-wide loans that everyone gets to pay, but some won't get the money from the loan.
Who would've thought that blindly following Germany and France in disarming the continent would make a war at the border?
Who would've thought that forcing the fake ecology changes (scrapping the old, already produced and rarely used cars and polluting the earth by producing EVs while leading towards an energy crisis) would destroy the economy of germany more than anything since WW2.
You might pretend that nothing bad is happening in EU, but overall, the crime rates are increasing, the economy is collapsing and was really unhealthy for over a decade now. The free market is dying and being replaced by companies that can impact governments and the EU law.
@@thecaretaker407OK Mr Schwab 😂
@@Maronicam You say things contrary to reality. And don't worry, article 50 still exists you can get out if you wish.
@@Maronicam And this is exactly the reason why people want Poland and Hungary gone. Completely untethered from reality and forcing everyone to deal with their madness
@@ausoleil8269it's that kind of rhetoric which pushed Britain to leave. "We will continue to Bury our head in the sand when it comes to immigration, accept open border or leave the EU" not very democratic
0:52 That really looks like the train where they signed the Armistice (except for the flatscreen TV)
Veto power must be removed and more power to the european parlament is necessary
So make small states irrelevant?
@@the11382 i'm portuguese, and yes we are irrelevant in europe, why should a country of 11 million be able to veto the entire union of 400M people?
@@mrreziik Why should countries suffer tyranny of the majority?
@@the11382 the european continent is dying, our populations are getting really old, federalization is our only relevant geopolitical future
@@mrreziik Federalization will not de-age Europe. Birth rates are declining across the globe, so immigration won't either.
As a Swede, I hope we'll turn to the Euro soon. Our currency has the equivalent value of monopoly money.
The reason I watched was because Finland wasn't in the thumbnail and I was interest in what group we would be put into. Yes I am Finnish, how did you guess?
Majority voting is a very naive idea. Analyze the recent crisis in relations with Ukraine, which has become a hostile country towards Poland. Anyone following the situation knows that Ukraine attacked Poland and Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania because these countries protected their agricultural markets while transferring grain through their territories. If the principle of majority voting existed, countries such as Poland would have to block their borders regardless of the EU's verdict in the vote or leave the EU. Maybe in Germany and France politicians should think about what they are aiming at. Populists enjoy high support precisely because EU politicians are too extreme. The EU is on the verge of collapse, and accepting new members (such as Ukraine) too quickly may result in a split.
As usual a very clear description. But how does the concept of “ coalition of the willing” fit into the concentric circle concept? What the report describes is quite what exists today. The reality is much more complicated, maybe overlapping circles with different configurations of members. Report also doesn’t as described deal with the differing concept of integration of existing members. So if a current member wants less integration their only option is to leave the EU to join an outer ring?
Different ideas about the structure and the future of the EU exist and there is an ongoing debate about that. That doesn't change with the tier structure. A member can propose a change. If a member wants less integration and can't get the necessary majorities for it's proposal in the Council and the Parliament, it can either accept this outcome or move to a ring that suits its preference. If the EU would grant exceptions again, the tier model would be pointless.
As for the "coalition of the willing", I'd assume that this coalition would consist of the Inner Circle countries, which also happen to be the countries which are contributing most of the EU funds. The notion that a "coalition of the willing" could proceed on its own if the other members don't want to support the plan, is a thinly veiled threat that the richer countries could leave the EU to set up a new organisation if the EU isn't going to reform to their liking.
3:02 Switzerland is actually not in the European Economic Area! I discovered this the hard way: my phone had free roaming in the EEA, and upon arriving in Switzerland I found that it didn't work there
I'm not sure about your thumbnail map...
The baltics and Finland already have the euro... you want to kick them out? 😂
This Channel Is inaccurate, it's not his First mistake
The “Schengen” mention in the inner-most circle is a bit confusing, since current EFTA members (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and Switzerland, are all part of the Schengen area. As well as micro-countries like Monaco, San Marino, Vatican (but not Andorra though) that are de facto part of it.
So Schengen doesn’t necessarily feels like the deepest integration when you consider that 25% of the 30 member states are not even part of the EU
Which make you think why its even a requirement for new members.
This is the kind of content I like
Small correction: while Switzerland could be considered having an associate membership, it is not part of the EEA in contrast to what was mentioned here.
As a french, I think the veto thing has to go before we agree to more people getting in, how are we supposed to lead a democracy that need 100% agreement on important subject? I'm willing to unify europe more and enlarge it but not the union behave only as an economic union that is held by a few countries. The more country enter the union curently, the harder it will be to unify and I have suspission that it's the aim of somme countries that actually want the EU to remain divided extremely decentralized with no power uppon it's member states.
The veto protects nations from undesirable conditions. We are not a federation, just an economic union, no one else as anything to dictate over polish or hungarian policy other then their own citizens
@@foicex i'm a european citizen, the european constitution protect my right everywhere in the EU, and if I want to wok in peace in poland it's my right without the risk of being intimidated by the government for being gay and not actively hidding it. If we were just an economic union we would have a parlement
@@foicex the veto is what makes the european union so weak, just one country against and nothing is done, if poland and hungary wants to fully dictate what they want to do then leave the union as simple as that.
@@angemalaurie6074 Uou do have the right to go to poland as a EU citizen, but you also have the right to not go to poland if you dont like the conditions there, leaving the fact that you are paiting an image over poland that is just false
@@javierrojo1153 exacly right, nothing should get done unless all members are glad with the change, otherwise you have some countries dictating over others. Thats how the EU was setup, if you dont like it, just leave the EU and make a federation with diferent rules
3:01 error: Switzerland is not in the EEA, bur rather the EFTA.
I’m likely way off the mark, but it almost sounds like a plan for Germany and France to try and maintain their own hegemony within the union.
They will always be the hegemons of Europe since their economy and population is bigger then all the other members states, the only nations that have a potential to compete with them is Poland and maybe Iberia if Portugal and Spain worked together
Well, France has the biggest military and Germany has the biggest economy. It's essentially a Franco-German empire.
@@gabbar51nghyeah right. You can keep sailing the high seas for Brexit benefits
It is like a dictatorship, France and Germany bullying . Look at the way they treat the U.K. !
@@user-mg3xr9tz7mwhat did he say that was incorrect?
Right now we have a 27 tier project with at least 30 satellites, circling around uncoordinated.
As soon as two start to cluster they can create black holes from where escape isn't possible.
Reforms are needed, but it's impossible to even get two willing ones on one line.
eu. stay stong, stay connected. dont need to agree on absolutely everything but its crucial to be able to cooperate and stay friendly for all people within the eu circles
Just hope that adding Ukraine to the EU won't cause more problems with Russia ending in ww3. We also don't want Turkey in the eu especially as it is not a european country.
That would be lovely to have the EU support Ukraine indefinitely. Russia never objected to Ukraine joining the EU, it was about not joining NATO (defacto or dejure doesn't matter).
The US is not gonna drop such gift as Ukraine, they will supply it with weapons until the last Ukrainian.
Ukraine doesn’t want to be in “multi tier”! We want to be a part of EU!!
The problem is most people put Ukraine in the same pot as Hungary and Poland. However, Ukraine is fundamentally different. the spirit of Ukraine is much more aligned with Western Europe.
It is already obvious that Ukraine will be integrated into a top tier.
As a Republic of Ireland passport holder with extended family still living in my home village in Rural Ireland, living in the U.K. 21 years, I voted firmly in favour of Brexit here in the U.K. despite being in a Labour controlled area and I believe that Brexit should have happened far sooner, which my native Ireland should have done the same, regardless of Scotland’s, Wales’, Channel Islands, Isle of Man’s or Northern Ireland’s position on same, as the EU is a failed entity - many of my English friends here believe that a “Celtic Alliance” for these islands is the best way forward for us, as we have very little in common with the EU despite Ireland’s significant levels of migration to other EU countries, as this is really about protecting national sovereignty given our history - already the Channel Tunnel is facing financial problems and it was a huge mistake to even build it, we have the disaster that is HS2, which forced the shelving (yet again) of the high speed Irish Sea rail Tunnel between Holyhead - Dublin
EU seems more successful than UK.
