3 ms·

It was really the EEC that has created this environment - not the EU as we know it, i.e. Treaty of Lisbon. So you're arguing on my behalf: an 'EEC-like' Union

It was really the EEC that has created this environment - not the EU as we know it, i.e. Treaty of Lisbon. So you're arguing on my behalf: an 'EEC-like' Union would be very popular all around, and as you point out yourself 'helps with stability'. A full on political union I suggest is the opposite of stability. I think the EU should be 'thrown out' only because it cannot be reformed, but that a set of treaties could preserve the best parts of it - particularly those issues related to trade, some degree of tax harmonization and the ability to create some EU-level policies or regulations. It's sad frankly because the EU is actually 'mostly good' - but it has existential flaws. It's going to be a tough few decades in Europe.

keldaris 8y ago
> A full on political union I suggest is the opposite of stability. That really depends on the countries involved and the form of the union. Even in your version of events, with a reversion to an EEC-like state, I expect we would eventually see closer political union between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and whoever else wanted to join. You also need to figure out what to do about the Eurozone. You cannot indefinitely sustain a monetary union without closer fiscal integration, which I assume you oppose, but dissolving it has its own issues both in the short and long term (there's a reason it was created in the first place, and that reason is not solely to facilitate closer political integration - even though that was indeed a goal).