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.
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.
On the other hand, UK is playing a major role in the single market. Thus, by leaving this market, UK
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.
When the UK finally joined the EEC (now known as the European Union) in 1973, a majority of the nation were in full support as the referendum suggested, however over time, there has been debate as to whether being part of the European Union is indeed best for the UK. Whilst it seemed like a good idea at the time, nowadays the reasons for joining no longer seem as valid as they once were. The UK, some argue would be better off no longer being a member of the European Union.
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.
Without a UK vote, the centre of gravity in the remainder EU is likely to be more protectionist, which could affect UK 's trade terms.
As at January 1, 2007, the European Union comprised of 29 member States (United kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain, Poland, Slovenia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Slovakia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Austria, Sweden, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey.)
Before discussing the notion that the European Union (EU) possesses a federal character, one has to define federalism (federal system).
United Kingdom has been part of the European Union since 1993. EU is both a political and economic agreement between 28 European countries. The idea came after WWII, that when countries are trading with each other, then it is highly likely that war will be avoided. Since then, it has evolved to a single market with free trade and it is as if acting as one country.
Enlargement is the process through which new members join the European Union. Since 1957, when the first 'integrated Europe' was born, the EU went from 6 member states to 28. The six founding countries are: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands; thereafter, a lot of other Western countries joined from 1973 on, and, with the collapse of their regimes in 1989, several ex-communist Central and Eastern Europe countries became members between 2004 and 2007. Finally, in 2013 Croatia became the 28th EU member.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are very detailed and intricate documents. They remain effective documents for guiding our country even today. Many people believe that there should be regular reviews of the documents with regular updates. Technology, accepted lifestyles and world events have changed significantly and continue to change at a rapid pace. The constitution should be written to include all states, replacing individual state constitutions. Although the Constitution and Declaration of Independence remain applicable today, they require regular review and update.
The Lisbon treaty followed the disastrous Constitutional Treaty of 2004 that was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands. After a period of reflection, negotiations began for another treaty (Laursen, 2013:9). These negotiations continued for months, after which it was left to the Portuguese presidency to complete the Treaty, and thus the Treaty became known as the Lisbon Treaty. It was signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007, but only entered into force on 1 December 2009 following ratification problems, particularly in Ireland (Cini and Borragen, 2013:51). Attitudes towards the Lisbon Treaty differ widely (Laursen, 2013: 9). For some, the Treaty simply sets out incremental reforms designed to make the EU more accountable and efficient (Berman, 2012:3). This is demonstrated largely through institutional changes, particularly to the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Council, but also through the Citizens’ Initiative. However, others have attacked it as merely reinforcing the control of the elites over member states and conversely restricting transparency and encouraging secrecy. Furthermore, some believe that such changes have hardly wholly transformed the EU and that the new Union has remained remarkably similar to its predecessor (Cini and Borragan, 2013:51). They argue that the EU is “too distant” from citizens to ever be considered efficient. Once both sides of the argument have been considered, it can be seen that the Lisbon treaty has improved efficiency to a reasonable standard, however the level of transparency in the EU appears to have reduced.
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...
The link between internationalization, governance and democracy is a central problem for politics as well as for political science. Even if clear evidence on the nature of this link is not yet available, the literature seems to support the view that internationalization both undermines the capacity for governance and puts into question traditional forms of democracy.
would decline all its influence in EU rules, and it will stop following them, also the financial services passport will remain, but over time it values remain. Also Britain will contributes to EU budget, but will pay less, than countries in EU. But this scenario have few problems, first in that case Britain will have to get concessions not only in pro- migration Ester Europe, but also from France and Netherlands, , which do not want to set a precedent for anti-EU populists. Also, second problem, that it could be not enought for Britain. Because EU thinks, that they can find compromise, just then when it is on carefully limited migration curbs. And also, EU wants that Britain will be a rule-taker on the single market, and listen and follow EU on everything from financial services to digital policy. Also this scenario could be that , relations between Britain and the EU would be strained, but solid enought to agrre on tariff transition, and also agree trade terms. Also it is clear that Eu and Brtiain will not agrred on sovereignty or immigration, because the price is to high, and they will not find solution which will be good for both sides. But it is big chance that agreement on trading, will be successful, because if not both side will have