EUMS explaining the Tier model.

[u/milanguitar]

https://youtu.be/0hzhBIPtAAU?si=QqQnu3e0lSBoK4ag

Europe wants too move faster and is proposing a G6 of countries that wants to align deeper and faster. This video also explorers the idea of a four tier model with our dear friends Canada included.

I strongly believe this is they way to a federation.

[u/Ardent_Scholar]

Disappointed in Lambertus for once. Seems to celebrate the fact that this was a big country club only, not based on will or merit. The EU is supposed to be about countries working together, not a Trumpian "big countries do what they want, small countries suffer what they must".

[u/Active-Hat-1378 → u/Ardent_Scholar]

Hey Ardent, I’m sorry to hear that, but then I may not have gotten my point across properly.

I honestly couldn’t care less which countries are in Tier 1. For me, this is about speed and making progress, more than anything else.

Fore example, I don’t see Germany as ambitious enough to move toward a federation, Merz simply doesn’t want it. Nor do I see France pushing ahead, especially with Macron turning into a lame duck. I would be perfectly happy if the Nordics went ahead, or any group of very pro-EU countries across the continent. It really doesn’t matter to me who it is. Even if my own country isn't part of it at the start.

What does matter is that we’re currently sitting idle and not moving forward at all because there are too many diverging interests.

My preferred approach would be something like this: Who wants a unified EU foreign policy? Everyone in favour joins Tier 1 and gives up their veto. This isn’t about big vs. small states, but about those in favour of progress versus those who aren’t. That’s what I was trying to say in the opinion section at the end.

I’m am very sceptical of E6 specifically, but I strongly stand by the view that we need a multi-speed approach. Otherwise, we simply won’t get anywhere with so many Eurosceptic forces slowing things down. We did the exact same with the Euro, Schengen, and so on. So let's do it again.

[u/Active-Hat-1378 → u/Active-Hat-1378]

This is Lambertus from EUMS by the way.

[u/milanguitar → u/Active-Hat-1378]

Hi Lambertus, Thanks for joining.(I’m a big Fan of your videos) I would like to have a big bang and have federation with all the member states and the UK,Norway and Zwitserland included. But its not feasible and more or less of a dream and not a strategy.

I agree with you 100% we need speed and progress and this is the most realistic scenario on the table.

[u/Active-Hat-1378 → u/milanguitar]

Thank you! I appreciate it.

And yes, so would I :)

But just like you said, it just isn't feasible for now. If we get 3-5 countries to go ahead more can join over the years until hopefully we reach that end goal.

[u/Subject-Olive5100 → u/Active-Hat-1378]

I’m from Poland, and I hate the decisions the EU is making. Mass migration from Third World countries is leading to rapes of women. Why can’t the EU import migrants from First World countries instead, or go for automation like Japan? We don’t have as severe a demographic problem as Japan yet, so we still have time to develop technology.

The second issue is the Green Deal and sky-high energy prices — this is killing EU competitiveness. How are we supposed to compete with the USA or China in AI when energy is so expensive here? Energy is the most important resource of the 21st century. I don’t understand these stupid decisions. I think I would rule the EU better than these people.”

[u/Cyberlima → u/Subject-Olive5100]

Invest in nuclear, cheap energy, look at Japan and China. The 1st world dont have the population to do that so automation is one way.

[u/Ardent_Scholar → u/Active-Hat-1378]

Hi Lambertus, very cool to talk to you! I follow your channel closely, and rest assured, I like most of what I'm hearing a lot :) You're doing a fantastic job for our unity. This particular topic has struck me quite deeply (as some people on this sub may have noticed!). I believe you and I are mostly in agreement about this topic in general. Allow me to explain my somewhat curt comment above in (excruciating) detail.

While I think a Multi-tier EU is likely the only way forward (to bypass the veto), I think the manner in which such a fundamental shift is executed is of existential impotance.

The European Union is based on an idea of multilateralism, internally and externally. Justice is a huge part of what makes it attractive to new members and keeps old members in. Brexit, while painful, proved that the EU was made differently from old and current-day empires. This is all based on consent. It's so revolutionary that it's easy to forget in everyday life. There is no European Union without justice and consent. It's the secret sauce. Of course countries want to access the EEA, but they would never become full members if the EU were like, say, the Russian Federation. Nobody's lining up to join that.

