Borders between countries serve a variety of purposes. Borders acts as physical barriers and, occasionally, as bridges between two countries. Borders also provide a means of transferring resources between two lands, whether economic or natural. There are two types of borders to be considered when looking at the border of any European country. Firstly, the border between two member-states. Secondly, the borders between EU member-states and non-EU states. Within the European Union, borders have been almost entirely abolished with the implementation of the Schengen agreement with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland, who have their own agreement, mainly in the Common Travel Area. In this essay I will examine the changing significance of the borders of continental Europe with the United Kingdom and Ireland and argue that, in some aspects, particularly between this border, borders are losing their significance in a globalising world. However, this is particular to Europe.
On 14th June 1985, the Schengen agreement was signed in Luxembourg. The agreement was signed between Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the then West Germany. The Schengen agreement abolished physical barriers between the countries, along with all passport control for their citizens. A similar agreement between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, called Benelux had already been created in 1944. By 2008, 15 European Union member states had joined the Schengen agreement. The United Kingdom and Ireland opted out of the Schengen agreement for reasons of immigration control. Although the UK and Ireland are part of the European Union, they have different border control policies. The United Kingdom claims that because of its island status, w...
... middle of paper ...
... the Taoiseach, Mr. Brian Cowen, T.D., at the Official Opening of the Irish Hotels Federation Annual Conference at the Radisson Blu Hotel, Galway on Monday, 1st March, 2010." Department of Taoiseach - Google. Web. 14 Mar. 2010. .
EUR-Lex, “Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”, Protocol no.19, article 4. 6th March 2010.
"Schengen Information System II." EUROPA ? The Official Website of the European Union. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. .
Most of the time, countries only let another government set rules for them when they trust the other government. If 28 countries trust another government, the government must be very trustworthy. Also, the parliament is located in Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. There are other countries that do not have part of the government in their country, which means that the countries are uniting together. The European Union also has a common currency, called the Euro.
It is still being talked about today. People like Tabarrok feel like there should be no borders restraining people from where they are able to go since in his eyes having the freedom to walk where ever you want is a basic human necessity. While on the other hand in recent news, there are people like Donald Trump who believe we should have borders that are more secure and keep more people out. But instead of having well guarded, tall, or no borders at all there should be borders like the ones that are in Europe. Europe is the perfect example of what borders in the world should look like. They have a system that allows people to travel across different countries without having to go through such a hassle. Implementing this method it allows there to still be a sense of security to protect nations without fearing harm. While having completely open borders allows for the margin of threat to
Some reason some countries might want to join the EU are for trade acts, since that can easily increase the economy of the country and other things such as peace treaties so the country doesn't have to live in fear of being taken over easily by its enemies.
Gildea, Robert Barricades and Borders: Europe 1800-1914, Oxford University Press, New York 2nd edn, 1996
With the introduction of the Schengen Agreement in 1985, travel and restrictions within Europe drastically changed. For the first time in the world, a large group of countries banded together and abolished any restriction on travel, creating a massive zone of free travel. Anyone who was a citizen of a country within the European union now had access to every other country also within the area, creating essentially a borderless landmass. This agreement had some major positive factors, but also some blaring negative effects. The most blaring negative side effect of the free tra...
In his address to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow Wilson declared freedom of the seas in times of peace and war. Looking back, it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could challenge the right of individuals to navigate the oceans freely. However, fast-forward to the twenty-first century and we can see an analogous debate over the issue of immigration rights, with territorial borders being the main topic of discussion. The system of immigration in the United States is complex and oftentimes restrictive, and while revisions to the system usually include increasing quotas or other solutions to let in certain groups of people who deserve special consideration (such as those whose skills are needed in a particular field), they are still very limited solutions. The obvious question that arises from letting in some people but not others is that of fairness. Is the accident of birth or luck of being in the right place at the right time enough to justify restrictive citizenship to a select few? I would argue not. I intend to argue that a commitment to human rights entails the position that borders ought to be open in order to guarantee other human rights, especially the right to migrate.
The European Union is an example of successful political globalization as there is stability in the region. The European Union has united several countries, specifically “twenty seven European countries” (Davies 1) and there has been benefits to this system. There has been a “reduction in crime, a rise in population, life expectancy and income as well as an improving government.” (Rich 3). Through this political system there has been improvement in not only in the government but in the people’s wellbeing.
...: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (4), pp. 603-24.
Thomassen, J. 2009. The Legitimacy of the European Union after Enlargement. In: Thomassen, J. Eds. The Legitimacy of the European Union after Enlargement. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 67-86.