One does not simply enter the EU. It's a land full of bureaucraty.
bureaucraCy
UK has increased bureaucracy since leaving.
Standards work both ways. More to comply with but less paperwork than between countries with different standards
Well you've got the inner planes and outer planes which seperate into positive planes and negative planes, there's also the far realms
Reform will only go so far if the EU remains bound to unanimity among its member states, but what country will consent to empowering the EU to impose its laws upon them regardless of their own vote?
Ireland, everything the government has done and proposed goes against the wishes of the Irish population. This government has very little legitimacy as well. The current Tániste Micheal Martin was only elected back to his constituency on the 6th count. You might’ve expected the people or other politicians to have put an end to this regime, but they’re all afraid of reprisals if they fail aka five years for ‘hate crimes’
France and Germany will impose their will on everyone
Politicians would love it as they wouldn't be the ones responsible. Just got to trick Joe Public into not realizing what is happening.
I am sure the Greek government will be happy to do this. O7r governments hav served the interests of the eu despite our country spiraling down since 15 years ago
@@sarantis1995 that’s why so many people are getting out to places like Australia, while they still can, who knows what the EU governments will do to restrict our freedoms next. It’s sad to see what a dumpster fire that Ireland, once a prosperous, industrial and tertiary powerhouse, has become
Good video, but switzerland is not in the eea. They have separate agreements instead
It should be highly incentivised to rise to the highest tier of membership.
But I think that it's suuuper important that there is a smaller tier.
Strongest benefits should be part of the top tier.
I see what you try to achieve by this, but I’m worried this will give ammunition for other “exiters” organisation who will argue that EU is set to serve only France and Germany. In Poland where I come from it will be case for 100%. My point is - it will be to easy to turn this into divisive political battle against EU.
@@PiotrKuczaj
>that EU is set to serve only France and Germany
I mean, even right now it serves mostly them though (among a few others), so these people wouldn't be wrong. The EU (and NOT the ECSC. I have to point this out just in case. The EU is not the ECSC. The ECSC later on morphed into the EU and changed its goals) was meant to become a singular country, a federation, something the like USA
Still, the way it's been going for a while now, I wouldn't be surprised if it completely vanishes to exist. The Treaty of Lisbon completely broke the vision of a United States of Europe (of which I still am a fan, if my bias isn't evident), thanks to cumulative national pride among certain nationalities (cough, the French and Dutch). Just wonderful
This multi-tiered EU doesn't exactly help avoid that disastrous fate. If anything it will alienate (for legitimate and, I assume, some illegitimate, reasons) huge portions of the European population, especially, I think, those that are currently a part of the EU with full rights, like, as you mention, Poland, among many others; but to a similar degree people from countries who wish to join the EU, like mine, as well
I just don't see anything beneficial coming out of this
@@vikt it's all about the details.
Strategically it's important for aspirant EU members to get tied in stronger and stronger. While they synchronize laws and battle corruption, they also gain more access to the EU economy.
As EU grows it can also have more power to force global actors to listen. It's also important that not only there's a lot of people in the EU, but also people with strong household income. That's the bargaining chip of the EU.
If you have more than 300 million people with more than 30k income a year, that's a market you cannot miss out on. And when you want access you're going to make compromises.
Also the aspirant status would shield the country somewhat from authoritarian influence like Russia of china, and it's much more successful than the American way of democratization.
