Should the European Union pursue "wider" or "deeper" integration?

[Damocles]

The European Union is a sui generis polity that is composed of 27 different countries who deliberately chose to cede specific areas of sovereignty to a central authority which could better manage certain aspects more effectively than each member state could alone.

Advocates of "wider" integration hold that the Union is more of a trading and economic organization, and rejects the notion of member states integrating themselves with their neighbors as a matter of national security and sovereignty. They contend that it is better for the Union to add additional members, before worrying about integrating its members' political institutions.

Advocates of "deeper" integration hold that the Union could act more effectively in all member states' interests if it had expanded scope and scale of responsibilities, including in key areas traditionally reserved for its member states, including border management, defense procurement policy, tax harmonization, and certain aspects of corporate law. They contend that it is better for the Union to focus on integrating its existing members' political, social, and economic institutions, before admitting any new additional members.

This debate is relevant, since the polls suggest that the United Kingdom's voters are moving more to favor "Bre-entry", with a majority of voters now believing that Brexit was "a mistake." Two of the key conditions for such a "Bre-entry" would include the entry of the United Kingdom into the Schengen Area, as well as the Eurozone. Both of these are European institutions which the United Kingdom had been exempted from during its original membership between 1973 and 2020.

Should the European Union pursue "wider" or "deeper" integration? How might that look in the future? What specific institutional reforms, if any, should the European Union pursue?

[patzer]

I'm failing to see how the admission of member states and closer political union are at odds with each other.

[Damocles]

I'm failing to see how the admission of member states and closer political union are at odds with each other.

It may well be the case that EU policymakers would want to avoid a fragmentation of the EU into different regional blocs that are integrated to varying degrees, as the UK was prior to 2020. The UK wasn't in Schengen, wasn't in the Eurozone, and had all sorts of exemptions that put them in a "middle position" between "in the EU" and "not really in the EU."

Furthermore, were Brussels to seriously consider adding the UK back in, they would be loathe to extend the same exemptions the UK once enjoyed. The UK would have to accept the Euro, the Schengen Area, EU regulatory oversight over its financial services sector, and others. The question is whether the British public would be willing to accept that.

[Frodo]

Regarding Britain, if they were to ever hold a vote on rejoining the European Union and reversing Brexit once the older generations that clamored for it die off, the EU should drive a hard bargain.  They should treat Britain like it is an aspiring new member, and demand that it accept the whole package instead of giving it privileged set-asides that, like a spoiled child, made them demand even more special treatment which eventually led to Brexit in the first place.  Nor should the United States make a separate free trade deal with Britain until it rejoins the EU.  Boris Johnson tried that once -it didn't work out for him.  And rightfully so. 

[GMantis]

Why isn't there a "none of the above" option?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Deeper for sure. Until we've scrapped the unanimity rule for most decisions, admitting even more countries would be a disaster.

[CumbrianLefty]

It doesn't have to always be either/or, but when it is the former should still generally take priority.

[Damocles]

Deeper for sure. Until we've scrapped the unanimity rule for most decisions, admitting even more countries would be a disaster.

Follow up question: what competences specifically should the Union integrate its members on? What does that reform package look like, in your estimation? How might the Union go about crafting popular legitimacy that exists alongside those of its member states?

[Upper Canada Tory]

If I were a citizen of a European country I would not want my country to become an EU member state. With that said, I think adding new member states ('wider integration') with less encroachment on their institutions is less controversial and more essential to the EU's survival and geopolitical interests than absorbing the institutions of existing EU member states.

[Lord Halifax]

the poll should have a Neither option.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

False dichotomy, but I have better hopes for the admission of countries like Albania or North Macedonia than figuring out a functional external border policy, common defence policy and so on (even if I'd like to see both of those things). The EU should really pursue fairer integration.

[Zinneke]

I don’t think the two are diametrically opposed but I do think the EU needs a reset (including a potential name change) whereby there is a core that goes for deeper integration and a periphery (Macron’s idea of the political community) that basically have association agreements with the EU and contribute to a Common Foreign Policy and Defense pillar.


Another issue is though that this core would potentially suck the talent out of the periphery. And this already happens with the absurd decision to focalise everything in the blue banana of Europe.If you look at the statistics in a country like France, the number one rise is household expenditure is in housing, so I think when we have a continent like Europe, albeit a smaller one than America, we should actually be using that space efficiently in order to solve our housing crisis, because rent controls don’t work and the right-wing solutions don’t work either. We should have deliberate incentivisation schemes for graduates from Western European countries to start business in places they wouldn’t usually start them in. 
A good way to follow through with this is having the Netherlands and Flanders should be kicked out of any future institution. They clearly want EU-scpetics judging by how they vote so just give them what they want : they would be made an example of in a far better way that the UK, with total isolation from their key trading partners and forced to prostitute themselves to AMerican, Chinese and Russian interests. The UK leaving the EU was a failure of the EU, those two brown-shirt led countries leaving would be a fantastic opportunity to show why we benefit from the Four Freedoms, to divert trade away from the cramped, most overpopulated part of Europe and we can all learn how to build proper ports in the process.