The EU is a union of sovereign European states who share sovereignty based on treaty. The union also possesses competences in policy sectors with exclusive jurisdiction in the area of Economic and Monetary Union while others are shared with Member States (MS), the other powers belong to MS as derived from the conferral of powers art 5(2) TEU, 2(1) TFEU art.3 & 4 TFEU additionally other powers have been offered by the decisions of the European Court for direct effect on citizens
Europe will not run the 21st century because of a combination of economic, institutional, and cultural factors. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will focus on the economic aspects of European society that will impede EU ascendency. I do not believe that the EU will cease to exist in the coming century, but I do believe it will become obsolete because it will be unable to make the necessary changes to their demographic problems, defense policies, and economic culture in response to the increasing American ascendency. Europe has long been known as the continent home to the great powers of the world. From Caesar to Napoleon to the British Empire, the European empires have continuously been at the helm of the ship of progress. The wars of the 20th century however, left Europe in a wake of destruction and chaos period before. The continent was devastated and had little hope to recover. In this new era of European descent, the great American Era came into existence. The US, one of the remaining superpowers, became the helping hand that Europe needed. With the aid allocated by the Marshall Plan and the creation of programs and institutions, Europe had a future. The creation of the European Union (EU) united the European countries over the common goal of preventing war another war. The United States intended for these programs to be a stepping-stone to build the economic and institutional powers of Europe, because a stronger Europe was good for the US. However, instead of using these as a springboard to create self-reliant union, the EU remains reliant on US military and hard power to support them their social efforts.
Disappearing borders, in the economic meaning of the term can most clearly be seen today in Europe. The European Union restricts taxes on trade between members. Taking a step further the EU have decided on a common currency, the "Euro" , which became available at the beginning of 1999. This currency may economically be more functional but what aboutnational pride? All trade units display a country's well known heros or great personalities of them that the citizens respect for. How are the citizens going to respond to this kind of change time will show but nobody can say European countries are not nationalistic. There is a strong evidence on the contrary. One example is world war II, which started in the middle of Europe- -considered then the most civilized part of the world- because of Germany's belief in its national superiority. This unfortunate development took place just half a century ago.These European nation-states may seem to be getting along well for the time being because of fairly smilar economic levels but what will happen if one country's economic level drops or gets much better than the rest? Would the better ones pull up the worst to keep up with them or would those countries-having the best economy- want to carry the rest on their shoulders?
The enlargement of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and 2007 has been termed as the largest single expansion of the EU with a total of 12 new member states – bringing the number of members to 27 – and more than 77 million citizens joining the Commission (Murphy 2006, Neueder 2003, Ross 2011). A majority of the new member states in this enlargement are from the eastern part of the continent and were countries that had just emerged from communist economies (EC 2009, Ross 2011), although overall, the enlargement also saw new member states from very different economic, social and political compared to that of the old member states (EC 2009, Ross 2011). This enlargement was also a historical significance in European history, for it saw the reunification of Europe since the Cold War in a world of increasing globalization (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). For that, overall, this enlargement is considered by many to have been a great success for the EU and its citizens but it is not without its problems and challenges (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). This essay will thus examine the impact of the 2004/2007 enlargements from two perspectives: firstly, the impact of the enlargements on the EU as a whole, and thereafter, how the enlargements have affected the new member states that were acceded during the 2004/2007 periods. Included in the essay will be the extent of their integration into the EU and how being a part of the Commission has contributed to their development as nation states. Following that, this essay will then evaluate the overall success of the enlargement process and whether the EU or the new member states have both benefited from the accessions or whether the enlargement has only proven advantageous to one th...
Scholars of the European Union (EU) have a strong interest in the concept of European Union identity (Cram, 2009). The ‘European union’ identity can be identified nowadays, although there are still conflicts between national identities and a shared European identity which can be illustrated by the data from Eurobarameter and other sources. Most people perceive themselves as Europeans, as Anderson (1991) state, there is no contradictory between Europe and nation-state, ‘country first, but Europe, too’ is the main feeling of the public. However, some people don’t consider themselves as European which result from a strong attachment to the national culture. Even though, the tendency of the convergence of diverse national identity cannot be resisted (Cram, 2009). Migration of population within Europe and the implementation of Europe policy accelerate the progress of formation of the shared identity. This article is going to focus on two reasons why people are willing to define themselves as European by showing how their national identities interact with the European identity, mainly in two countries UK and Poland .The first reason is the issue of Euro, which can be regarded as a tangible symbol of a shared identity and can be perceived easily. The second reason is the collective memory shared among countries and entire Europe.
Between January and November of this year, more than 750,000 migrants have been estimated crossing into the EU’s borders, compared to only 280,000 in the whole year during 2014 (www.bbc.com). This influx of refugees and asylum seekers from the Middle East has become a heavy burden on European Union policy makers. Many state leaders have opposing viewpoints and varying solutions to the crisis that is plaguing their region, and as a result there has been little to no action taken to solve this ever growing problem. This crisis should serve as a prime example of global cooperation, and it should highlight the ability to come together internationally and deal with important problems that affect all individuals. The solution to the refugee crisis will forever stand as a precedent for how the world deals with humanitarian issues in the future.