No UK membership in EEC

Well, I acknowledge that it is not a sure thing, and EE may end up in the EFTA, especially if they are not yet a fit socio-economic and political shape for EU membership, but most likely it is going to be a temporary phase in the end, since in the overwhelming majority of cases, EE is still going to have stronger economic and cultural/political ties with the EU no matter what, even if they go in the EFTA first.
Hm. If we go by the EU-federal inner core EFTA-OTL EU-lite outer shell future path, I suspect they may well stay in EFTA. Their economic ties, after all, will already be quite well served by that arrangement, and the Brussel-Moscow comparison would be more frightening if the EU openly is a federal polity.
 
Hm. If we go by the EU-federal inner core EFTA-OTL EU-lite outer shell future path, I suspect they may well stay in EFTA. Their economic ties, after all, will already be quite well served by that arrangement, and the Brussel-Moscow comparison would be more frightening if the EU openly is a federal polity.

As I said, that depends on relations between EFTA and EEC. If they remove trade barriers between them we eventually end up with two tier EU idea floated after Irish rejection of Lizbon treaty. EEC becomes equivalent of OTL inner core, states that are both economically and politically integrated. EFTA becomes outer layer, which are only economically integrated, but to lesser degree (no common regulations, no common currency, no organization wide subsidies and other financial mechanisms).
 

Eurofed

Banned
Hm. If we go by the EU-federal inner core EFTA-OTL EU-lite outer shell future path, I suspect they may well stay in EFTA. Their economic ties, after all, will already be quite well served by that arrangement, and the Brussel-Moscow comparison would be more frightening if the EU openly is a federal polity.

Quite possibly. OTOH, it might still be a temporary transition phase (say 10-25 years) as thay get their kinks about sovreignty worked out. It seems that Eastern European countries, even when they develop significant Euroskeptic sentiments in their political systems (Poland, Czechia, and Hungary), tend to be rather less wary about "ever greater integration" than Britons and Scandinavians, despite their history as Soviet satellites. 'EUSSR' seems to be rather more an English paranoia than an Eastern European one.
 

Eurofed

Banned
As I said, that depends on relations between EFTA and EEC. If they remove trade barriers between them we eventually end up with two tier EU idea floated after Irish rejection of Lizbon treaty. EEC becomes equivalent of OTL inner core, states that are both economically and politically integrated. EFTA becomes outer layer, which are only economically integrated, but to lesser degree (no common regulations, no common currency, no organization wide subsidies and other financial mechanisms).

Where the outer layer becomes a seemingly permanent station for those countries that purposefully reject or are denied full-fledged integration out of political and cultural issues. While it is a temporary "grooming station" for those countries that have no such issues in a significant way, but are not yet in a social, political, and economic fit shape to join the inner core.
 
As I said, that depends on relations between EFTA and EEC. If they remove trade barriers between them we eventually end up with two tier EU idea floated after Irish rejection of Lizbon treaty. EEC becomes equivalent of OTL inner core, states that are both economically and politically integrated. EFTA becomes outer layer, which are only economically integrated, but to lesser degree (no common regulations, no common currency, no organization wide subsidies and other financial mechanisms).

aktarian

The big question is would the EEC remove trade barriers as it's so tied to them? Especially since without Britain especially it would face a financial crisis markedly earlier. Although lacking funding from Britain might force it to sort out it's budget.

Steve
 
aktarian

The big question is would the EEC remove trade barriers as it's so tied to them? Especially since without Britain especially it would face a financial crisis markedly earlier. Although lacking funding from Britain might force it to sort out it's budget.

Steve

Well, EFTA and EEC would likely be each other's biggest trading partners (as groups). There would be a push to lower barriers, though I'm not sure where it would stop. If you remove barriers you end up with basically one organization so that may remove the whole point of their existance.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well, EFTA and EEC would likely be each other's biggest trading partners (as groups). There would be a push to lower barriers, though I'm not sure where it would stop. If you remove barriers you end up with basically one organization so that may remove the whole point of their existance.

As we said, at that point, the scope of their existence would be to provide different levels of European integration in an overarching framework.
 
As we said, at that point, the scope of their existence would be to provide different levels of European integration in an overarching framework.
I've read it more as us saying that, at that point, the scope of their existence *could* be to provide different levels of integration in an overarching framework.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I've read it more as us saying that, at that point, the scope of their existence *could* be to provide different levels of integration in an overarching framework.