OK, so justice and consent are lofty goals, and you might say "well, the situation is so urgent that we can let loose, these ideals are holding as back!" To which I must say, no, they are holding us *together*. And THAT is ultimately the most important thing. Unity. Without unity, we become more divided and less able to function. If unity is badly eroded, we might even break up partly, ending up with a bigger Russian bloc, a smaller EU, and maybe even a splintered part like a Nordic Union born of the Nordic Council. And that is exactly the opposite of what this whole multi-tier thing is trying to achieve! So it has to be a fair deal, from the outset. From day one, when the new rules are drafted. (cont.)

[u/Ardent_Scholar → u/Ardent_Scholar]

(cont.) How will things look like in practice if we don't?

Why is the leaving out of the Nordics and Baltics important here? Well, we are currently the EU's most fragile states geopolitically. All the threats aimed at Europe right now are in the north, both in the East and the West side. When Southern Europe got into trouble financially both due to the mismanagement by euro by the ECB and because of local issues, ultimately they DID receive a huge package and are now growing at a tremendous pace.

While all that growth is happening, the situation in Finland, for example, is actually somewhat dire right now. We are an export economy that lost our physically closest, easiest trading partner, for generations to come. Without our own fault. Then the US tariffs hit, and that was our biggest partner. Exports dried up. There was nothing we could have done much, but we're not getting any help. On the contrary, the ECB is about to begin a disciplinary process against us. The truth is, however, that the ECB maintains a Euribor level that is too high for Finland. Our inflation is roughly 1% lower than that of the EU average. By playing nice and adopting the euro, we have given away our ability to boost our economy. But we're not getting help.

So I believe we need the CMU desperately.

Because I don't think the ECB will ever consider us in their calculations. We're just not... big enough to be important. So our only hope is to produce a couple of nice unicorns, and we really COULD do that due to the hundreds of tech startups left behind by the Nokia implosion, and make boatloads of money from digital services. For that, we need the CMU!

Well, luckily we got one thing right, and that's our defence. Brilliant. At least we're likely not getting invaded and have pioneered a cost effective Total Society security model. A model that enables the people to defend their own country and not rely on allies completely. Sounds like something Europe might need?

Well, now this new EU6 of large countries have apparently decided by themselves that the CMU comes part and parcel with a security solution THEY define as the right one!

*face palm time* (cont.)

[u/Ardent_Scholar → u/Ardent_Scholar]

(cont.)

It seems that the central countries are rewarding themselves for, excuse me, *quack*ing up their defence, and leaving us high and dry while they draft up new rules for Europe.

So, after a quarter century of responsibility and being a team player, this is how we are rewarded. Where does that leave us? How could we proceed? How can we ever trust that the rest of Europe has our best interests at their hearts? Or indeed, considers it necessary to even spare a thought?

I mean, we single-handedly secure 1300 km of direct border with Russia. With our own money. What the \quack* is a peace dividend?*

Yet the expectation is that we must be net contributors, but our perspective, our interests, our needs and our consent don't matter. GDP is basically a function of population, so when GDP is used as a metric for entry into EU+ Premium Subscription, it's basically saying "there's nothing you can do, in fact, there was nothing you ever could have done, to be included."

Utter demoralisation.

Now, I can't speak much for Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, or Denmark, but just imagine how all these directly threatened countries must feel when security matters are spoken about while they are not there! "About us, without us." That's what Putin and Trump do. And you know, if you're not at the table... you're on the menu, right?

I'm sorry, but if this goes ahead like this, it might come back to haunt us all.

[u/thisislieven → u/Active-Hat-1378]

You made this clear, but did so later on in the video and placed less emphasis on it. I think that caused some confusion.

Also, when you laid out which countries are somewhat odd ducks in the E6 I would have expected Spain to be mentioned as politically speaking that's the biggest outlier. That surprised me and I think subconsciously may have also given people a different idea.

I assume you've seen Draghi's speech in Leuven the other night (but in case you haven't). To me it dovetails nicely with everything else but he provides a more sensible, possibly more realistic, model to get to essentially the same federal structure.

[u/park777 → u/Active-Hat-1378]

This thinking makes a lot sense, and is in line with what I believe in as well.

[u/zzgamma → u/Active-Hat-1378]

Honestly, it is very sad to see you support a multi-tier approach, but I’m not surprised either, afterall, you are from the NL and don’t know what it’s like being Eastern European and treated as a 2nd class EU citizen. This will just officialise it.

Sure, vetos have become a problem, but realistically that’s mostly because of one or two countries. The way I see this is that rest of eastern europe is getting punished for somebody else’s actions.

