The United Kiingdom is one of several European states which make up the European Union. The UK joined the European Union in 1973 for the purpose of strenghtening its economic and political relations with other European states. The UK sought to boost its trade links with other nations in continental Europe, through the liberalized common market. The UK was motivated to join the EU to export more manufactured goods to other European countries with fewer restrictions.
All EU member states are required to remove barriers on movement of goods, people and labor between their borders. UKs association with the EU has helped the country benefit from strong economic ties with other nations in Europe. The countrys Industrial and financial sectors, have greatly benefited from strong relations the country has with other EU member states (Bannin 67).
The UK governments engagement with other EU member states has been mainly influenced by the benefits it gets from the common market. Political leaders in the country have been skeptical of treaties between member states, which allow for free migration of labor and adoption of the Euro as a single currency for all member states.
The UK government refused to accept the Schengen agreement, which allows people to move freely across borders of EU member states with fewer restrictions. The UK government has also failed to agree with other states on various issues which are important to the future of the EU.
The EU is currently facing a lot of economic challenges which have discouraged Britain from contributing funds to assist troubled member states. Several EU member states are experiencing severe economic problems caused by poor fiscal and financial policies (Gowland 87). EU member states have been forced to intorduce policies to help faltering member states revive their economies.
The association between UK and the EU has several implications for both parties. The financial services sector in the country has linkages with other financial systems in Europe. There is an increase in the volume of financial transactions done between UK firms and those in other EU member states due to liberalized trade policies.
The concept of free trade and open borders allows more British businessmen to take advantage of economic opportunities in other EU member countries (Burrell 59). This economic integration has made banking operations in the UK more intertwined with those in Germany, France, Italy and other European states.
Therefore, stock brokerage firms and banks in the UK are more susceptible to financial risks from other countries in Europe. For instance, the recent debt crisis which affected Greece, Portugal and Spain has had a negative impact on UKs economy (Geddes 75). Some consumers in these countries have low incomes and this has caused a reduction in the volume of exports from UK to these countries.
UK laws have been amended to comply with EU statutes which all member countries need to abide by. Some EU laws have been adopted as part of common laws observed in the country and they are enforced by all legal institutions. Some of the EU laws adopted in the country relate to human rights, free movement of labor and immigration.
UK citizens are free to seek employment opportunities in other EU member states with fewer restrictions. Likewise, citizens of other EU member states are free to seek employment opportunities in the UK without any restrictions. Therefore, UK citizens have become more exposed to diverse cultures from other European states (Gowland , Turner and Wright 69). The EU has encouraged people from different countries in Europe to build positive relationships.
The British political system is a constitutional monarchy which has been in existence for many centuries. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state and the government is headed by the Prime Minister. The UK government is democratically elected by citizens who choose various political representatives to represent them in government. The country is a multi party state. The Conservative Party and the Labor Party are the two strongest political parties in the country.
The two parties have produced the largest number of Prime Ministers and members of parliament in the last century. However, on several occasions, they have formed coalitions with smaller political parties to increase their parliamentary majority after general elections. The leader of the party which wins a majority number of parliamentay seats after elections have been conducted automatically assumes the position of Prime Minister (Mc Annula 56).
There are several devolved government authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland which deal with issues affecting their citizens. These three territories have their own legislative assemblies which are semi-autonomous. The legislative assemblies in these territories operate under parliamentary acts passed in the House of Commons. The House of Commons, is the overall UK parliament where 620 representatives from their respective constituencies sit and legislate various laws which are enforced throughout the country.
The House of Lords reviews acts passed by The House of Commons and wields the power to veto some decisions made by members of parliament , if its members feel they are not good for the country. The judiciary in the UK follows different sets of laws which are practiced and observed in different territories (Coe and Jones 89). English common law is mainly observed and practiced in England and Wales while Scottish law is a set of unique laws practiced in Scotland.
UKs economy is mainly influenced by free market principles. Major sectors of the economy include agriculture, industrial and service sectors. The agricultural sector contributes less than 2 percent of the countrys GDP. However, it services more than 60 percent of local food demand in the country. Manufacturing industries contribute an estimated 22 percent of the countrys GDP. Automotive and aerospace components produced in the UK bring the country a lot of revenue every year.
The service sector is the largest economic sector and accounts for more than 75 percent of UKs GDP. The countrys financial system is one of the largest in the world; dominated by the London Stock Exchange, Bank of England and the London Metal Exchange. The country also benefits from high tourism revenues because it receives more than 20 million visitors every year (Giudice, Kuenzel and Springbett 112). These high tourist numbers are beneficial to the countrys economy.
There are a lot of natural resources in the UK which are yet to be exploited fully. In the past, coal and iron ore were the most important minerals in the country because they were heavily utilized during the early years of the industrial revolution. Iron ore helps in the production of steel which is a crucial component in the manufacture of aerospace and vehicle parts (Giudice, Kuenzel and Springbett 116) . The UK s economy faces various challenges because unemployment rates currently stand at an estimated 7 percent.
Works Cited
Burrell, Kathy. Polish Migration to the UK in the New European Union: After 2004. Cornwall: TJ International, 2009. Print.