Stabilizing the European neighborhood is a goal that should be pursued at the same time as all other goals
@@ayoCC I suppose i agree with you an all points. And i also like that new decisions could potentially be made without agreement from all countries, so only a certain majority will have to agree to it. That makes it feel like a real federation
However, still, making certain states, and by extension, their people, feel like they're 2nd class citizens isn't the brightest idea ever made to put it lightly
I dont know. Maybe letting aspiring countries enter a 2nd class in the EU for a while would be fine, if it wasnt for the fact that some countries (including mine) have been waiting for more than a decade to join the EU. And not because we havent met certain standards, we have, but, speaking for my country, because our neighbors dont want it to happen because of their own nationalism (although my country did push it a bit far with our own nationalism a decade or two ago, etc, etc)
I would like it a lot more if when a certain country meets these standards, and the majority, maybe 2/3 or 3/4 (note: not all, like it is today) of EU countries agree to it, this aspiring country could join, say, a 2nd class within the EU, and after a while, eventually, join the EU with full rights and, by extension, obligations. And all the countries who are currently a part of the EU to keep all of their rights, of course
Other than that, eventual federalization with an actual EU federal government that has actual power would be great (and not what we have today with a very weak eu commission and eu parliament), so a defined and powerful executive, legislative, and judicial branch, that can make, enforce, and judge those who (supposedly) break the laws of Europe
But as i said in my previous comment i don't see it happening, like, ever. There's probably too many people who fall for the myth of the nation to ever proudly proclaim themselves as European brothers and sisters from the westernmost to the easternmost and from the northernmost to the southernmost border of the European continent, sadly
@@PiotrKuczaj You can choose the EU: freedom, human rights, social market economy or you can choose Russia. You have been there. You should know what to expect.
Not every country needs euro as currency. If you take euro, you loose ability to print money, and influence local economy.
What people don't understand is that the Inner Circle, most likely the Inner Six, the former founding members will integrate further and the other members who are not part of said Inner Cirlce will have no say in how ot develops as they are no part of it.
Yes, they admit they did wrong by giving the same rights to each member. Now they want to change it according to merits. This will end up reshaping EU. The rich countries don't want to have anything to do with the poor, except for the cheap working force and access to markets. And the poor countries can't handle the Democratic ideals
Thats why the veto is crucial. It stops larger countries to just dictate over the policy of smaller members. The slower the EU moves the better, that way members are protected
then Join the inner circle or leave? why integration should be stopped because a bunch of countries are against it?
@@foicex and it allows small countries to blackmail does who desire further integration, if you want to have full sovereignity then leave the union, no one is stopping them to leave, i do not understand what is so hard to understand.
Well, if they want to have a say they must join the inner circle. If they think autonomy is to valuable then stay out.
Turkey has been a aspirational member for a lot longer than Ukraine
I have never liked the idea of a multi-tier europe, because i feel like some countries would only want to grab the advantages of being in the eu without any of the drawbacks, i always wanted a huge reform of the union and get rid of the unanimity principle, but at this point i think the only way for a more integrated union is a multi tiered one
Multitier EU is a good option. I watched interview with one former Director General from EU Commision and he said its a good option to allow willing countries to cooperate more, his experience is that countries not included look at inner circle and dont want to be leaved out and all one by one get involved. 😅 Even though it was something about defence...and many were sceptical but when they saw things will work and they are not in...😂 they jumped in.
So I believe its a way to show to the more cautios countries how things can work and all them will jump in. 😊
@@ruzicas.5819 the problem is that we could end with countries like czech republic or sweden, (who in theory are obligated to adopt the euro) in an eternal state of being a "tier 2" country because of his nationalist people fearing further integration, but as i said in my comment at this point the only solution in my opinion is to proceed with a multi tier europe, or refound it with those who truly want an european federation and getting rid of countries like poland or hungary.
Well then you offer them extra incentives for closer cooperation, as a mutual relationship. And they can make their own decisions. Rather than the EU's previous strategy which is just to bully every member into ever-closer union.
@@andybrice2711 "Extra incentives" or more like bribery right? no thanks, if some country does not want to be part of the european project is fine, i have solution: leave, what is so hard to understand? the union is not "bullying" every member for integration, that was the objective of the union from the very beggining, if what they want is just economic cooperation then leave the union and join EFTA, Why should the members who desire a more integrated europe be hostages of those who surrendered to nationalism?