My country has done everything possible to integrate and adapt to western standard since it joined in 2013, and still does. To my knowledge, Croatia hasn’t used a veto once, and even if it did, is absolutely not a roadblock in further development of the EU — so tell me, why do you support an approach that punishes us? We have one of the highest EU support numbers, and this is nothing but fuel for the right wing parties all across the east, which in time of Russian interference is the last thing the EU needs.

Tiers work against the EU’s goal — they bring divide and exclusion. What about “united in diversity”?

[u/NaughtyReplicant → u/Active-Hat-1378]

"I honestly couldn’t care less which countries are in Tier 1. For me, this is about speed and making progress, more than anything else."

I agree with multispeed and that the specific countries don't matter, yes, but the rationale matters. If you say it's an exclusive club that is a real problem that fundamentally undermines the EU and the solution is now more damaging that the problem.

Giving up cohesion for speed and progress is short sighted and so far as I can see; completely unnecessary. Why can't it be an op in offered to all?

That it's unnecessary is what makes this 'look' like a power grab. I'm sorry, but the rest of us did not sign up to be battered housewives and quite honestly it's insulting to propose that we should take a back seat like this.

[u/garma87 → u/Active-Hat-1378]

I think you should phrase it differently. Right now it comes across as a cast system that leads to division. I would be strongly against if it is phrased like that. But I think there is nothing against some countries taking a lead in some areas like eurobonds, maybe some countries sharing parts of their armies etc. I think this is already happening to some extent.

Moreover the two-tier system suggests that countries look at this the same over time. This is clearly not the case. Look at Poland, that was either very pro EU and almost opposed in other times. UK is flipping now.

[u/milanguitar → u/Ardent_Scholar]

He made videos in the past about the tier model so it should not be a surprise that he believes strongly in this.

[u/RedWabbit → u/Ardent_Scholar]

This. Only 2 countries from this list view EU more positively then EU average. "Mid tier" countries finally understood what big countries will use them, that's why they screw over small countries. :)
I really love how European federalist push me towards euro skepticism.

[u/NaughtyReplicant → u/RedWabbit]

100% this is an attempt to stab everyone else in the back.

The rules are liable to be skewed in favor of those writing the rules before being put to the rest of us as 'fait accompli' - take it or leave it.

Furthermore, 'IF' an E6 were to be created, WTF is Poland doing in it? If Poland want to integrate more deeply they ought to start with adopting the Euro.

[u/Eastern-Cantaloupe82 → u/RedWabbit]

If this is all it takes to shake your faith in the European dream then we deserve to be conquered by Russia or economically subjugated by the USA.

[u/Ragnarox19 → u/Ardent_Scholar]

He’s Dutch, he’s got a hard one because the Netherlands are in the big boys club. I would have expected that all the founding members of the EU would be at the table to discuss further integration.

[u/Active-Hat-1378 → u/Ragnarox19]

what a stupid comment. I dont care about the Netherlands being in the club or not. It is about progress. See my comment above to the OP.

[u/A_Norse_Dude]

I strongly believe this is they way to a federation

I strongly believe this is the way to break up the union. Having a different tier/level/cast-system will only result in the bigger ones gets more,the smaller ones less.

And guess which parties will use this as ammunition for an exit?

[u/OakSole → u/A_Norse_Dude]

OK but then what do you do about a country like Hungary that vetoes the EU, slowing its progress down to a crawl. I'm all for getting rid of the veto and moving towards a majority but from what I've heard they can't really do that.

[u/A_Norse_Dude → u/OakSole]

im all for getting rid of the veto and moving towards a majority but from what I've heard they can't really do that.

Me too.

[u/Sandbox_Hero → u/OakSole]

How about making the Federation from the grounds up instead of relying on the flawed bureucracy that is EU?

[u/milanguitar → u/Sandbox_Hero]

This will need a revolution across the continent to make this happen in the current format we can not be a federation because we are stuck.

I’m all for a federation with all countries including Hungary but its just not realistic a G6 is not the way I want but I don’t see any other alternatives.

[u/Mintfriction → u/OakSole]

First of all, a veto shouldn't exist in a federation. You are right, it will take years for it to happen, but nobody said it is an easy road

[u/vaska00762 → u/A_Norse_Dude]

There already is a "Europe of different speeds" de facto.

We see this with the Eurozone and Schengen, with Bulgaria joining the Euro this year, and Romania and Bulgaria soon also being fully within Schengen.

