The state of the EU

[Josquius]

Will be interesting to see if Britain stays in or leaves and if the latter how it will be handled.

If Britain leaves the EU the result would look something like this.

[Syt]

You probably meant:

[Duque de Bragança]

Doomsday leaves some parts of Northern England with Scotland along the new Hadrian Wall. Don't know if Tyr will end up in the bad side of the border. 

As for the UK leaving the EU, I suppose some bilateral military treaty would be signed with France since there common projects such as aircraft carriers though Hollande cancelled the second one France in 2013.

[Zanza]

The EU does mostly focus on economic issues. Alfreds comment that you don't need the EU for economic Integration  makes no sense as that's it's main task. There would be massive non-tariff barriers to trade without the EU in Europe.

Because you had the European Economic Community before the EU to do the same stuff.

We had the European communities, of which the EEC was just one. To pretend that it was ever purely about free trade is not correct.

[grumbler]

Because you had the European Economic Community before the EU to do the same stuff.

We had the European communities, of which the EEC was just one. To pretend that it was ever purely about free trade is not correct.

The EEC took the economic integration as far as it could, but not far enough.  The EU was seen as necessary to continue progress towards economic integration and growth.

The EU's problem was that it later absorbed a number of states that were by no means ready for membership.  As they are now demonstrating, they never understood what the EU was really all about.  I think the EU will have to evolve into a "real EU" and an "EU periphery" with the latter only being allowed into the "real EU" when they have a half-century or so of legitimate democratic and free market success - not a half-decade.

[Zanza]

European integration has always been "many speed". I think the mistake was not to allow even more of the "speeds", which would allow more countries to cherry-pick but would also not force them to implement something minor that is only a big deal in one particular country or region.

[grumbler]

European integration has always been "many speed". I think the mistake was not to allow even more of the "speeds", which would allow more countries to cherry-pick but would also not force them to implement something minor that is only a big deal in one particular country or region.

Diagrams like this are part of the problem; they imply that all of these organizations are essentially the same, when that is absolutely not true.  The EU and the Baltic Assembly are not equivalent.  The difference between the EU and the Council of Europe is vast; between the EU and the Eurozone, not so much.

That's why the thread title and OP are rightly about the EU, and not "Europe."

[alfred russel]

We had the European communities, of which the EEC was just one. To pretend that it was ever purely about free trade is not correct.

What I was saying originally was that I see three benefits of the EU in terms of european unity (I'm summarizing): 1) economic, 2) mobility, 3) political.

I said the EU was unnecessary for the first two. You contested on the economic front--but I pointed out the EEC before. I'd also point out that Norway and Switzerland are well integrated into Europe without being EU members, which illustrates it can be done.

I'm definitely not pretending that the EU predecessors were ever just about free trade. I was actually trying to make the point that the EU is important to move beyond the economic sphere in terms of integration, and has been quite effective in achieving that.

[dps]

Will be interesting to see if Britain stays in or leaves and if the latter how it will be handled.

If Britain leaves the EU the result would look something like this.

The British movie industry would be revitalized?

[grumbler]

We had the European communities, of which the EEC was just one. To pretend that it was ever purely about free trade is not correct.

What I was saying originally was that I see three benefits of the EU in terms of european unity (I'm summarizing): 1) economic, 2) mobility, 3) political.

I said the EU was unnecessary for the first two. You contested on the economic front--but I pointed out the EEC before. I'd also point out that Norway and Switzerland are well integrated into Europe without being EU members, which illustrates it can be done.

I'm definitely not pretending that the EU predecessors were ever just about free trade. I was actually trying to make the point that the EU is important to move beyond the economic sphere in terms of integration, and has been quite effective in achieving that.

I think that the bright line you are proposing exists between the three "benefits" of European unity doesn't exist.  Politics and economics are two sides of the same coin, and mobility is entirely driven by political-economic factors.

I would agree with you that Europe could have stopped with the EEC (which was highly political) if they had not desired the benefits of further integration, just as the US could have stopped with the Articles of Confederation.  They made the same choice the US did, though, and opted for further integration.  They couldn't have gone further down the path of "economic" integration using the EEC/ECSC/EAEC model, though.

[Solmyr]

All I care about is common currency (to avoid fiddling with exchange rates), visa-less travel, and a united front against Russia. As long as Russia disintegrates before the EU, the last one will become less important after that.