! First contemplated in the aftermath of World War II, the European Union’s simple roots can be traced back to six founding members; Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Originally conceptualized as a remedy for bloodshed between neighboring countries, the EU has since expanded in both size and strength. Weaving its way into nearly every facet of European life, the EU has since enveloped over 28 countries, and is responsible for creating the world’s largest free market. However, this union has not come without its own problems. Burgeoning into a source of tension and debate, the EU has been blamed for the falter of numerous of aspects of European life. In this paper, the issues and arguments from both sides of the debate will be presented and analyzed.
! One of the most significant benefits of the European Union is increased economic cooperation between member states. When the European Union was originally fabricated, it sought to create a peaceful Europe through the process of tying countries together financially. In order to achieve this, the EU established that all members must
Nick Coleman
Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:43:38 PM Mountain Standard Time open their borders for easy trade with their neighboring partners; thus enabling a single free market. Nearly 66 years later, this strategy has created a huge boom within the Euro-Zone. According to the official European Union website, “Operating as a single market with 28 countries, the EU is a major world trading power, with an economy now larger than the United States,” (Europa.eu). Amassing a GDP nearly one trillion dollars more than the United States, the European Union has found extreme success with this strategy.
! However, the creation o...
... middle of paper ...
...t of the EU rests upon Germany. The European Union is tied together financially, and as a result
Nick Coleman
Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:43:38 PM Mountain Standard Time feel the economic failures of neighboring countries. This puts the union at constant risk for failure.
! As one can see, the very base of the EU is not only dysfunctional, but completely unnecessary. While factors such as economic growth and cooperation appear highly favorable, they are also the downfall of the European Union. Tied together financially, the EU is a delicate system of regulations, yet is run by mere power-hungry bureaucrats. And, unlike the rest of the modernized world, the EU is slowly abolishing democracy under the name of progression. Losing supporters by the British pound, the dissolving of the EU is not only pivotal to regional European success, but rather eminent nonetheless.
The European Union has a common “government” called the Parliament. In the background essay it stated, “The role of the parliament is to debate and pass laws, make sure all EU institutions work democratically, and debate, and adopt the EU budget”. This means that the parliament has control over the laws, and controls the European Union budget. In Document B it mentions, “Whatever institution governs the trade of a nation or group of nations whether monarchy, dictator or parliament- essentially rules that nation”. This means that the parliament has control over the European Union. Most of the time countries
United we stand, divided we fall.After being bombed in various parts, ruined economically, politically, and culturally, and shocked after World War 2, Europe decided to make a union/ supranational organization named the EEC (later known as EU(European Union)) consisting of 28 nations.If you are a citizen in one of these territories, then you have some exclusive rights: you can work, travel, retire, study, etc. in any of these 28 nations, plus all of these countries have the same currency, the euro, so you do not have to switch currencies every time you travel.However, some countries such as Norway did not join, because of the fear of losing their sovereignty or control of own affairs and not give up their unique cultures of cuisine ,
Britain has always had a difficult relationship with the European Union, initially refusing to become a member before reluctantly joining, there seems to be a level of distrust of the European policies. I will explore this distrust within this essay. This essay will also give an insight into the history of Britain, the EU and identify any changes in British government’s policies since becoming a member.
Over the course of sixty years, the European Union (EU) has evolved to become one of the most economically and politically integrated regions in the world. Compare and contrast the EU with one other major global trading bloc, such as NAFTA or ASEAN, with which you are familiar.
The European Union has been helped economically ever since World War II. Right after World War II’s end, Europe was struggling to hold on. The countries of the modern-day European Union thought it would be a good idea to come together and help each others struggling economy. To this day, this decision has had a very positive outcome on the EU’s economy. As shown in Diagram 1, the European Union combined together has the world’s highest GDP at 18.3 Trillion USD as compared to the United States’ 17.4 Trillion USD GDP and China’s 10.4 Trillion USD GDP. The idea
The European Union (EU), since the initial foundation in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and throughout periods of development, has been considered one of the most advanced forms of regional integration. It, based on numerous treaties and resolutions, has strived to promote values such as peace, cooperation or democracy, and in 2012 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” (Nobel Media AB, 2012). Despite its struggle for promoting democracy, the EU itself has long experienced scholarly criticisms that it suffers the democratic deficit, from which its democratic legitimacy is undermined by observable problems in political accountability and participation. As the importance of legitimacy in a democratically representative institution is hardly debatable, the criticism of whether and why the EU lacks democracy has been given a considerable gravity in academia.