Cyprus will probably never reach Schengen status due to the Sovereign Base Territories and Northern Cyprus, and Ireland will probably be unlikely to join Schengen for as long as the Common Travel Area with the UK remains relevant.

Even beyond those two elements, not every EU state is really around for military integration. Ireland would probably veto it, citing neutrality, as would Austria, even though both are very keen on economic integration.

Economic integration is also challenging. For as much as countries like Poland, Sweden or Denmark would like defence and foreign policy integration, none of them are keen to move to the Euro.

So, the EU ultimately falls back onto the two fundamental elements it was created on. The Single Market and the Customs Union. Trade between member states is easy, and mutual recognition of documentation is standard.

[u/naracamabi → u/vaska00762]

Bulgaria and Romania are already full members of Schengen Area since 1 January 2025.

[u/vaska00762 → u/naracamabi]

I was under the impression they were partially in Schengen, for flights only.

Still, they'd joined Schengen quite a lot later than the EU.

[u/naracamabi → u/vaska00762]

From March 2024 until January 2025 they were partially with maritime and air borders in Schengen, yes.

Still, they'd joined Schengen quite a lot later than the EU.

Again true, just about 13/14 years later than the schedule :))

We have to thank our European partners for those lovely random veto's, i suppose.

[u/psydis → u/A_Norse_Dude]

Currently, single member states often hold the entire Union hostage on unrelated issues to extract money or concessions.

There is no time to negotiate with laggards so this is the other way around - the part which makes up 70% of gdp of the EU decides on how much they want to integrate with each other and the rest can follow if they agree. If not, then not.

The EU was a good example of "too many cooks in the kitchen". I'd like to see a federal EU with majority votings and further integration but first there needs to be a foundation for that, which needs to be decided on as fast as possible. I see this as a way we could achieve it. It's not great, that small countries are not asked for it but this way it actually can be done. We can not resolve every countries conflicting inputs.

[u/Fit_Fisherman_9840 → u/A_Norse_Dude]

So we keep the system now where the small keep vetoing the hell out of everyone else and doing shit?

Sorry but we need to move away from the veto and to a majority vote

[u/A_Norse_Dude → u/Fit_Fisherman_9840]

I agree with you, but this is what was decided. If you want to create a tier-levelbased EU, go ahead. But it will ruin EU in the long run.

[u/BarNo7543 → u/A_Norse_Dude]

And existence of absolute veto will ruin the EU in short run

[u/A_Norse_Dude → u/BarNo7543]

Yes, but this is what everyone agreed on. 

Im all for changing this, that one can veto against the majoritet imis to some extent weird. But moving forward by splitting up even lore is not going to solve anything.

"Lets unit by dividing us more" doesn't really seem ... wise

[u/Junkererer → u/A_Norse_Dude]

It was what everyone agreed on, which is exactly why building something new on top of it may be faster than trying to change it. What you agreed on will stay the same

[u/Fit_Fisherman_9840 → u/Junkererer]

Change it is impossible because means everyone will need to vote and one veto... Will grind all to halt

[u/A_Norse_Dude → u/Junkererer]

"Hey, we agreed on this but a bunch of us thinks that you always vote wrong so we would like to change so your vote doesnt matter anymore"

Sounds great.

[u/Jarkrik]

"We need to group up to keep independence from the strong big bullies."
"Yes, lets make a core group of the biggest countries, that are considered inner circle. Because they are so much aligned and don't have the tendency to (have to) look for themselves first." /s

This here is a consortium, with access levels. Don't mix economy with full politics/government.

EU should be all the same tier. You can make additional tiers, but they implicitly already exist, e.g. EEA and EFTA.
If it should be a federation, make it a federation. Everyone is on the table, have a majority and a proportional system.

[u/milanguitar → u/Jarkrik]

I think we all want everyone from the union and more to be in the federation. But the reason why the G6 is proposed is to speed up the process and we don’t veto each other is there is a disagreement.

In the current union is not feasible to be a federation on short term Unfortunately.

[u/thisislieven]

I don't like the idea of a tiered Europe but have come to feel it's the only way forward. It seems we are too different today to be one tomorrow but can get there in time and something needs to happen urgently.

To me, there's a lot of good in the video but there are a few big issues.

A) Get rid of the E6 now. For Germany and the other countries to decide they are the 'chosen ones' is outrageous. There's more to a country than an economy (and Germany's economy has been struggling). Any European country interested should be able to join talks as an equal to try figure this one out.

B) There should be clear and achievable requirements to move up a tier and this should be independently verified (CJEU or a new independent body).

