AHC and WI: A Smaller But Tighter European Comunity?

King Helü of Wu

Banned
Was it possible for the European Economic Community to set a higher entry requirement, so that it eventually only include France, Germany, Austria, The Benelux, and the Scandinavian countries?

Would higher entry requirements make future financial and political integrations easier?

And what would happen to *EURO if it was still launched as IOTL.
 

aktarian

A while back I speculated WI UK joined EFTA so it becomes a strong and viable alternative to EEC. So I guess this would fit your question as well, you don't need higher requirenments, you only need good alternative to make EEC smaller.

As for integration, anything that keeps UK out will help it. ;)

As for South and east Europe you have CEFTA but for former War-Pac countries EEC/EU was prefered option and CEFTA was "in addition to" and not "instead of"
 

Devvy

Donor
aktarian said:
A while back I speculated WI UK joined EFTA so it becomes a strong and viable alternative to EEC. So I guess this would fit your question as well, you don't need higher requirenments, you only need good alternative to make EEC smaller.

As for integration, anything that keeps UK out will help it. ;)

As for South and east Europe you have CEFTA but for former War-Pac countries EEC/EU was prefered option and CEFTA was "in addition to" and not "instead of"
Click to expand...

The UK was one of the founding members of EFTA; it only left EFTA when it joined the EU in full.

Your best bet in my opinion is the EEA; it was originally dreamt up to allow countries outside of the EU to participate in the Single Market. Primarily the large amount of eastern countries that looked to join following the fall or the Iron Curtain.

You could pretty much blanket everything east of Germany/Austria/Italy with the EEA, leaving the EU in western and northern Europe. Maybe with tighter integration, although you'd still have a north/south split somewhat.
 

lukedalton

King Helü of Wu said:
Was it possible for the European Economic Community to set a higher entry requirement, so that it eventually only include France, Germany, Austria, The Benelux, and the Scandinavian countries?

Would higher entry requirements make future financial and political integrations easier?

And what would happen to *EURO if it was still launched as IOTL.
Click to expand...

Is more probable that higher requirements mean just that all the mentioned country cheat a little more than OTL regarding their budget and situation...and no, political and financial integration will not depend by this as with only France and Germany as the big ones the other country will be more adverse to more integration due to the fear to be utterly dominated by the duo
 

aktarian

Devvy said:
The UK was one of the founding members of EFTA; it only left EFTA when it joined the EU in full.
Click to expand...

Sorry, sketchy on details :eek:


Devvy said:
Your best bet in my opinion is the EEA; it was originally dreamt up to allow countries outside of the EU to participate in the Single Market. Primarily the large amount of eastern countries that looked to join following the fall or the Iron Curtain.

You could pretty much blanket everything east of Germany/Austria/Italy with the EEA, leaving the EU in western and northern Europe. Maybe with tighter integration, although you'd still have a north/south split somewhat.
Click to expand...

Well, this basically forms two tier EU which is sometimes thrown around lately. Inner circle which is interested in full integration and outer circle which is interested only in single market and other economic benefits.

Or in this case 3 tier, EEC, EFTA and CEFTA/whatever for those economies that are worse off.
 

Devvy

Donor
lukedalton said:
Is more probable that higher requirements mean just that all the mentioned country cheat a little more than OTL regarding their budget and situation...and no, political and financial integration will not depend by this as with only France and Germany as the big ones the other country will be more adverse to more integration due to the fear to be utterly dominated by the duo
Click to expand...

aktarian said:
Sorry, sketchy on details :eek:

Well, this basically forms two tier EU which is sometimes thrown around lately. Inner circle which is interested in full integration and outer circle which is interested only in single market and other economic benefits.

Or in this case 3 tier, EEC, EFTA and CEFTA/whatever for those economies that are worse off.
Click to expand...

Well, the whole EEA idea was deliberately to keep the ex-Soviet states out of the EU, as they were poor and risked upsetting the balance of rich/poor countries in the EU. The ex-Soviet states then lobbied hard for entrance in to the EU (in part to stabilise their new found democracy apparently), which led to the EU wanting the Scandinavian states in to maintain the balance I believe (although Swedish industry lobbied hard for Sweden to join for commerical reasons, although I guess they would probably be satisfied with participation in the Single Market).

CEFTA wouldn't exist - it's function would be over taken by the countries participation in the EEA Single Market.

