The Arguments For and Against the Proposals to Reform the European Constitution
The constitution is a single document replacing current European laws
that come from several international treaties. It recognises and
codifies EU decision making which has become more complicated since
the EU expanded from 15 to 25 states in May 2004. On 18 June, the EU
Member States agreed on a Constitutional Treaty (Constitution) for the
EU. The Member States of the European Union worked on this new
Constitution during the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which
started in October 2003. The basis for these negotiations was the
draft Constitutional Treaty drawn up by the European Convention on the
Future of Europe. Member States are expected to sign the Constitution
on October 29, 2004. Subsequently, the Constitution has to be ratified
by all Member States according to their constitutional provisions.
Only thereafter, the Constitution will come into force. So far, ten
Member States have announced to hold referenda: Ireland, Denmark,
Great Britain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, the
Czech Republic and Portugal. If, within two years of signing, not all
member states have ratified the Constitution, the European Council
will consider possible solutions.
The Constitution is the first common project of the enlarged Union and
brings about a substantial improvement in comparison to the provisions
of the Nice Treaty.
The constitution will establish the EU as a separate body in law so
the EU can sign international agreements as a single bloc rather than
as 25 different countries. It will create the permanent post of
European Council ...
... middle of paper ...
...he
EU while others say it will fundamentally change the UK's independence
and position in Europe. If the UK rejects the constitution it is
thought that the UK will be pushed to the margins of the EU or even
forced to leave it entirely, affecting British people economically and
politically. On the other hand it is thought that the UK's
independence will be secured and the government's accountability to
its citizens secured. The impact will be less dramatic if referendums
in other countries also reject it.
If the poll accepts the Constitution people think that the EU
bureaucracy will be expanded, economic and political integration
speeded up creating a country called "Europe". Those in favour of the
constitution say that it will make the EU more accountable and better
run bringing EU issues and laws closer to home.
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
Gordon Wood calls the new Federal Constitution a "radical experiment", and believes the framers of that Constitution to be political radicals, why does he believe so?
In conclusion, the European Union has “merged” the countries of Europe. It has developed a common currency called the Euro’s, and a Parliament located in Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. Also, ALL of the countries of the Union are affected when one country is affected. This is important because the continent of Europe had become very weak after the wars and they needed to strengthen, and the European Union keeps the countries of Europe strong and economically fit.
middle of paper ... ... 012). In conclusion, the benefits of the UK’s membership in the EU outweigh the costs. The most significant benefit is the access they have to the single market as this has managed to benefit quite Access to single market is aiding this inward investment
The case of Francovich had a significant impact on the European Union (EU) law. If a conflict arises between the EU law and the national law, the EU law highly prevails. The European Union law is a framework of treaties and legislation, which have a direct or indirect effect on the laws of the member states which are bound to the European Union. Primary and Secondary laws are the two sources of the EU law. This essay will firstly analyse the main institutions of the European Union and define various legal terms. It will then move on, to discuss the case of Francovich and the importance it had for state liability. Furthermore, it will refer to subsequent cases which are linked with state liability and had an impact on the EU Law. Lastly, my own views about State Liability will be presented.
The legislative, executive, and judicial branches represent the constitutional infrastructure foreseen by the Founding Fathers for our nation 's governing body. Together, they work to maintain a system of lawmaking and administration based on checks and balances, and separation of powers intended to make certain that no individual or embodiment of government ever becomes too controlling. America is governed by a democratic government or a democracy which is a government by the people, in which the power is established in the people themselves. The people then elect representatives who carry out their power in a free electoral system. The United States government’s basic claim is to serve the people and only through a combined effort can we
A Democratic Deficit in the EU The question over the legitimacy of the EU has been a nearly continuous debate and many commentators appear to agree that the EU suffers from a severe ‘democratic deficit’. There are many reasons why this perception is so widespread. As a multinational body it lacks the grounding in common history and culture upon which most individual polities can draw.
On the other hand, UK is playing a major role in the single market. Thus, by leaving this market, UK
During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France participated in four wars, while Peter of Russia ruthlessly executed anyone who stood against his will. Secondly, monarchs attempted to change religious beliefs. This was notable in England where rulers such as James II desired to convert the Anglican nation into Catholicism. Finally, the burden of taxation was more than the population could support. France was brought into huge foreign debt, English kings constantly attempted to raise money, and Peter of Russia increased taxes by 550 percent. These are some of the key reasons why absolutism failed in Europe.
Problems with the Maastricht Treaty and its Goal to Unify Europe My position is in opposition to the unification of Europe as proposed under the Maastricht Treaty, as beneficial to Europe. We will prove beyond a reasonable doubt about the uselessness of the treaty. The main principle of the Maastricht Treaty is European Unity. Unity is a nice warm hearted word.
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.
Before discussing the notion that the European Union (EU) possesses a federal character, one has to define federalism (federal system).
The first period of enlargement occurred following the adoption of several agreements and norms amongst the nations of Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom in January of 1973 followed by Greece in January of 1981. The Inner Six nations had proliferated their agreements amongst each other to 4 other nations, bringing the total number ...
The Articles of Confederation was the first government of the United States. The Articles had created a very weak national government. At the time the Articles were approved, they had served the will of the people. Americans had just fought a war to get freedom from a great national authority--King George III (Patterson 34). But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change.
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...