Well, as of recent discussion, it seemed to me that it was converging on the main butterfly of whether EEC/EU and EFTA develop friendly enough relations as to lower their reciprocal trade barriers or not, and if they do, separate existence really carries little meaning except by going that way. If they remain somewhat antagonistic, their ongoing separate existence is quite justified.
 
Well, as of recent discussion, it seemed to me that it was converging on the main butterfly of whether EEC/EU and EFTA develop friendly enough relations as to lower their reciprocal trade barriers or not, and if they do, separate existence really carries little meaning except by going that way. If they remain somewhat antagonistic, their ongoing separate existence is quite justified.

Eurofed

Two points:

a) The definition of the EFTA was in the name so they would be willing to have free trade - at least in industrial goods - and be fairly open to agricultural imports whereas the EEc/EU was a lot more restrictive. [This is the down side to all the subsidies the EEC offered in many areas, as well as the fact someone's got to pay for them]. As such I could see the two having different trade policies unless either the EU drastically changes it's policies or the EFTA gives up as it did OTL.

b) Even if both blocs agreed to similar trade policies that doesn't mean there's no point in both existing. The EEC/EU had a far more political agenda to the EFTA so if the former went for much greater political integration, as OTL, the latter and possible additional states, may well prefer either depending on their national intentions.

Steve
 

Eurofed

Banned
Eurofed

Two points:

a) The definition of the EFTA was in the name so they would be willing to have free trade - at least in industrial goods - and be fairly open to agricultural imports whereas the EEc/EU was a lot more restrictive. [This is the down side to all the subsidies the EEC offered in many areas, as well as the fact someone's got to pay for them]. As such I could see the two having different trade policies unless either the EU drastically changes it's policies or the EFTA gives up as it did OTL.

b) Even if both blocs agreed to similar trade policies that doesn't mean there's no point in both existing. The EEC/EU had a far more political agenda to the EFTA so if the former went for much greater political integration, as OTL, the latter and possible additional states, may well prefer either depending on their national intentions.

Steve

Sure, but if they have similar trade policies, and make a friendly agreement that either organization offers acceptable alternatives for European integration that may coexist, aren't they going to become two sides of the same coin ?

And conversely, if they develop substantially different trade policies, and/or a mutual agreement that both integration approaches are equally valid (e.g. the EFTA guys get paranoid about expansionistic ambitions of the EEC/EU, and the latter get suspicious that the former plot to hamper their success), aren't they going to develop an antagonistic relationship ?
 
Sure, but if they have similar trade policies, and make a friendly agreement that either organization offers acceptable alternatives for European integration that may coexist, aren't they going to become two sides of the same coin ?

If they have similar policies then their in direct competition and will be rivals. It's better I think if they have different ones, the free-market aim of the EFTA and the more collective nature of the EU, then they cater to different interests. As such they are more likely to co-exist, unless one [probably the EU by it's nature, becomes hostile to it's rival].

And conversely, if they develop substantially different trade policies, and/or a mutual agreement that both integration approaches are equally valid (e.g. the EFTA guys get paranoid about expansionistic ambitions of the EEC/EU, and the latter get suspicious that the former plot to hamper their success), aren't they going to develop an antagonistic relationship ?

I think if for whatever reason the UK had stuck with EFTA then the latter would have had a much longer life. It was it's defection to the EU that basically killed off EFTA as it formed so much of the market. If it lasted until the eastern block split up then it would likely pick up new members.

Also the other point as I mentioned is how well the EU reacts to it's funding crisis without the UK as it will either have to cancel a lot of subsidies earlier, raise taxes a lot or face a funding short-fall. If it was less centralist and exclusive then some compromise leading to merge might well occur.

Steve
 
and come the current crisis with the Eur(ine) we'd really be laughing as the PIGS pull down the edifice of the 4th Reich -I mean the EU....
 

Eurofed

Banned
and come the current crisis with the Eur(ine) we'd really be laughing as the PIGS pull down the edifice of the 4th Reich -I mean the EU....

The current crisis only exists because the EU has not (yet) gone all the way with its economic union, it needs fiscal integration to stabilize a common currency.

This had been such a nice discussion. Can we keep it that way without the sudden and most unwelcome Europhobe trolling ???
 
Last edited:
The current crisis only exists because the EU has not (yet) gone all the way with its economic union, it needs fiscal integration to stabilize a common currency.

Disagree.;)

This had been such a nice discussion. Can we keep it that way without the sudden and most unwelcome Europhobe trolling ???

Fully agree.:mad:

Steve
 
Top