Two-tier EU

Aard

I've heard the phrase "Two-tier EU" being bandied about before, but I'm not exactly sure what it means. Can anybody help me out? Thanks.

KINGVictor

Essentially, this was brought up after the Irish No vote to the Lisbon treaty.There was a feeling among some countries in the Bloc notably France and Germany who felt that it was absurd that a small nation like Ireland could hold the whole Union to ransom by rejecting the treaty,ironically the EU is expressly clear that all member nations must pass the treaty must pass the treaty before it can be adopted.

That is one of the issues I have with the direction of the current state of EU politics.The dichotomy between the Franco/German and the Anglo axis would always cause a lot of problems.Immediately after the No vote ,all sorts of noices from brussels suggested there could be a two-speed Europe,this calmed down after the British Foreign secretary milliband rejected the calls.

After the No vote ,all sorts of allegations about how ungrateful the Irish are,were brought up....we heard the usual we bailed them out of poverty bla bla bla...none of them putting into consideration that various EU nationals have made Little Ireland their home during the Celtic tiger era....and incidentally a lot of companies that provided those jobs were actually American.The EU have been of tremendous economic benefit to Ireland and vice versa....that is the way it should stay...Economics and less Politics.

PopeBuckfastXVI

The Euro is an example of a two tier Europe in operation. It's when enhanced cooperation happens between member states who want to, while leaving out member states who don't want to be involved in a specific initiative, e.g. Britain staying out of the Euro. Schengen would be another example.

It's also referred to as a two speed Europe.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

Essentially, this was brought up after the Irish No vote to the Lisbon treaty.

That's completely wrong. A multi-speed Europe has been debated in Europe for years, as even a cursory glance at, say, the Wikipedia page on the subject (or event the existence of the page) would tell you.

It's really what it says on the tin - the idea that those countries that want deeper integration can have it, while those that don't, don't. Enhanced cooperation is the mechanism brought in to allow it, but there is a great reluctance to use it - it's been available since Nice, but so far there's one possible example on the cards.

However, as PopeBuckfast says, what we have is to some extent a multi-speed Europe, with the Euro and Schengen being two examples, and the CFSP another.

KINGVictor wrote: »

There was a feeling among some countries in the Bloc notably France and Germany who felt that it was absurd that a small nation like Ireland could hold the whole Union to ransom by rejecting the treaty,ironically the EU is expressly clear that all member nations must pass the treaty must pass the treaty before it can be adopted.

That is one of the issues I have with the direction of the current state of EU politics.The dichotomy between the Franco/German and the Anglo axis would always cause a lot of problems.Immediately after the No vote ,all sorts of noices from brussels suggested there could be a two-speed Europe,this calmed down after the British Foreign secretary milliband rejected the calls.

After the No vote ,all sorts of allegations about how ungrateful the Irish are,were brought up....we heard the usual we bailed them out of poverty bla bla bla...none of them putting into consideration that various EU nationals have made Little Ireland their home during the Celtic tiger era....and incidentally a lot of companies that provided those jobs were actually American.The EU have been of tremendous economic benefit to Ireland and vice versa....that is the way it should stay...Economics and less Politics.

A little more fact-checking, and a little less assuming the world revolves around our the No vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's completely wrong. A multi-speed Europe has been debated in Europe for years, as even a cursory glance at, say, the Wikipedia page on the subject (or event the existence of the page) would tell you.

It's really what it says on the tin - the idea that those countries that want deeper integration can have it, while those that don't, don't. Enhanced cooperation is the mechanism brought in to allow it, but there is a great reluctance to use it - it's been available since Nice, but so far there's one possible example on the cards.

However, as PopeBuckfast says, what we have is to some extent a multi-speed Europe, with the Euro and Schengen being two examples, and the CFSP another.



A little more fact-checking, and a little less assuming the world revolves around our the No vote.

regards,
Scofflaw

The term Two-speed /two teir europe became popular after the No vote and I feel it is in that context the OP was referring to.Let him clarify.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

The term Two-speed /two teir europe became popular after the No vote and I feel it is in that context the OP was referring to.Let him clarify.

It came up again at that point, as it has done after every stumbling block, and between times as well. You've made out it was invented as a result of our No vote, which is completely wrong no matter what the OP meant.

regards,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

It came up again at that point, as it has done after every stumbling block, and between times as well. You've made out it was invented as a result of our No vote, which is completely wrong no matter what the OP meant.

regards,
Scofflaw

I agree with you that there have been under-pinning events that would have suggested a two-tier europe and I mentioned the Franco-German and Anglo axis issue but it became very noicy and apparent after the Irish No vote and there a lot of debates on this issue on Rte and Tv3.After the NO vote ,some european politicians mentioned that because of the Irish vote ,the European project was been slowed down and as such demanded a two-speed europe.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I agree with you that there have been under-pinning events that would have suggested a two-tier europe and I mentioned the Franco-German and Anglo axis issue but it became very noicy and apparent after the Irish No vote and there a lot of debates on this issue on Rte and Tv3.After the NO vote ,some european politicians mentioned that because of the Irish vote ,the European project was been slowed down and as such demanded a two-speed europe.

Yes, that's because there are a certain group of European politicians who favour a two-speed Europe, and whenever anything like this happens (or the ERM difficulties, for example) they always say "we need a two-speed EU". That's what I mean by thinking that everything revolves around Ireland's vote - these things are all part of European politics all the time. We only notice them at times like this, but there's a debate going on the whole time.

regards,
Scofflaw

Imposter

And just to confuse matters even more the whole notion of a 2 speed europe looks stranger when you consider what countries do not allow people (or limit the numbers of people) from the newer lands to work in their countries.

limklad

We don't have a two-speed europe but what we do have is an multi-speed EU and many nations have already have many policies with opt outs under current NICE Treaty rules ans under Lisbon Treaty Rules. Nations like Germany, France are fully integrated in common policy while Britain, Denmark have many opt-outs, for example the Euro/ECB , Schengen Agreement, etc.