European Union sans Portugal, Spain, and Greece

How does this affect the political stability of the formation? Could there still be different expansion? Is it going to work out, or not so much?

Not having Spain, Portugal and Greece means that the EU does not expand at all. It's silly not to want to have Spain in the EU, but agree to let Romania in...

MUC said:

Not having Spain, Portugal and Greece means that the EU does not expand at all. It's silly not to want to have Spain in the EU, but agree to let Romania in...

Click to expand...

Why would the membership of one country be a condition for the membership of another,lets suppose that Spain for one reason or another is unable to join or unwilling to join,dose that mean that Romania will not be able to join.
Why wouldn't the union expand if the Mediterranean country's don't join,the only why that will happen is (1) the union dose not allows new members - this is invalidate by the first expansion or (2) no new members wish or apply to join the union,this in turn is invalided by the successive applications of the European country's.
And then Spain,Portugal,Greece could not (are not) me members of the EU at a given time are:
They didn't join - because they did not wish to join
- because they where unable to join
They where members by they have withdrawn from the Union
They chose to remain part of a less integrated part of the Union.

onlycuteusernames said:

Could there still be different expansion?

Click to expand...

Expansion with other country's ? Yes i don't see why would it be possible for others to join.
With Spain,Portugal,Greece again Yes,if they didn't join at a certain time,doesn't mean that they will not be able to join at a later time,or if they are part of the EEA (like Norway),again it doesn't mean that they will not be able to upgrade to membership of the EU.

onlycuteusernames said:

How does this affect the political stability of the formation? Is it going to work out, or not so much?

Click to expand...

With out the southern flank membership,it could mean that the eastern flank is given more importance,or that the northern flank will have more power,now they both have the potential to make the union more or less stable,depending on how the northern flank choose to exercise his power,the perception of the rest,then they are the reasons why S.P.G. there one thing if they haven't been members at all,or if they had been members and then withdrawn from the union,it this last possibility,it depends on how/why they withdrawn, how to the rest of the member's see there withdrawal from the union.

It clearly depends on why they are not joining. If, say, all three countries are plagued by military coups after the mid-1970s (like OTL Turkey), the EC would stay away from them for political reasons. But that wouldn't mean post-Communist Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary et al would be left out later. Or Finland, Sweden and Austria, for that matter (their entry into the EU would probably happen anyway).

If all three countries become democratic like in OTL, but refuse to join in because of economic reasons, then you'd get a different scenario. Especially the poorer Eastern European countries like Bulgaria and Romania might look to the economic development of Portugal and Greece - if they're on the way up, they would eventually decide to "stay out" as well. Other countries, like Poland, Hungary and Estonia, would probably push for EC/EU membership nonetheless, regarding their economic development after 1989/91.

There is one easy possible POD for exactly these three nations to remain outside of the EU:

-their 1970s dictatorships survive well into the present-day (or until a recent "Mediterranean Spring", so they would still be on the waiting list).

Now that is a challenge all in itself.

BUT without changing the nature of the EU massively, there is no reason why a nation which is welcome to join and which can be expected to receive massive financial aid in the form of support for infrastructure projects (politicians love those) and the notorious subventions for the agricultural sector (IIRC all three are comparatively less industrialized) would NOT join.

OTL, the only European states which are not part of the EU are

-Norway, Switzerland and Iceland: too rich resp. massive tradition of neutrality
-Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Hercegovna, Kosovo, Macedonia: meddled with the heritage of the Balcan conflicts; but actually the EU has started negotiations with Serbia and Montenegro and Albania has become an official candidate
-Turkey: too big and too Muslim (I assume that the major problem is by now the Cultural divide in combination with the enormous weight Turkey would possess demographically....in 1927, Germans outnumbered Turkish 5:1, by now it is only a matter of years when the ratio will be is 1:1, although their growth has slowed down considerably, too. I admit, that is a cynical assessment. A small Muslim Turkey of 20something millions would IMHO stand far better chances.)
-White Russia: dictatorship .... OK, I already used that one
-Ukraine, Georgia: among many other political and econimcal problems stands the unresolved question of Russia's perception and relationship to the EU...and vice versa. Curiously, suddenly a question of European war and peace. Who would have thought?

Which of these reasons can we use here besides dictatorship?

-wealth.....what a challenge! Keep the Mediterranean region the most wealthiest part of Europe so they take no interest in sponsoring the poor Germans, Dutch and Swedish.
-religion: that is so far back that it would create a wholly different world. But if the reconquista failed and the Ottomans thoroughly Islamized Greece....there would be a cultural rift deep enough the make the EU a per definition Christian club.
-war: that's also not too far off. What if the Iberian peninsular was as terrible as the Balkans, Basques, Catalons, Portuegeses, Galiciaens and Andalusians fighting Castilians not so long ago?
What if the Greek had continued the habit of regular wars against Turkey?

So....these are my ideas. Far off. I know.

Hörnla said:

There is one easy possible POD for exactly these three nations to remain outside of the EU:

-their 1970s dictatorships survive well into the present-day (or until a recent "Mediterranean Spring", so they would still be on the waiting list).