@@javierrojo1153 Because trade, diplomacy, and geopolitical allegiance is all built upon reciprocity. If the EU adopted your rhetoric of _"Commit fully to the European Project or leave."_ It would rapidly disintegrate.
Some people do want a federal Europe. And even some countries may have an electoral majority supportive of it.
But the vast majority of Europeans do not want unlimited integration. Pushing it would be a losing policy.
It's far more pragmatically effective to offer several tiers of mutual cooperation. They've already done that somewhat with the EEA, EFTA, Eurozone, and Schengen Area. But it makes sense to clarify those tiers.
I once read a poem about a place with concentric circles.
Trade deals are well and fine for industry, currency integration may be a nice way for governments to limit their own financial sovereignty, but I suspect for citizens, the only important bits are the freedom of movement, and actual freedom, in a charter of rights. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t hear which of the tiers these would be fit into.
Freedom of movement a.k.a. Schengen agreement - Tier 1/Core and Tier 3/EEA. Charter of rights a.k.a. independent judiciary. - Tier 1, 2, 3/Core, the EU, EEA
some reasonable things in here, but the fact that there is a provision for a "coalition of the willing" and that this is drawn up mainly by France and Germany makes it hard to not worry about it becoming a system of permanent limbo for some...
Great way to turn one half of the EU against the other even more.
They could just exit the Union.
@@nntflow7058 well, considering how that went for the UK, I'm not sure that's a great idea.
@@me0101001000Well it's the risk that these Pro-Russian/Anti-EU countries need to make.
@@nntflow7058 Then EU will break apart Brilliant ..
@@anubizz3 *Unproductive EU countries would break apart. Yes.
Let this useless countries wreck their own economy. No more EU funding for them.
Two missing changes: ability to kick out members no longer respecting rule of law and more anti-corruption enforcement
I do not think countries not in the EU itself should benefit from the Single market like Norway and Switzerland, it just seems a bit hypocritical. If non EU members get that benefit then any country should be able to access the single market such as the US. Canada, Mexico etc
They pay a lot for the access to the market, keeping their internal policies, but haveing no decisions on the laws proposed by the EU.
Norway and Switzerland pay for the access to the single market, have to follow all the rules and have no voting rights. If the US would like to join to the same conditions, it would be a no-brainer to sign that deal as fast as possible.
@@floreanchannelThey "pay a lot"... Can we have some numbers please?
@@thomasbohl6924 while French Guiana , eu territory, eu citizens , French citizens don’t have access to the Schengen area while eu citizens have Schengen like access to the territory
They pay for the privilege. Norway pays most to EU per person
More flexible means also easy to leave
A multi speed EU could work, but power will always remain in the inner core of countries, which for now is Euro Zone countries, in other words, countries that are at arm's length, would they really be comfortable with the idea of more powers shifting more towards inner core countries? Inner core countries will end up with far more advantages, not to mention that they are more likely willing to integrate, which will give them more advantages over the other core countries.
I do think it can still work, but I have to wonder about the countries that are hanging back, their influence overtime would become smaller over time, it would also put more pressure on the outer core countries to want into the inner core, a bit like how gradually, more countries keep joining the Euro and to put it another way, the inner core countries make the rules, the other ones abide it, in the case of the EU now, you've got a few layers, the Euro Zone, the EU and EEC countries, it's not hard to imagine over the long run where the voting patterns are going to go, especially in Euro Zone countries as they become more integrated with each other, that puts the rest in a difficult position, especially the ones that don't want to integrate, it basically means they become rule takers or it pushes them fully out of the EU and it's only going to get worse for the likes of Poland and Hungary as more eastern EU countries join the Euro as it ends up isolating the remaining countries and that will in time translate into political power in favour of Euro Zone countries.
