Quote Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Now you see thats exactly what I don't want. The first tier members will be the most powerful, likely the only ones with full veto while the third tier will be stuck with no power and little benefit.

This is my idea:

Every country elects MEPs based on its population, those MEPs pass European legislation and nothing happens unless it passes a mjoriety vote. The Commission can propose and frame new bills and treaties and control the executive functioning of the EU but the power to chose the direction of the EU is solely with the parliament.
Ideally, that's exactly what I would want too. But I don't think we'll see enough support for that in at least the foreseeable future.

I'm not so sure if I want a closer union with mobster states like Bulgaria and Rumania, both set to join next year. Or with fundamentalist Catholic Poland, or with any of them fringe countries where the police refuses to protect gays from being beaten up in broad daylight.

Also, I don't think the UK and the Nordic countries will ever want a deeper EU, like France does. So why be stubborn about it? Let France move together with countries like Italy and Germany towards a closer union, and let the British and Nordics have it their way. We've got that channel tunnel, young French can work in London, and retired Brits can buy their house in the Provence.

I personally would join with Britain in a single currency, single foreign policy, agricultural policy, anything really, save of course a common football team. (I don't ever want to lose the delight of seeing England represented by football gods like Neville and Crouch...)

The free movement of goods, people and capital across the channel will never be reversed anymore. That much will stay, but if we can't find a common ground for further unity, then let's not be a fool about it indefinately.