A Better EU

With all the fuss about Brexit, the migrant/refugee crisis, increasing nationalism, protectionism within the EU, etc., it is hard not to think how the supranational organization could have been in a much better position.

So, with a POD in the 1960s, how can you have the EU be in a much better shape economically and politically?

Lastly, I want to know what was also needed to be fixed in the individual countries of the EU/EEC so that the organization would not tear at its seams.

(I also imagine that the Middle East and other "hotspots" must be stable in order to prevent the migrant crisis.)
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
de Gaulle isn't a dick and lets Britain join the EEC earlier during the Macmillan Premiership, allowing for Britain to integrate into the EEC earlier and better. Granted, this could go either way, but you'd have a more comfortable Britain not dragging her heels.
 
de Gaulle isn't a dick and lets Britain join the EEC earlier during the Macmillan Premiership, allowing for Britain to integrate into the EEC earlier and better. Granted, this could go either way, but you'd have a more comfortable Britain not dragging her heels.
Or even better Britain stay out of it.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Or even better Britain stay out of it.
The EEC Referendum going the other way is also an alternative. Cominisario did something with that, though my personal PoD is Labour getting an extra percentage point on the 1966 election and winning a landslide, with Wilson stepping aside for an openly anti-EEC Prime Minister in 1972 (someone like Peter Shore), who doesn't negotiate to enter the EEC and holds a Refurbishment that rejects entry. Britain would probobly join an alternative EU later, though without Britain you may see a much closer EU and this post is a bit much BritPol isn't it?
 
EU should remain ratherly free trade area and avoid integration going deeper. EU too shouldn't allow all current Euro countries taking Euro as currency. This should help much.

And EU should make a plan for refugees soon after erupt of Syrian Civil War not when it is too late.
 
I'd rather say that the Euro should be implemented right after oil crisis, so as the financial system is rebuilt from the early 1980s, it is rebuilt using the common currency in the big memberstates (France, West Germany, Benelux).

De Gaulle, instead of withdrawing from NATO's joint military structure proposes the European Defence Community again, and this time succeeds, creating a European joint military structure that would be integrated into NATO, instead of all of the members being in NATO individually, essentially creating a joint European face in NATO talks. It would be fun to see a Falklands War with the whole of Europe in it.

Make German reunification slower, more gradual, and less about West German firms wanting to destroy any possible opposition, thus Germany and consequently the European financial system doesn't build up all the ballooning debt (well, at least less).

In 2008-2009 the ECB shouldn't attempt the crazy deflationary policies while shouting at member countries to assume the debt of the banking sector, thus nearly completely avoiding problems (seriously, look at Spain public debt to GDP ratio from 2000 to 2015 - it's been rapidly falling until the crisis, then basically tripled in 2 years).

The refugee crisis really isn't worth mentioning, it's not an actual crisis, it's a political dickwaving contest and it would happen no matter the state of the EU, or even the lack of an EU in the first place.
 
more democracy and accountability written into later treaties goes a long way to reduce resentment and anti EU nationalism. The role out of the Euro should have been slower so poorer cuntries like Greese couldn't have joined. The problems with the Euro and national debt where apparent from the beginning so a plan to allow for system shocks could and should have been designed in which might have alleviated some of the negativity associated with Euro countries economies.

Above all a desire to reform/alter the EU if parts or functions are seen to be not working. In my opinion some real reforms pria to the British vote would have led to a comfortable Bremain victory. The EU only has its self to blame for what is happening.
 
When the Euro is introduced, the principle of a 2-tier EU is accepted for better governance of the Euro zon, wit the idea that the other countries are still member states who will join at some point but that integration should be focused on Euro-countries.

That would make it much stronger, give more ideals to the countries that want it without pissing off the others.
 
First of all: why does the EU need two Presidents?
It doesn't. It has four, two of which are in the legislative branch and one of which is a country. And if you can find anyone who can explain how it all works without references, they're a liar or one of the poor souls who has to run it.

Now, to make the EU functional, you first need to decide whether it's a free trade area with bells on, or a multinational federated state. If the former, then it needs to stop trying to overreach its' authority. If the latter, it needs effective governmental institutions and the population to support the idea.
 
It doesn't. It has four, two of which are in the legislative branch and one of which is a country. And if you can find anyone who can explain how it all works without references, they're a liar or one of the poor souls who has to run it.

Now, to make the EU functional, you first need to decide whether it's a free trade area with bells on, or a multinational federated state. If the former, then it needs to stop trying to overreach its' authority. If the latter, it needs effective governmental institutions and the population to support the idea.