Coe, Neil, and Andrew Jones. The Economic Geography of the UK. Thousand Oaks : Sage, 2010.
Geddes, Andrew. Britain and the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Giudice, Gabriele, Robert Kuenzel, and Tom Springbett. UK Economy: The Crisis in Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.
Gowland , David , Arthur Turner, and Alex Wright. Britain and European Integration since 1945: On the Sidelines. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print.
Mannin, Michael L. British Government and Politics: Balancing Europeanization and Independence. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010. Print.
McAnnula, Stuart. British Politics: A Critical Introduction. London: Continuum International Publishing, 2006. Print.
This paper will contain information that pertains to Turkeys accession to the European Union. It will contain research questions, an explanation as to how the research questions will be of help to the topic in question; through answering the research questions the topic of the paper will be fully and critically answered.
The literature review that will contain written literature that will discuss the history of Turkey and the European Union and how Turkey came to be interested in the European Union as well as literature pertaining to the discussions held by members of the European Union towards the request of Turkey being a part of the European Union.
This paper will contain a hypothesis that would be proven and supported or discredited through conducted research relevant to the content of the topic question. Methodology to be used in the research will also be included in the paper and finally a conclusion and bibliography will be included in the paper as well.
Research question
What is the European Union?
When and why did Turkey join the European Union?
The above research questions when addressed will be able to give us a brief history of the European Union and how it came to be. These questions will also give a brief explanation of why the European Union was founded and its activities. These questions will also give us an overview of the activities of the European Union and how and when Turkey came to be a member of the European Union.
These research questions are important they it will critically and analytically trace Turkeys interest in the European Union up to the point it joined the union and the activities that turkey has helped with and carried under the European Union. Through addressing the research question we will understand and find out the reasons as to why Turkey joined the European Union and how the other members of the union reacted to this addition.
The research questions will also be able to give the advantages and disadvantages of Turkey joining the European Union both on the Turkish side and the European Union. Through critically analyzing these advantages and disadvantages one will be able to draw conclusions and decide for one self if Turkeys choice of joining the European Union was a right move or a wrong move.
Literature Review
Macapahil (2008 45) states that the ruling party in Turkey, AK, is still very much at the fore front to the full accession to the European Union, however the citizens of Turkey appear to be more reluctant to join the European Union. This tells us the citizens of turkey have come to the realization that the current headship of the European Union is against Turkey joining the Union.
This coupled with the Citizens of Turkey also not wanting to join the Union, shows there is a grim hope of Turkey ever joining the Union. Resentment for Turkey to join the European Union does not come from Turkish citizens but other European countries a well namely; France, Spain, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands. (Bilge, 2000 45).
The main reason for this resentment comes down to the fact that Turkey is not in Europe and the members feel that its geographical position should be a reason as to why Turkey should not join the European Union as it was formed for the European Countries and not countries located outside Europe. The Turks feel and understand this discrimination hence why they do not want to join the European Union as they know they will be prejudiced against due to the fact that their country is not geographically located in Europe.
According to Schimmelfennig (2009 25), the resolution by the European Union to open up talks that would lead to the appointment of Turkey to the European Union was one of the topics that brought about great controversy. This was because rejection was extremely high among the influential people as well as the public as well. The question as to why Turkey was not invited to join the Union during the Brussels EU Council held in December 2004 by any of the Members Veto power was raised.
This is to show that the member states did not want Turkey to join the European Union; from this piece of literature we can easily conclude that the member states of the EU did not want new members and in addition they did not consider Turkey to be in Europe or want it as a member of the Union. The issue comes in the sense that not all veto wielding countries are in agreement of allowing Turkey to join the European Union.
Steinmo 2008 argues that the choices presented to the member states in the year 2004 had been inhibited by the resolutions made in the previous years. These decisions can be retraced to the verdict at the Helsinki summit to propose candidature to Turkey.
During the Helsinki summit the member states only agreed and consented to identify and be acquainted with Turkey as a candidate for membership. This in simple terms states that Turkey would have to go thorough a rigorous series of political and economic improvement that are up to the standards of the European Union member States so as to be accepted as a member of the union.
If Turkey was to fail or not comply with these political and economic standards then it means their proposed candidature to the European Union would be revoked taking away all the hopes of Turkey ever becoming a member of the European Union. The changes needed in the political and economic sectors would adequately affect the citizens of Turkey and it would force them to assimilate the political and economic ways of the European Union member states so as to be at par with them.
In reference to George and Bennett (2005 20-55). Turkey was offered candidacy to the European Union as a wide effect of variations brought forth by the end of the cold war. Some of these changes encompassed and inclined the guidelines of decisions to be made in this case the proposal of Turkey to be offered candidature seemed to be a brilliant idea and was thought to be essential.
With such an offer on the table the Turks were very much persuaded to undertake a serious domestic reform for the constitution and the relationship between Ankara and the EU was strengthened. The problem then came with the issue of the geographical area of Turkey with some of the members denying Turkey membership because it was not in Europe geographically.
During the cold war the eastern and western countries were at war of ideologies with each other. Each of the sides wanted to have the more allies than the other and therefore these countries offered economic assistance to the developing countries so as they could join one of the sides; capitalism or communism.