More than anything though, and the EP elections will demonstrate this, we absolutely need an election that has a genuine debate and impact on the direction of the EU. Masses of EU voters will vote for far right parties in June because they’ve been told the EU is responsible for mass immigration by the (Putin-financed, Chinese finance or Belt Way redneck evangelical death cult- financed, take your pick) populist politicians. And yet, the EU parliament is a joke institution, it is overbloated, there is no space for personalities to emerge, mainly because national political parties send their absolute worst criminals, egotists or grifters to the place. The result is that the Commission and Council is where actually policy debates happen, and the EP either just sort of acts as this weirdo, smelly activist who wants a couple of amendments here or there, or is captured by vested interests to sabotage a particular policy. Its not a serious democratic institution and as a result the EU isn’t either.

 I dare say what the new “deeper” EU needs is actually a hyperpresidentialised system, with a much smaller parliament, and a clear message to EU voters about the choices in policies that will dictate the culture of the Commission and the Parliament for the next 5 years, with the Council playing a role more akin to the US Senate. I like the idea of a big parliament of the EU but in its current form its lost its way completely. I dare say the only hope it has is if European elections were held at the same time as national ones, but this this forum would be a mess.

My overall rant thus ends with wanting more deepening, because right now the political power in the EU as a whole (across all levels including national-level politics, but also in aspects like the judicialiazation of politics and the lack of flexibility given to politicians inscribed within the various treaties) is so diluted that basically the average EU voter has very little influence. You could argue that this is a deliberate move from neo-liberal elites to essentially ensure there is never any way to exit the legal straightjacket of Maastricht, but judging by how well it suits the vote shares of right-wing populist parties as more and more citizens feel like their vote has zero impact, I think even from their perspective they should seriously reconsider revising the Treaties at the very least. Enlarging it with the current Treaties would be a disaster.

Oh, the best thing to keep from Maastricht would be QMV.

[Electric Circus]

Whatever works best in terms of its ability to function as a US ally, provided that it remains responsive to the will of its own voters. As a casual observer, I'm not impressed with the organization on either count.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mostly to be more realistic about what it actually is. Similar comments also apply to how it should be viewed by other European countries who are not members, whether over the long-term or, shall we say, recently.

[Sirius_]

Deeper probably makes more sense purely for the reason that there aren't many new members to add right now. The best candidates would be the UK or Switzerland but we know why that isn't happening. Perhaps some more balkan states could join but a lot of what's left is warzones and undemocratic nations.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well the hope remains Ukraine will join the EU in the future, if they survive Putin's tender mercies.

Which would surely be quite a big prize.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Deeper for sure. Until we've scrapped the unanimity rule for most decisions, admitting even more countries would be a disaster.

Yes, over the longer term moving to gradually reduce unanimity/supermajority requirements is essential for the EU to be a functional organization, and moving towards that should be the general top priority.

The main exception is that obviously Ukraine will need to be admitted.

In terms of substantive policy, the main priority should be moving towards fiscal union, because that is necessary for the stability/functionality of the Euro. And when there is economic unrest/discontent, that tends to lead to backlash against "foreigners" which means backlash against the EU, since it is an international organization.

[Flyersfan232]

no intergration

[The Mikado]

Deeper for sure. Until we've scrapped the unanimity rule for most decisions, admitting even more countries would be a disaster.

Shutting the door on a country like Albania that has been in negotiations to join for 16 years or Northern Macedonia which literally changed its name to have an option to join would be one of the biggest Lucy/Football moments of all time. At the very least, Albania, Montenegro, and Northern Macedonia which have all been involved in accession talks for over a decade shouldn't have the rug pulled from under them, surely.

[lfromnj]

Ukraine in the EU should be important for paying back the wonderful loans we gave them.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Deeper for sure. Until we've scrapped the unanimity rule for most decisions, admitting even more countries would be a disaster.

Shutting the door on a country like Albania that has been in negotiations to join for 16 years or Northern Macedonia which literally changed its name to have an option to join would be one of the biggest Lucy/Football moments of all time. At the very least, Albania, Montenegro, and Northern Macedonia which have all been involved in accession talks for over a decade shouldn't have the rug pulled from under them, surely.

Yeah the obvious answer here imo is that there's no contradiction between them unless you persist with the unanimity rule (which Antonio did mention, so this isn't really made as a criticism of him) and the EU's terrible institutions. The EU can obviously make alterations, but I would frankly aim to adopt the American model as quickly as possible: a Constitution with limited delineated powers respecting the rights of member states, an elected lower chamber apportioned by population (with legislatures being able to determine the specific processes of election), a Senate apportioned by state/country, and a nationally elected President would do wonders to bind the union together and would quickly draw attention to European politics.

[ingemann]

I think it really depend on the fields, I’m a great believer in decision being taken as close to the individual citizens as possible. So EU should not run healthcare which are better run closer to the individual citizens. But EU should help fund outer border policies and help the states repatriate people who are in those countries illegally.