I remember my brother and I persuading a late voter to come join us to count the ballots in the last European Parliamentary elections. He took his seat at our table and told us: 'I know who I have voted for. Now, do you know just what I have voted for?' I was five minutes into my simplified explanation when I had to stop for us to start counting... And I wasn't halfway through it.

You're absolutely right in your second paragraph. Since I'm of the second school of thought, i'd go for the European Parliament to come into existence on schedule in 1962 but have the characteristics of the 1979 one and to be more than a rubber-stamp for the European Commission, with real powers, the ability to call a vote of non-confidence on a particular member, to inflict financial penalties on a state that does not conform to the standards of the treaties (by a supermajority, obviously) and maybe even the ability for parties to campaign across borders on a shared platform so as to give it a distincly European feel rather than the mere agglomerate of national parties.
 
It doesn't. It has four, two of which are in the legislative branch and one of which is a country. And if you can find anyone who can explain how it all works without references, they're a liar or one of the poor souls who has to run it.

Now, to make the EU functional, you first need to decide whether it's a free trade area with bells on, or a multinational federated state. If the former, then it needs to stop trying to overreach its' authority. If the latter, it needs effective governmental institutions and the population to support the idea.

So you have the President of the Council (head of state-like), President of the Commission (chief executive-like) and President of the European Parliament (Speaker-like). What's so complicated about it? Nothing.

Essentially the first is a way to the second. It's not an ideal way of doings things, but it was the best European leaders could come up with after the French Parliament did not pass in 1954 the Treaty of Paris creating a common European Army.
 
So you have the President of the Council (head of state-like), President of the Commission (chief executive-like) and President of the European Parliament (Speaker-like). What's so complicated about it? Nothing.
Just an over-generous use of the word 'President' causing confusion.
the best European leaders could come up with after the French Parliament did not pass in 1954 the Treaty of Paris creating a common European Army.
I was going to suggest 'make the French think the EDC was their idea', except it was their idea and they still rejected it!
 
Just an over-generous use of the word 'President' causing confusion.

Yeah, like the Italian President of the Republic, or the Italian President of the Council, or the Italian President of the Chamber of Deputies or the President of the Senate :idontcare:

It's only complicated if you want to make it complicated. Most European countries just use the term president generously, so tell you what, if the BBC starts calling Juncker the 'EU Premier' and Schulz the 'EuroSpeaker' it'll all be good.

I was going to suggest 'make the French think the EDC was their idea', except it was their idea and they still rejected it!

Yeah, but that's a simplification. The main problem with the EDC was that after 1952, governing required the support of the Eurosceptic Gaullists, which meant that successive governments put if off, while the opposition to it grew and dominated the momentum. Furthermore, the main issue with the treaty (besides France basically linking to a satisfying solution to the Saar question, and Italy tying it to the Trieste problem) is that by splitting the armies (and basically the French one) between a European one, and national overseas one, it would/could have put them in a difficult position as the Indochina war only got worse after 1951 fuck ups. Not to mention that you need somehow the Socialists to not be so split in the middle because of their conflicting Eurofederalism and Anglophilia. So perhaps the UK assurances should go further, but that'd have been hard for a British government of the time to accept.

An easier PoD is to simply have the Gaullists do worse in the 1951 election (not sure how tbh) and have (somehow) Jules Moch (leading SFIO opponent to the treaty, despite having been originally one of the advocated of the Pleven Plan) not be elected. But that's probably harder, as in 1951 he was the second most voted deputy in the constituency of Hérault (45k preferential votes against the 39k that SFIO received), only behind the Communist deputies.

O also think keeping Schuman as FM, instead of him being replaced by Bidault (less pro-European, more nationalistic) is important. Probably trying to maintain the Pinay government in place for longer. Avoid the MRP to decide to stop supporting it.
 
Maybe have an "Economic Europe" separate to a "Political Europe". That way, those countries that want to integrate together can, and those that want to trade together can. Europe a la carte would probably have been more palatable for Eurosceptics than the uniform version of OTL.

Alternatively, make the "free movement" business more explicitly about "free movement of labour", rather than "free movement of people". Maybe a common visa arrangement, instead of a common European citizenship. Member states could then form passport unions with each other if they wished.
 
Maybe have an "Economic Europe" separate to a "Political Europe". That way, those countries that want to integrate together can, and those that want to trade together can. Europe a la carte would probably have been more palatable for Eurosceptics than the uniform version of OTL.

Alternatively, make the "free movement" business more explicitly about "free movement of labour", rather than "free movement of people". Maybe a common visa arrangement, instead of a common European citizenship. Member states could then form passport unions with each other if they wished.

Yeah, we tried that. It was EFTA vs. EEC, guess which one was better?
 
Top