Now that is a challenge all in itself.

Click to expand...

They don't necessarily have to be dictatorships all the way through. It'd be enough if it was like Turkey in the 1970s and 1980s: fragile democratic governments alternating with military coups, with the army always pulling the strings behind the scenes. In Spain, you could have the Basque/Catalan indepedence movements serve as an equivalent to the Kurds. There may be negotiations with the EU later on, after years of democratic consolidation. But for a long time they will only be offered a "priviliged partnership". As for Greece, you could add open military support for Serbia during the Yugoslavian Civil war and a military conflict with Macedonia.

One way to have Portugal remain outside the EU is to have Portugal retain its colonial Empire, in a federation of sorts, to ease the European tendencies.
Even then, there would be cooperation with said Alt-EU from the centre-left and center-right.
Keeping a dictatorship is difficult, because the social support for it was long gone. Only some POD that makes the dominant western powers dictatorships would somewhat reduce the appeal of democracy.

I suspect that the easiest way to keep them out is if the convergence criteria get applied more strictly. IIRC, Greece only made it because they did some fancy fiddling of their numbers.

OTOH, if Germany gets nasty about financial discipline, then that's going to sour relations with France. For that matter, Germany herself had a really tough time with the limits due to the costs of reunification.

So. Postulate a different German approach to unification (like setting the Ostmark to half or a third a DM), which reduces costs some, and they they demand the penalties for deficits that were written into the Euro laws, and you might keep those three countries out.

Well given that the EU is a "democracy only" club (which is why the Vatican isn't a member), I'm assuming that Spain, Portugal and Greece all still have their respective dictatorships in your TL. If this were so, then, yes, they would be barred because they are not democracies.

On the other hand if you're asking about the Eurozone, then the Euro would be a more stable economy with the rest of the Eurozone only having to worry about Italy and Ireland.

Hörnla said:

Norway, Switzerland and Iceland: too rich resp. massive tradition of neutrality

Click to expand...

What about poor little Liechtenstein? But, seriously, Norway, Iceland and little Liechtenstein are all members of the European Economic Area, which means they pay dues to the EU who vote on laws that the EEA has to follow, even though they don't get a say. But EEA members get to pass any EU laws that they don't like, i.e. laws on fishing, etc. And the EEA and Switzerland are all signatories to the Schengen Treaty, otherwise known as Open Borders.

What if the Greek had continued the habit of regular wars against Turkey?

Click to expand...

They are both members of NATO, so...

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

I suspect that the easiest way to keep them out is if the convergence criteria get applied more strictly. IIRC, Greece only made it because they did some fancy fiddling of their numbers.

....

Click to expand...

Uh, that was the criteria for entry into the Euro zone (late 90s +).
Entry into the EU (EEC pre Maastrict) is more of a legal/bureaucratic process.

You could have some country blocking the expansion (like France did re Britain in the 60s).

OTL Greece/Spain/Portugal were admitted (several years) after they turned democratic in order to stabilise them. You could have an EEC that was too preoccupied with internal squables to allow an expansion which would inevitably shift the internal balances in the EEC system...

Neutral Italy

Brundlefly said:

[...] It'd be enough if it was like Turkey in the 1970s and 1980s: fragile democratic governments alternating with military coups, with the army always pulling the strings behind the scenes. In Spain, you could have the Basque/Catalan indepedence movements serve as an equivalent to the Kurds. There may be negotiations with the EU later on, after years of democratic consolidation. But for a long time they will only be offered a "priviliged partnership". As for Greece, you could add open military support for Serbia during the Yugoslavian Civil war and a military conflict with Macedonia.

Click to expand...

Excellent idea. I agree, that might be sufficient. Given the time the EU often takes to get things done, even if the times got better for these nations around 2000, they might still be negotiating....

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

I suspect that the easiest way to keep them out is if the convergence criteria get applied more strictly. IIRC, Greece only made it because they did some fancy fiddling of their numbers.

Click to expand...

As Starkad pointed out, you mix things up here. I think that the OP asked about the European Union (as in continuation of the European Community), to which Greece joined in 1981 and the Iberians in 1986. Keeping these nations away from the Currency Union is, as you say, rather easy by simply strictly applying all criterea (though that would hurt e.g. Belgium as well).
The challenge is that by now we need to delay the entry of these countries by more than 3 decades.

TheBrunswickian said:

They are both members of NATO, so...

Click to expand...

That'd have to be butterflied.

###

Generally, I don't think you will have an easy time creating a timeline which does that....and e.g., for what purpose? Why these countries?

Starkad said:

Uh, that was the criteria for entry into the Euro zone (late 90s +).
Entry into the EU (EEC pre Maastrict) is more of a legal/bureaucratic process.

Click to expand...

Ah. Right. I was thinking of the ERM and snake had some of the same requirements - but, no, it was only maintaining currencies in a band. And I guess you didn't have to meet those requirements to join the EEC. OK. Thank you for the correction.

Still. I could see Germany insisting on tougher fiscal stability for new entrants, but trying to get anyone else to go along with it would be tough.