iStock. An EU for ‘full’ members only Let us renegotiate the European treaty, as the Brits want. But no more senseless games after that.

BRUSSELS — No one is happy with the current European treaty. Not only "the" Brits or "the" Euroskeptics, but also pro-Europeans are fed up with the institutional deadlock. Over the years, different treaty changes always have been an exercise in variable geometry which elicited the following metaphor from The Economist ten years ago: “The European Union is a lake that has many deep parts (areas in which countries are similar) and many shallow parts (areas in which countries have major differences)." Today we can all agree that the lake has turned into a toxic mud pool.

The European Union is no longer a hybrid construction of a federation and a confederation. It is a hotchpotch of opt-ins, opt-outs and rebates, and a laundry list of other exceptions. Furthermore, the Union is stuck with fundamental contradictions, such as the monetary union without a treasury and decent economic governance; or an internal market with 28 member states, only 18 of whom are part of the Schengen area. The Amsterdam Treaty of 1999 allowed a group of states to pursue more integration on their own, but only “as a last resort." The convention of Lisbon of 2007 kept and elaborated these Amsterdam clauses, which led to the European chaos we are in today.

So if the Brits want to renegotiate their role in the Union, it would be a very reasonable request. However, they would have to latch onto two realities, the first one being that they are not the only ones who want a treaty change. This means that a British renegotiation will most certainly lead to a major treaty change. The second reality with which the Brits will have to come to terms is that following this Treaty change, everybody will have to play by the same rules. No more silly, incomprehensible and indefensible opt-outs. (Dear editors of The Daily Mail, please take note.)

In order to reconcile these two things, we have to create a system of two types of European membership: The first type is "full membership" that goes all the way. It makes you part of the ‘ever closer union’ with one currency, one economic policy, one army and one foreign policy. This means the EU will be given the necessary means to turn the euro into a true reserve currency and to give the Union clout on the world stage. Those who say this means the creation of a European super-state talk nonsense. In the US, the large majority of "small government" Republicans are in favour of their American federation with strong military and sound economic policies that apply across the board in all 50 states. As a continental liberal, I aim for an efficient and thrifty European Union that functions on the basis of budgetary discipline.

Those European countries who think the full membership is not their cup of tea, can apply for the second type: "associate membership." This gives access to the internal market with its free movement of goods, services, capital and people. You will only have to apply those rules and regulations that are necessary to create a level playing field in internal trade. Obviously, that also means you would no longer have full representation and the corresponding voting rights at EU level.

That’s it. It is clean. It is neat. Everybody will know where they stand. No more complaints about unfair treatment, rebates or historical opt-outs. This means that the real crux of the matter is not how to clean up the European mud pool, but whether politicians everywhere in Europe can handle this kind of clear choice. A UK referendum on the country’s role in Europe is fine. No democrat could ever oppose that. The real question is: What will the referendum ask? Will it be a "yes/no" on the membership of the UK or will it mandate the newly elected Prime Minister to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the UK’s membership? If the Brits vote to stay in the union but on different terms than today, they should be prepared to accept an ‘associate membership’ in which they will have little or no say in how these rules were decided on. That is the consequence of their choice.

This “black and white” dilemma between full and associated membership is absolutely necessary. Not only I, but most Europeans are fed up with our senseless tradition of backroom deals that nobody understands and that are unexplainable to the general public. The method of variable geometry might be workable when there are a couple of people around the table, but not when there are 28 of you. National cherry-picking is what got us into trouble in the first place: We are now choking on the stones.

Guy Verhofstadt, group leader for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), is the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the constitutional future of Europe. He was prime minister of Belgium from 1999-2008.

Authors: