A British kid taught history by an Alsatian in Luxembourg, it doesn’t get much more European than that. Monsieur Perrin taught us to question the past, present and future. He was also the first person I heard mention and praise a multi-speed Europe.

I followed his advice and questioned his opinion. I argued that to drag the reluctant union to superpower status, policies should be implemented across the European board. The Economist’s “Coalitions for the willing” outlines a third concept. After some thought, I concede defeat to The Economist and my history teacher.

In Luxembourg I voted yes to the European constitution. I thought that democratising the decisions of 25 indecisive nations was for the greater good. The Economist would rather establish cooperation between fewer states for the intersection of more interests.

The theory floated in the article has shared practices like the Schengen Agreement or the Euro as the basis for a union of consent. These milestones have improved my life and career as well as those of many fellow Europeans.

I heralded the constitution’s voting system as a way to streamline EU legislature. My mistake was in wanting to see a new Europe created using the old machinery. What better sign of EU inefficiency than 25 nations bartering for each other’s votes?

The union I want to live in is one beyond the French ‘Non’ to Turkish accession or German distrust of foreign service-providers. In The Economist’s model, policies are tested by pioneering member states, but the cautious are not prevented from joining successful experiments.

Monsieur Perrin would question any model, but he’d be happy to see Europe’s wheels in motion again.