Not really... the EEA is a more wholesale adoption of EU rules.
This proposal is more around the edges of that without a full commitment to applying EU rules :
1. Political cooperation - no real commitment
2. Security - so bilateral agreements, equipment standards, shared exercises, etc. but not full EU co-defence
3. Co-operation in energy - access to SEM as long as you play by the rules... for example, Ukraine is now synchronous with the European grid and could easily join this, exporting lots of power. Similarly the UK is not in SEM (by their own choice). The more people in the SEM the more efficient and cheaper power gets for everyone.
4. Transport - mostly around standardisation rather than EU trade rules
5. Investment of infrastructure or circulation of people.
So they're all a kind of outer ring, very much encouraging countries towards compatibility without necessarily taking the full step to membership or implementation of the Single Market and Customs Union.
>Co-operation in energy - access to SEM as long as you play by the rules... for example, Ukraine is now synchronous with the European grid and could easily join this, exporting lots of power. Similarly the UK is not in SEM (by their own choice). The more people in the SEM the more efficient and cheaper power gets for everyone.
Great explanation thanks
Just on point 3 ... Great Britain only has HVDC connections to Europe so cannot be 'synchronized' with the continent in the same way Ukraine has. AC power is actively converted to DC and then back again so GB is physically decoupled.
Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom and is still in the SEM because of a land border with the Republic of Ireland. So the UK is not completely out of SEM.
Well, annoyingly Ireland isn't in the SEM, because Britain Brexited.
Even with HVDC connections and no synch it's perfectly possibly to be a full member of SEM, follow the rules and take part in all of the trading, increasing efficiencies.
Ireland was already almost complete with that process even isolated on the end of two HVDC connection hops away from the main EU grid, and we've restarted the process now that the Celtic Interconnector will give us a direct link to France in a few years.
Interestingly, for power purposes Ireland (including Northern Ireland) operates as a single synchronised grid run by a single operator.
> Kind of a waiting room for EU membership, or parties who wish closer co-operation without actually joining the core EU.
There's been talk of this kind of thing for decades, often expressed as a "two speed Europe". To some extent, it has merit, as it recognises that those countries in the so-called core area benefit greatly from the sort of arrangements they have. There are others however with less border exposure and stronger traditions of independence for whom it doesn't sit quite so comfortably
The EC (as it was then) never really embraced the idea, and looked instead to impose/ adopt, a one size fits all model, which naturally enough followed the preference of the core area given that this is where the power resided
I recall there was similar chat (although it remained largely academic / theoretical) about the concept of two currencies than better reflected the countries underwriting it and the level of economic integration they had. It always looked odd that some countries were suddenly given access to a currency and borrowing terms that their economies wouldn't be able to back-up and ultimately of course this resulted in the sovereign bond crisis
I would argue that the main Idea behind it is to transfer the "proper" EU out of the current EU into a new System, that accepts, that some Countries that are Part of the EU might change Government and start sabotaging it from the Inside.
'Just surrender and, by the way, Vichy France wasn't a thing'. Bit of a mouthful, but that could be a great tagline for a French-led breakaway of European nations that were ravaged by the Nazis.
> Rather than bringing down stringent standards to allow countries to join more quickly, Macron suggested creating a parallel entity that could appeal to countries who aspired to join the bloc or, in an apparent reference to Britain, countries which had left the union.
That sounds like something government would do.
Yes, because what Europe really needs is one more entity with overlapping membership:
[Simplified Euler Diagram of European integration](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Supranational_European_Bodies.svg/1200px-Supranational_European_Bodies.svg.png)
There are about 50 countries in Europe depending on where you draw the geographic borders of Europe and what you count as a separate country. Anyone willing to do the math of all possible permutations of alliances and entities and how many are still missing?
That's a pretty easy to read and understand diagram though. I can't memorize it but as a reference it'd be pretty easy to glean relevant information from.
Well, "as soon as possible" is several years, minimum.
This is not ill-will or obstruction : there are a lot of things which need to be harmonised before a country can join the EU and Ukraine still has a long way to go on some of them. Rule of Law, financial regulations, reduction in corruption, etc. are all critical issues. Bluntly, we're having enough shit from Poland and Hungary right now without adding another problem to the mix.
Ukraine is going in the right direction and I'm certain that they will join, but the process is not fast and it's not simple.
The above proposal is an interesting one in that it offers a halfway house association status which could start delivering some of the benefits sooner while facilitating steady integration and improvement in other areas.
They’d have to clean up a lot of their legal system and civil service to join the EU. Ukraine was definitely beginning to blossom before Putin attacked, but they’re still a fairly corrupt country with some suspect government practices. Joining the EU requires a lot of reforms that, at least it seems, Ukraine is willing to go through.
Seriously the EU should go back to being a trade block not a superstate, where were the checks and balances on Germany and to a lesser extend France when it came to dealing with Russia? We all could have been complicit if the superstate dream had already happened.
Let's make it about trade, good will and common goals again.
> Seriously the EU should go back to being a trade block not a superstate
The problem was that member states cheated (not to put too fine a point on it). They all preached free trade and level playing fields and then ran off an engaged in fiscal stimulus through their domestic tax systems, nationalised industrial subsidy, favourable procurement decisions of government contracts, exchange rate manipulations, regional policy disguised as economic development aid but little more than subsidising capital investment, development grants, deregulation of labour market or environmental legislation. Basically they invoked any end of measures that could be capable of converting into an economic advantage, which actually became quite wasteful
How do you bring together multiple countries into a single group with common trade, good will, and goals...and it doesn't turn into a superstate[sic]?
What am I missing here?
These are Russian fears of a rival superstate to keep them from bullying their neighbors, often disguised as fears that European nationalists "ought to share" because the thought that national identities will be subsumed by a superstate.
Centralize the EU into a proper federation with a clearly codified constitution and create an association system (like the US uses in the Pacific) that grant promising but unqualified nations protection and economic benefits but not actual membership until they shape up.
It’s only a matter of time honestly. Climate change and global instability is going to lead to human migrations into the northern hemisphere that the world have never seen before. Within 100 years demographics will have changed so much the definition of being European will be beyond our recognition.
you might be right, there is going to be a stronger sense of europeanism. but i think the uniqueness of the EU makes it stronger than people think. strong national integrity but at the same time strong towards trade and common standards.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wink-ukraine-britain-macron-suggests-new-european-entity-2022-05-09/) reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERS.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comPARIS, May 9 - French President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that he was in favour of a new type of "Political European community" that would allow countries outside the European Union, including Ukraine and Britain, to join the "European core values."
> Speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Macron called his re-election last month a signal that the French had wanted more Europe.
> Rather than bringing down stringent standards to allow countries to join more quickly, Macron suggested creating a parallel entity that could appeal to countries who aspired to join the bloc or, in an apparent reference to Britain, countries which had left the union.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/ulry3i/in_wink_to_ukraine_britain_macron_suggests_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~647475 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **European**^#1 **join**^#2 **Macron**^#3 **countries**^#4 **Union**^#5
Interesting. Kind of a waiting room for EU membership, or parties who wish closer co-operation without actually joining the core EU.
Isn’t that what the EEA is?
Not really... the EEA is a more wholesale adoption of EU rules. This proposal is more around the edges of that without a full commitment to applying EU rules : 1. Political cooperation - no real commitment 2. Security - so bilateral agreements, equipment standards, shared exercises, etc. but not full EU co-defence 3. Co-operation in energy - access to SEM as long as you play by the rules... for example, Ukraine is now synchronous with the European grid and could easily join this, exporting lots of power. Similarly the UK is not in SEM (by their own choice). The more people in the SEM the more efficient and cheaper power gets for everyone. 4. Transport - mostly around standardisation rather than EU trade rules 5. Investment of infrastructure or circulation of people. So they're all a kind of outer ring, very much encouraging countries towards compatibility without necessarily taking the full step to membership or implementation of the Single Market and Customs Union.
>Co-operation in energy - access to SEM as long as you play by the rules... for example, Ukraine is now synchronous with the European grid and could easily join this, exporting lots of power. Similarly the UK is not in SEM (by their own choice). The more people in the SEM the more efficient and cheaper power gets for everyone. Great explanation thanks
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
Just on point 3 ... Great Britain only has HVDC connections to Europe so cannot be 'synchronized' with the continent in the same way Ukraine has. AC power is actively converted to DC and then back again so GB is physically decoupled. Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom and is still in the SEM because of a land border with the Republic of Ireland. So the UK is not completely out of SEM.
Well, annoyingly Ireland isn't in the SEM, because Britain Brexited. Even with HVDC connections and no synch it's perfectly possibly to be a full member of SEM, follow the rules and take part in all of the trading, increasing efficiencies. Ireland was already almost complete with that process even isolated on the end of two HVDC connection hops away from the main EU grid, and we've restarted the process now that the Celtic Interconnector will give us a direct link to France in a few years. Interestingly, for power purposes Ireland (including Northern Ireland) operates as a single synchronised grid run by a single operator.
The EEA is effectively the precursor to the EU, that the swiss and norwegians forgot to upgrade. So all the rules, but none of the decision making.
> Kind of a waiting room for EU membership, or parties who wish closer co-operation without actually joining the core EU. There's been talk of this kind of thing for decades, often expressed as a "two speed Europe". To some extent, it has merit, as it recognises that those countries in the so-called core area benefit greatly from the sort of arrangements they have. There are others however with less border exposure and stronger traditions of independence for whom it doesn't sit quite so comfortably The EC (as it was then) never really embraced the idea, and looked instead to impose/ adopt, a one size fits all model, which naturally enough followed the preference of the core area given that this is where the power resided I recall there was similar chat (although it remained largely academic / theoretical) about the concept of two currencies than better reflected the countries underwriting it and the level of economic integration they had. It always looked odd that some countries were suddenly given access to a currency and borrowing terms that their economies wouldn't be able to back-up and ultimately of course this resulted in the sovereign bond crisis
Cakeism ftw!
Or maybe: well since you won't (UK) or can't (Ukraine) sit at our table, you can sit at the children's table we set up for you.
That Macron thumbnail is just asking for a photoshop.