You'd effectively a have a 2-tier Europe. My take on this would be an EEA that covers everyone, offering a pan-European Single Market to all. Then a series of political unions over different areas of the EEA - the EU for western Europe (which runs the overall EEA), probably an enhanced Nordic Council if Norway/Sweden/Finland don't join (Denmark might switch from EU to NC later, and Iceland & Estonia might join this group?), and probably something like the Visegrad Four (Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia & Hungary originally) would transition into another EU-type grouping under the guidance of the actual EU, with other Eastern European countries joining this V4 group.
 

aktarian

Devvy said:
Well, the whole EEA idea was deliberately to keep the ex-Soviet states out of the EU, as they were poor and risked upsetting the balance of rich/poor countries in the EU. The ex-Soviet states then lobbied hard for entrance in to the EU (in part to stabilise their new found democracy apparently), which led to the EU wanting the Scandinavian states in to maintain the balance I believe (although Swedish industry lobbied hard for Sweden to join for commerical reasons, although I guess they would probably be satisfied with participation in the Single Market).
Click to expand...

Eastern europe saw membership in EU and NATO as a sign that we now belong to the west and are done with communist past.

Devvy said:
CEFTA wouldn't exist - it's function would be over taken by the countries participation in the EEA Single Market.
Click to expand...

I ment CEFTA/EEA as in whatever form this takes.

Devvy said:
You'd effectively a have a 2-tier Europe. My take on this would be an EEA that covers everyone, offering a pan-European Single Market to all. Then a series of political unions over different areas of the EEA - the EU for western Europe (which runs the overall EEA), probably an enhanced Nordic Council if Norway/Sweden/Finland don't join (Denmark might switch from EU to NC later, and Iceland & Estonia might join this group?), and probably something like the Visegrad Four (Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia & Hungary originally) would transition into another EU-type grouping under the guidance of the actual EU, with other Eastern European countries joining this V4 group.
Click to expand...

I think you'd still get 3 separate groupings, EEC/EU, EFTA and EEA/CEFTA. If for no other reason that CEFTA and EEC will try to protect themselves. So each grouping would have free flow of goods, capital and people within it but still some barriers against others, mostly against EEA/CEFTA. There might be some migration from EEA/CEFTA and after a while it might actually disband with countries joining either of other two groupings.
 

King Helü of Wu

Banned
lukedalton said:
Is more probable that higher requirements mean just that all the mentioned country cheat a little more than OTL regarding their budget and situation...and no, political and financial integration will not depend by this as with only France and Germany as the big ones the other country will be more adverse to more integration due to the fear to be utterly dominated by the duo
Click to expand...

There is no need for a subjective set of standards: they can be entirely objective, i.e. depending on the pre-existing member states.

For instance, if France could foresee how UK would screw up the party, they could keep the Brits out with their vetoes without doing any explanation.

In addition, the Treaty should make it explicitly clear to applicants what the goal of the union would be (unified currency, financial union, and eventually confederation) and sacrifices they will have to make (national currencies, financial independence, and even political sovereignty). This would be enough to deter countries who are not ready.
 

Devvy

Donor
aktarian said:
Eastern europe saw membership in EU and NATO as a sign that we now belong to the west and are done with communist past.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just that there was a real unease in the EU/EEC at letting a large swathe of those states join the EU.

aktarian said:
I think you'd still get 3 separate groupings, EEC/EU, EFTA and EEA/CEFTA. If for no other reason that CEFTA and EEC will try to protect themselves. So each grouping would have free flow of goods, capital and people within it but still some barriers against others, mostly against EEA/CEFTA. There might be some migration from EEA/CEFTA and after a while it might actually disband with countries joining either of other two groupings.
Click to expand...

Slight misunderstanding on my point originally; CEFTA was an "enhanced Visegrad Four". But even so; CEFTA as it is, is irrelevant and incompatible as soon as the CEFTA states join an EEA. CEFTA will be overwritten by Single Market rules, and so I'd see CEFTA becoming an political union of sorts (with focus on co-operation and mutual recognition of things - maybe Central European Council?), with economic union achieved by the pan-European EEA.

And for lols...a map.

Everywhere that is coloured: Part of the EEA (Single Market)
Green: EEA & European Union
Blue: EEA & Nordic Union
Dark Pink: EEA & CEC
Grey: Other states in the EEA

eea.jpg


Probably easier for Turkey and Switzerland to sit in / be accepted in to the EEA if it's only an economic union. Morocco might manage to get in the EEA as well - the EU has rough ideas of allowing Morocco into the Single Market one day anyhow OTL, just not into the EU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top