So even though a multi speed EU can work and might be the best solution for the time being, I think eventually, it's going to lead to most if not all countries being pulled into the inner core, otherwise, their inelegance will in time become weaker, almost to the degree that they could become rule takers, which ironically could be the best way to get rid of the countries in the EU that don't want the project to work or are in for selfish reasons, after all, if you look at it, countries that drag their feet, the UK, Poland, Hungary and the likes, these will hold back on many areas like the Euro, now that might not be an issue for them now, but it's a given that more powers will be concentrated on the inner core groups of countries and that is Euro Zone countries, or to be blunt about it, the rest are not that important and let's not kid ourselves, power is always going to shift towards the inner core countries because of integration, the UK found that out by more or less being pushed aside by others in the inner core of the EU when the UK was in the EU, the same will very likely happen to those other countries unless they become more integrated.
I fail to see any difference between the ‘new’ tier system and what already exists. The last tier simply is the already existing neighboring policy
The main problem with the current EU is that not every country that got accepted can execute EU policies on the same level as more "advanced" countries with more seniority inside the EU. Even if a country does get accepted after years of probation mumbo jumbo, the said country might not be able to keep up with the rest of EU's members.
This new multi-tier solution, in my opinion, is trying to address this problem. But it can also potentially give birth to jealousy, slanders, and lack of unity. Regardless, ppl should not look at this multi-tier system as a way to divide membership within the EU, but more like different kind of memberships - each catered for different circumstances of the EU members. Maybe changing the way this system being called or described can help it to gain more approval. Using terms "tiers" or "circles" is inherently problematic and should be avoided.
As soon as you start making distinctions between members, you're going from a union to a hierarchial structure. It's political and economical subjugation, effectively proclaiming yourself a vassal of a greater power. I mean that's what the EU already pretty much is, but at least it isn't on paper.
@@mrgalaxy396 well remember ERM? It was a failure due to England n Italy couldnt keep up with the peg on Germany's Mark. What I mean is, it is a fact that every country isnt the same in term of capability. To expect every country to equally perform well is impossible. Hierarchy is something that keep civilization going. What's so bad about it? It's not like EU is some kind of a ruthless empire. It consists of more than 1 country in a democratic system.
@@mrgalaxy396and what is your proposal to keep the clusterfuck the eu currently is alive? If we do nothing the eu is going to be dissolved sooner or later, i do not like the multi tier solution either, i prefer a smaller but more united union, but the multi tier proposal is the only pragmatic proposal to further integration, if a country does not want to be "subjugated" it can always join the inner circle or leave the union.
@javierrojo1153 Why does it need to be kept alive? If it can't work as an equal-footing union, dissolve it and start over. Regions which share the same values can form their own unions and then sign trade agreements and other joint-effort agreements between each other. You already kind of do this with countries such as Switzerland and Norway anyways. The EU creeped into political territory it doesn't belong in, which is why you see it cracking today.
@stefanusunicorn7483 There is a difference between implicit and explicit hierarchy. An implicit hierarchy could be changed on your own efforts and will, like changing economic balance of power through smart investments and a lot of hard work. An explicit hierarchy you no longer have power in your own hands, you submit undersomeone else who will impose their will on you. The balance of power thus becomes fixed and you are stuck lower on the totem pole. Why would you voluntarily submit to being lower in the chain when you started on an equal-footing position?
If that came earlier the UK would easily belong in tier 3. Greece also ought to be outside the Eurozone in tier 2.
Ironic. Britain argued some of these ideas pre-Brexit and were told "non-non" and "nein-nein". QMV will mean that Germany-France and inner circle will always get their way. Britain better off charting our own course.
For sure, for sure, the only thing missing in our marvelous project "Utopia Britannia" - resurrection of Thatcher.
On second thought, she don't even need be alive, we can dig out her bones and place those on stool in Westminster, as display of our undying genius and monument to our eternal prosperity.
Britain is struggling to chart its own course, but that is still preferable to hitching itself to a sinking ship. The real question is if it can carve out some sectors in the US-led Third Industrial Revolution.
Britain has nothing more to do with a multi tier EU than France or Germany. What britians politicians did the last decades was finger pointing to the EU every time their people got annoyed with them. Keep your island, we are fine over here. And keep your superfluous nose up attitude with you.