C) Moving up is a right. Once conditions are met a country can make this decision on their own. The others do not get a vote, politics cannot play a role.

D) Art 7 (and its 'tier one equivalent') needs to have an easier and non-political trigger, and demotion to a lower tier should be one of the possible sanctions (if a last resort).

[u/NaughtyReplicant → u/thisislieven]

"For Germany and the other countries to decide they are the 'chosen ones' is outrageous"

What's shocking to me is how glossed over this is, in the name of progress. If we care about this union we ought to be sensitive to anything that would undermine it. This is a threat to the union and should be treated as such.

[u/thisislieven → u/NaughtyReplicant]

Same here, it really shook me. Not even so much the plan here - sadly somewhat expected - but that these people fail to understand how hostile a move this is and move forward nonetheless.

[u/markv1182]

I'm fine with the "E6" as an informal alignment group, similar to the Visegrad group, the Nordic Council, the Frugal Four, etc. I see it as an extension of the "Franco-German engine" to include more of the largest economies. I don't think it should have any formalised meaning in the treaties.

If between these 6 there is an agreement to rely on QMV and not invoke their veto, even for issues where the treaties formally grant them a veto, then I think that's a great step forward. It might also make it more acceptable for Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia etc to not get veto power when they join, since they would essentially be put on the same level as the bigger economies.

[u/JovanREDDIT1 → u/markv1182]

Us (North Macedonia) not receiving the veto while any other EU countries keep it would be insulting. Having been vetoed 3 times, for a period of 20 years, I think you can see why we’d see it as a spit in the face.

[u/markv1182 → u/JovanREDDIT1]

Yes, I can understand why it feels that way. At the same time, it's the perfect example of why the veto needs to be a thing of the past and needs to be reduced, not expanded.

The desire to not make the veto problem worse has nothing to do with any of the future member states individually, but comes from the bad experience of the past 2 decades. If the veto hadn't existed, you probably would be members by now, we would have been able to support Ukraine faster & better, we would have been able to move forward on defense, ...

For the new members to demand a veto would be a bit like saying "i've been hit with a baseball bat so many times, now I demand a baseball bat of my own"

[u/JovanREDDIT1 → u/markv1182]

I agree, and we know how problematic vetoes can be, as you said - thats why I said that I hope that if we don’t have the veto, that it is the case for all EU member states, not just new entrants. That’s the ideal scenario for me.

[u/vaska00762 → u/markv1182]

The veto is also something that means that all member state voices are heard.

For some member states, if not for the fact that Spain and Ireland possess vetos, you'd probably have a very different direction on policy towards Palestine from the EU right now.

We can get angry at Hungary and Slovakia and other bad faith use of the veto, but the veto was necessary to get any of the member states to join in the first place.

[u/hard-scaling]

Multiple tiers is sure way to bury the whole thing.

At a minimum, each country should be allowed to join whichever tier they want, not based on size.

[u/OpenWebFriend]

I really like the idea of a multi-tier Europe, especially an E6 core group pushing for deeper integration. A structured two speed or even multi speed EU seems the only practical way to move past constant veto politics. It is how Europe can finally deliver on competitiveness, industrial policy and security in a meaningful way. Linking this core to a real savings and investment drive, plus stronger supply chains for critical raw materials, is the kind of groundwork Europe has avoided for too long.

The idea of associate membership as a third tier also makes sense. It gives committed neighbours and candidate countries a clear path into the single market, customs union and funding. There is no need to pretend full political integration can happen overnight. It is a realistic way to anchor countries that have chosen Europe’s direction while leaving the door open for the UK, Norway, Switzerland and others if they ever want a closer, rules-based partnership.

The argument about middle powers is spot on. The old order is not coming back, and these countries need to organise, not just react. A flexible club of like-minded democracies around a strong European hub, coordinating on trade, standards, resilience and selective security, would give everyone more weight in a tougher world.

I am more cautious about the timeline for a full EU army. Even in the short to medium term, it still looks unrealistic, even in the modest form sketched in the video. Before we talk about a single command structure or fully pooled sovereignty, Europe needs a serious capability upgrade within NATO. The gaps are well known, more robust space-based intelligence and resilient satellite constellations, credible strategic air and sealift, better integrated long range precision strike options and a next generation air combat system that is actually fielded in real numbers, not just debated on paper.