The European Union (EU) is fundamentally democratic and is evident through its institutions, however, the current democratic electoral structure is of great concern. The EU is a new type of political system, often referred to as a sui generis, implying its uniqueness as there exists and a non comparable political body. The EU can neither regarded as a ‘state’ nor as an ‘international institution’ as it combines supranational as well as intergovernmental characteristics (Hix, 1999, p7). In this regard it has developed its own understandings of what democracy is. It is evident that the development of and spread of democracy is a central concept and foundation to all politics within the EU, and remains focuses on makings its governing institutions “more transparent and democracy”. The recent Eurozone crisis, it’s associated anti-crisis measures and the recent enlargement of EU have however re-invigorated debate about the EUs democratic legitimacy. At the heart of the debate are discussions not about whether the EU is an all-encompassing democratic institution but rather what are ‘democratic deficits’ or the democratic shortcomings that exist within this powerful economic and political union. Underpinning these divisions as Schmitter argues, are different understandings of what democracy is in the modern context and more specifically in the unique context of the EU. This essay will argue that the EU presents a unique type of political system that is fundamentally democratic, however, there are democratic shortcomings within its procedural and institutional structure.
The European Union stands on the threshold of unparalleled change over the coming years. The next waves of enlargement will be unprecedented in nature and continental in scale. This process has gained so much political momentum that it is now irreversible.
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.
After WWII, many politically influential people saw a need to create some form of interdependence between the nation states of Europe as a means to preventing further war (Watts, 2008: p6). In 1951 Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg all signed the Treaty of Paris creating the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC); the beginnings of an integrated Europe which has seen many changes since its creation (Thody, 1997: p1). Today it has become the highly integrated European Union with 28 member states, 18 of which share a single currency (Archick, 2014: p1). The process of EU integration is a complex one, as can be seen in its history and will surely be seen in its future. There is no simple explanation that can successfully explain the growth of the EU from a economic community of six nation states to the political and economic union it has become today. However there are two competing theories for explaining EU integration that give opposing views on the matter, neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism. In this essay I will examine both theories and attempt to reach a conclusion if either successfully explains EU integration.
Senior, Nello Susan. "Chapters:4,15." The European Union: Economics, Policies and History. London: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
“From time to time it is worth reminding ourselves why twenty-seven European nation states have come together voluntarily to form the partnership that is the European Union.” 1
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...
There are several key components of the European history that have led to the creation of the individual nations within the EU and the larger supranational Institution we call the European Union. As Curtis and Linser (2004) “The European Union is the most important development in European history since World War Two” (Curtis & Linser, 2004, p.4). And I tend to agree that this story line is the most important since it was the starting’s to one of the largest supranational organizations that shaped modern Europe and continues to shape it today. To start the European Union could not have been created without the nations that are part of this supranational organization. Many of the nations that make up the EU have been either long-term super powers, France, United Kingdom or Germany, but also areas plagued with conflict. The conflict is however the more important of the two. The conflict between Germany and the rest of Europe in WW2 was the sparks that created...
Because it could be quite complicated to look at the EU model from a point of classical democratic nation-state, it seems to be reasonable to discuss this problem, not by abstract reasoning, but by focusing on a concrete case. European Union is the best case available, which in recent decades has developed into a new type of political system with enormous consequences on democracy and governance in its member states. Despite repeated attempts for major institutional reforms, this system is likely to persist in its basic structures for the future and is unlikely to develop into a federal state or to disintegrate into a classic international organization. The present state of democracy and governance in the EU is therefore worth to be analyzed, as it is not a mere transitory state.