Please, what britain wanted is only the benifits of being an eu member without any of the drawbacks, or in other words, to create cherrypicks treaties with the union, the union is better without britain, at least until the britsh people understant that we no longer live in the victorian era and the age when european countries ruled the world is long gone.
Remove the veto bs too, while they're at it.
Isnt the outer tier what Cameron was requesting of EU before the to referendum? Could a lot of bad blood have been avoided not only internally within the UK, but also between the UK and Brussels if the EU have accepted then that these reforms are probably necessary for their future expansion?
LOL Don't blame Brexit on the EU. That sh!tsh0w is on the UK and the UK alone.
Nobody cares about the feelings of a dying imperialist nation.
This concept is not even discussed yet, let alone accepted as necessary.
The first similar reports about multi tier EU date back as far as 2004, and pop up every 5 years or so.
An organisation that is well led will taken it's time to investigate and discuss options and consequences, and will never make a decision on such a huge change on demands and threats from one of its notoriously recalcitrant members.
So no, from that perspective Camerons decision to have a referendum could not have been prevented.
The minute, the SECOND this garbage is passed all countries east of Vienna will get out.
We have been slave to the USSR.
We will not be your slaves too!
@@_o..o_1871 Indeed. Nobody cares about the feelings of Russia.
The suggestion that a multi-speed EU is under development called forth the vision of a multi-cog bicycle. The device which allows smooth-ish operation of such a bicycle is called a derailleur. There, but for the gratuitous extra ‘l’ …
Both Moldova and Ukraine are countries without control over their territory, or put it in other way, with part of their territories disputed.
So the talks are empty, there is no possibility of such countries joining the EU.
It has happen, the EU-Member Cypres has also not control over its territory simular to Ukraine or Moldova before joining.
@@derravensberger9395 "t has happen, the EU-Member Cypres"
Never again!
Germany also didn't have full control of its territory but still was EU member. Also Cyprus. So your statement i simply irrelevant.
@@ggg-cf9zl There were 2 separate German states without claims to one another. Your comment is irrelevant.
@@ggg-cf9zl It did!
So what about places like Ireland where they have the euro but are not Schengen or places like Denmark where they have the opposite?
“Unruly members” :):):) I.e. if a country does not submit to the colonizers’ rules, then Germany and France are unable to exploit, therefore you are labeled “unruly”.
And your democratic elections ex: Italy or Poland… are “not good enough”.
…so they pull out LGBTQ cards..
:):):)
3:03 Switzerland is not in the EEA. It has its own bilateral agreement with the EU.
Ah, but do all tiers are subject to EU council in the same way?? Not enjoying full integration, but obyeing all decisions even if no vote. If so, is another cast system.
It is. You only get to vote if you are a full member. So only the two inner tiers. The Inner Circle will allowed to vote on everything, the other full members on everything but Schengen and the EURO and presumably a common defense etc. the other tiers are just servants. They take orders or they leave it.
@@popelgruner595 then join or leave, is not so hard to understand, the european union is not mandatory, you can leave, what you cant do is to take all de advantages and expect to retain full sovereignity like poland and hungary want.
This isn't what the EU needs.
What the EU needs is humongous cost cutting and the biggest anti-corruption drive ever seen to man.
The fact that Hungary has Meszaros, who has become a billionaire off the back of EU funds, should be a major red flag to the EU's ability to govern. If a country cannot use EU funds as intended, those funds should be instantly cut off. Full stop. AND the EU should have explanations for that made public VERY OBVIOUSLY and in clear language in that country.
Well that is what OLAF is for in tge end. They check each larger project and pay to country only if the tenders and deliverables were OK. If any concerns they halt the payment.
Montenegro should be next country to join EU
We should but it's all DEAD. EU said 2030 is the earliest date. So possibly even 2035 or 2040. EU enlargement story is dead for every candidate country. I don't know why people even talk about it anymore. We will have average salary of 1000 euros in 2025, similar to Greece or Portugal and we are THE fastest growing economy of the Europe right now with 6,9% of the growth. So maybe better to stay out of the EU. Ukrainian, Russian and Turkish refugees boosted our economy to the max.