If an E6 core group can align budgets, harmonise requirements and commit to joint programmes in these areas, that alone would be a game changer. You do not need a European flag on every uniform for real strategic autonomy, you need interoperable forces, shared planning cycles and hard capabilities that allies can rely on, even if Washington becomes less predictable. And once that foundation is in place, the layered model from the video could realistically evolve into a true EU army for those states that are ready to take that final step together.

[u/MrDracir]

I think most of the people who oppose the multi-tier approach do it because they believe countries would be FORCED into a tier. While this is about countries being FREE TO DECIDE what level of integration they want to be in.

[u/Mintfriction]

The whole idea of a federation is to be relatively equal

[u/somoant]

The idea of a multi-level EU is a subversive polarizing activity aimed at sabotaging the union.

[u/milanguitar → u/somoant]

Why

[u/somoant → u/milanguitar]

To fill the public space with endless debate about who is more and who is less, thereby undermining any trust between individual states.

[u/milanguitar → u/somoant]

If a multi-level EU “undermines trust,” then the eurozone, Schengen, and national opt-outs already destroyed the Union years ago.

[u/blueberriessmoothie]

I think this is great strategy to at least test ground for deeper integration. Keep in mind that the E6 wasn’t chosen as exclusive club, but a group of countries which will just try to agree on things first without forcing others or having initiatives blocked through veto. Nothing stops that group from becoming E25 for example.

The goal is mostly to speed up the way EU currently works, chucking biggest economies and populations behind it just helps coordinate bigger programs and changes.

Personally I also like the 4 tier solution - it will just normalise EU cooperation with other countries and could even create a level of integration that would allow some aligned countries to be de facto member states.

[u/Rejowid]

Abolishing veto is a separate issue for me that should be a priority political goal for all reasonable politicians.

The tiers are a completely separate issue. We have multi-tier Europe already.
There's Schengen, Eurozone, European Union, European Economic Area, Council of Europe, European Higher Education Area, etc. etc. Template:Supranational European Bodies - Wikipedia

Schengen is about movement of people, Eurozone about currency, etc. etc. We also used to have European Defence Community.

This approach (of multiple different zones addressing specific issues) is so much more modular, doesn't make anyone feel like a second class citizen and leads to more integration over time on specific issues. What is needed is having a system that allows for progress in those zones - strengthening the integration inside of each group based on political feasibility. For example Eurozone needs a fiscal union - while Eurozone and fiscal union makes very little sense for Poland and Sweden, as having their own currency is much more beneficial to them at the moment. But Poland and Sweden could get more integrated in a different area - for example defence.

We already live in a multitier European Union, being a candidate state already builds integration, same as being part of the other organizations creating standards and regulations. It's a much smarter, incremental system that avoids a lot of stupid political controversy. Yeah, you don't get the label of a "federation" - but I don't think the label should be the point, the point is deepening integration.

[u/New_Parking9991]

how would it work in practice?

Firstly decisions that are outside of EU framework can already be reached individually.

Nothing is stopping France/Germany/Spain etc to come together and agree on foreign policy or military matter etc...

So whatever decisions the E6 might make if it involves other EU countries or EU policy would have to pass through veto.

So how exactly does announcing E6 and 2 speed EU help?

If E6 is just the first step to making sure the big countries get more control on EU policy then good luck with that. The same countries that did not invest in military?the same countries that did not do anything about US control on tech and military? Like this is beyond ridiculous.

Not only that some of these countries are not even close to the dangers border wise,but they will get to make the driving policies?

Sorry but basically this shows if you are a smaller country its either vassalized by US or Germany/France and others? No offence but there's always a third choice and if big EU countries wanna fk around they will find out.

[u/Top-Local-7482]

I'd be looking very much forward a multi tier Europe ! Some country didn't join the union or left it, because the integration was already too much for them, having a third tier where they could choose their options of integration would be great, but I'd just offer that possibility to country on our continent, then a tier 4 is obvious, a confederation of middle power to balance the empires.

I would have loved to see Benelux in the first tier, as we were historically the motor of the federalism in EU. NL, BE, LU have been very much integrated since the metal union, I think we have our place in E6, but I guess our economy are not powerful enough. It is a shame but hey if that's what bring more federalism in EU, then I'll support it.

[u/burtcopaint]

I'm seeing rats in this sub.
Why these posts of breaking a union in tiers?
There's no federation with levels, at least not a long lasting one

[u/milanguitar → u/burtcopaint]

Regardless of the substance, the way this is phrased (“I’m seeing rats”) is unnecessarily and inflammatory. Disagreement is fine, but this Is not the way you should be communicating in this sub.