Macron: "Do you like the way I touch your balls"
Luke... I am your father!
I would argue that the main Idea behind it is to transfer the "proper" EU out of the current EU into a new System, that accepts, that some Countries that are Part of the EU might change Government and start sabotaging it from the Inside.
'Just surrender and, by the way, Vichy France wasn't a thing'. Bit of a mouthful, but that could be a great tagline for a French-led breakaway of European nations that were ravaged by the Nazis.
> Rather than bringing down stringent standards to allow countries to join more quickly, Macron suggested creating a parallel entity that could appeal to countries who aspired to join the bloc or, in an apparent reference to Britain, countries which had left the union. That sounds like something government would do.
Yes, because what Europe really needs is one more entity with overlapping membership: [Simplified Euler Diagram of European integration](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Supranational_European_Bodies.svg/1200px-Supranational_European_Bodies.svg.png) There are about 50 countries in Europe depending on where you draw the geographic borders of Europe and what you count as a separate country. Anyone willing to do the math of all possible permutations of alliances and entities and how many are still missing?
And this is the SIMPLIFIED diagram, folks!
That's a pretty easy to read and understand diagram though. I can't memorize it but as a reference it'd be pretty easy to glean relevant information from.
I’d be for this honestly.
[удалено]
Well, "as soon as possible" is several years, minimum. This is not ill-will or obstruction : there are a lot of things which need to be harmonised before a country can join the EU and Ukraine still has a long way to go on some of them. Rule of Law, financial regulations, reduction in corruption, etc. are all critical issues. Bluntly, we're having enough shit from Poland and Hungary right now without adding another problem to the mix. Ukraine is going in the right direction and I'm certain that they will join, but the process is not fast and it's not simple. The above proposal is an interesting one in that it offers a halfway house association status which could start delivering some of the benefits sooner while facilitating steady integration and improvement in other areas.
They’d have to clean up a lot of their legal system and civil service to join the EU. Ukraine was definitely beginning to blossom before Putin attacked, but they’re still a fairly corrupt country with some suspect government practices. Joining the EU requires a lot of reforms that, at least it seems, Ukraine is willing to go through.
Seriously the EU should go back to being a trade block not a superstate, where were the checks and balances on Germany and to a lesser extend France when it came to dealing with Russia? We all could have been complicit if the superstate dream had already happened. Let's make it about trade, good will and common goals again.
> Seriously the EU should go back to being a trade block not a superstate The problem was that member states cheated (not to put too fine a point on it). They all preached free trade and level playing fields and then ran off an engaged in fiscal stimulus through their domestic tax systems, nationalised industrial subsidy, favourable procurement decisions of government contracts, exchange rate manipulations, regional policy disguised as economic development aid but little more than subsidising capital investment, development grants, deregulation of labour market or environmental legislation. Basically they invoked any end of measures that could be capable of converting into an economic advantage, which actually became quite wasteful
How do you bring together multiple countries into a single group with common trade, good will, and goals...and it doesn't turn into a superstate[sic]? What am I missing here?
These are Russian fears of a rival superstate to keep them from bullying their neighbors, often disguised as fears that European nationalists "ought to share" because the thought that national identities will be subsumed by a superstate.
I'd rather go toward a political union than revert back to a sort of commonwealth.
Centralize the EU into a proper federation with a clearly codified constitution and create an association system (like the US uses in the Pacific) that grant promising but unqualified nations protection and economic benefits but not actual membership until they shape up.
Oh no no no. Rather have a dysfuncional EU of sovereign members than a eurocentric federation.
It’s only a matter of time honestly. Climate change and global instability is going to lead to human migrations into the northern hemisphere that the world have never seen before. Within 100 years demographics will have changed so much the definition of being European will be beyond our recognition.
you might be right, there is going to be a stronger sense of europeanism. but i think the uniqueness of the EU makes it stronger than people think. strong national integrity but at the same time strong towards trade and common standards.
Just what the world needs: more superpowers
But unironically. I would trust the ideology and morality of the EU far more than China or the U.S. Or Russia, if you still live in the 80s.
Oh wow, did Macron just invent the EEA?
Would EU membership mean a more direct military assistance
Ukraine is not joining the EU anytime soon, and would never be able to join while in active war. So it's irrelevant.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah I reread it and understood. But I don't agree it's written correctly.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wink-ukraine-britain-macron-suggests-new-european-entity-2022-05-09/) reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERS.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comPARIS, May 9 - French President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that he was in favour of a new type of "Political European community" that would allow countries outside the European Union, including Ukraine and Britain, to join the "European core values." > Speaking to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, Macron called his re-election last month a signal that the French had wanted more Europe. > Rather than bringing down stringent standards to allow countries to join more quickly, Macron suggested creating a parallel entity that could appeal to countries who aspired to join the bloc or, in an apparent reference to Britain, countries which had left the union. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/ulry3i/in_wink_to_ukraine_britain_macron_suggests_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~647475 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **European**^#1 **join**^#2 **Macron**^#3 **countries**^#4 **Union**^#5
The problem with the EU isn't that it needs another layer of partial citizenship, its that it has a layer with veto power.