I hear many refugees default because of the economic hardships in Montenegro, is that true
@@greendsnow No that's not true at all. First time i hear about it actually. Main reason is that absolute majority of the refugees that get here are wealthy to start with and they buy great houses or apartments at our Adriatic coastline and they drive some great expensive cars, so no. They can enjoy peacefull life very much.
I imagine the EU would want the UK as part of EPC 2.0 to legitimise it as a tier, making it more appealing to countries like Ukraine or Serbia that are preparing for EU integration
We in Serbia don't agree. We think that after years/decades of promises after promises that we will join EU, it would feel like slap in the face. And it's already beginning, with ppl starting to think that maybe EU is not the best way forward for our country and Euroscepticism and Russian influence is at record high....And we all know that EU don't need little Russia in hart of it ...
The EU should become more of a federation; closer inter-state integration, a nore empowered European parliament and a diminished council to act more as an upper house for sober second thought and perhaps even an actually parliamentary elected "prime Minister of Europe" office with limited powers
No thanks
No, nobody signed up for that lmao
I am rather for fewer seats, and I mean a lot of fewer seats like every country have very very few seats like (One seat per area): 1 main, 1 climate, 1 economy, 1 army, 1 transport. Per country, then every country have their own assembly per area. The main seat would take up the position about things which would affect the country overall, while also adding topics which came up late in their own assembly for different reasons.
For this to really work so would all member countries need to give a list of topics they want to take up/talk about at least one month before the meeting so their respective assemblies can talk about it, come up with questions etc. for every topic, and the topics gets taken randomly if not decided in an earlier meeting. After a topics is taken up every country gets to ask a question about it and the country which took it up would then spend up to 30min organizing answers to answer their questions, then after like 3 hours (maybe more, maybe less) they can vote for : accept, reject, postpone, continue. It would need MASSIVE reform, but I think member states would feel like they get more power, they can organize themselves better, etc. I personally feel that any move in this kind of direction would be good.
The idea of a tiered Europe is intriguing, but I can't help but feel it might dilute the core essence of the EU. The shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting could be a game-changer, but I wonder how many nations would be on board? Also, the mention of Skillshare felt a bit out of place in such a heavy topic, but hey, we all gotta learn somehow, right? 😅🇪🇺
Considering that almost all eastern countries are againt of removing the veto i dont think it Will happen any time soon, our best bet is to create a multi tier europe and get rid of the veto system in the inner circle.
nah. single country veto has it’s benefits.
For a small EU member state that is not interested in EU development, yes. For anyone else it is terrible.
But yeah, this is exactly the kind of EU reform the UK was pushing for over a decade ago, and was rebuffed on this at every attempt. If a multi-tiered system for EU membership like this was in place, I'm quite sure the UK would have never left the EU at all but instead chosen an outer tier to keep free trade while skipping out on the politicial union and integration stuff.
If VDL had anything to do with this idea and report - run like mad....
Good morning TLDR! Love your content. Could you please make a video on the upcoming parliamentary elections and referendum in Poland? The campaign of each side and the impact the results could have on Europe?
poland isnt part of the cool kids club (the west).
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 nah they are just the loud kids on the block. But so much interesting stuff is going on there right now.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922respect to othere nation. If you write country name do it with big letter. Or no if you are rasist.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922
>cool kids club
> the "west"
Pick one.
Last time I checked France was busy burning down in riots and scrambling for Africa. Germany as always: special, little untouchable priness - Queen bee dishing out double standards.
Lol @ “A team of experts”.
As if globalization hasn’t already failed for every person that’s not dirt poor or piss rich.
You have just described how things are with some circles
If your child was in a school club, and upon choosing to leave, was bullied, Isolated and had to pay money as a penalty simply to scare other club members to remain... would you really want your child in such a club?
It is the same plan that has always been proposed before any enlargement because it is the only sensible one. But political leaders have always been too cowardly to block any enlargement before it is actually implemented. There should be no single new member state before it is.