It is during this ideological war that the European Union saw a golden chance of offering candidacy to Turkey so as Turkey could join and become part and parcel of the capitalist countries. The candidacy was offered to Turkey so as the capitalism countries could continue to spread their ideas to this country. The European Union put in a lot of money in form of financial and economic assistance so as to ensure that Turkey was on the capitalist side.
According to Ankara-Hurriyet Daily News 2010 the British Prime ministers fully supports Turkeys bid to join the European Union and that he would fight for Turkey to be accepted into the union. The prime minister stated that the other members should look at the things Turkey has done including the Turkish soldiers in Afghanistan alongside the European troops keeping the peace, protecting Europe as it is a NATO ally.
All these aspects should be looked upon and considered alongside Turkeys bid to the European Union. This simply shows that the British are fully supporting the bid by Turkey while at the same time some European countries that are member states of the union are not supporting this cause. This shows the reason as to why Britain feels the need to try and convince the other members to accept the bid by Turkey as it has to be a unilateral decision by all member states on order to accept a new member.
Prime Minister Cameron went ahead to state that there were three different groups of people who were championing the rejection of the bid by Turkey to join the European Union. The fist were the protectionist that viewed Turkey as an economic threat, the second were the polarized they based their rejection on the history of the country and a conflict of cultures and last but not least the prejudiced who based their rejection on religion.
The fact that majority of Turks are Muslims seems to be a hurdle to some of the member states of the European Union even though that Turkey is a secular and democratic state. Through these statements we are able to conclude that the European Union is a secular organization that is not run according to any particular religion, this drives home the fact that some member states of the European Union are clutching at any straws so as to deny Turkey membership in the European View.
According to Bilge (2000, 63), the European Union did not act accordingly in the Greek-Turkish conflict when this took place. These two countries were historical rivals and its resolution involved leaders of both countries holding talks and coming up with general collective characteristics that both countries shared, and also entertain ideas of a union between Greece and turkey to be called Greek-Turkish union. The idea of the Greek-Turkish union however happened way before the formation of the European Economic Community which was converted to European Community which eventually became the European Union.
Greece and Turkey both applied to join the EEC in 1959 when the relations between the two countries were already unpleasant because of Cyprus. Due to this dispute over Cyprus, the rejection by other members of the union came into play. The nature of conflict was to escalate after a while whereby, the member states would be forced to ally themselves with either of the countries and this is why the member states rejected both countries as they did not want to be forced to choose sides.
The European Union watched as these two countries fought over Cyprus and border disputes. The European was expected to set in and offer a solution to this conflict but they choose to stay at the sidelines. Despite the fact that both countries were candidates to the European Union and they both maintained close ties with the Union while the relationship between the two countries remained hostile to each other. (Hurriyet Daily News 2007)
The European Union proved to be unsuccessful as it did not have any optimistic influence on the conflicts between these two states. This was due to the fact during the conflicts the European Union did not act out its part and only started getting actively involved on such matters after 1999 in both countries.
However the Unions involvements in dispute settling have been quite limited and development on Turkeys membership has been connected to the resolving of the border dispute with Greece. This resolution put in place a structure and an agenda that would be used by both parties when disputes arose in the future.
Hypothesis
H1-Turkey does not possess the right qualities to be a member state of the European Union.
Methodology
In order to prove the above hypothesis, case studies, written literature and research articles will be used. These methods will provide a good strong base whereby one can draw conclusions pertaining to either way. Sources that are to be used to answer the research question and prove the hypothesis will range form E-books, internet articles, case studies and literature reviews previously conducted on the relevant topics. Through answering the research question one will be able to test the hypothesis and draw conclusions from the research carried out.
Literatures reviews concerning the topics have been critiqued therefore leaving it open for any person to draw their own conclusions on the topic of Turkey joining the European Union.
Then again the literature reviews give insight on the process of the application by Turkey to be part of the union since 1959 when the Union was known as EEC. From 1959, debates by member state have been carried out so as to know if it would be advantageous to add Turkey to the union. This shows us that there are some member states that are relentless when it comes to opposing the membership of Turkey.
In conclusion there are different reasons as to why the European Union would integrate or reject Turkey. This all depends on the member states and how they vote. The debates whether to include Turkey have been active since 1959 and these debates are still on going. The Member states of the union need be on the same page when it comes to Turkeys integration and this has proven difficult in the application of turkey.
Some member states that are rejecting Turkey are basing their arguments on the geographical area of Turkey. The fact that Turkey is not located in Europe yet it wants to join the European Union seems to be a challenge to some of the member states. Another factor that seems to be a basis for rejection of Turkey is the economic activities that the European Union will undertake if Turkey becomes a full member. Some of the members argue that it would be a loss to allow turkey to join them, hence the rejection based on financial abilities.
This paper has come up with research questions that when fully answered will prove or disapprove the hypotheses of this paper. With the help of literature reviews on the relevant topics that are concerned with and linked with the topic in question one would be able to know if Turkey has what it takes to be a full member of the European Union and if the advantages will be experience on the Turkey side or on the European Union side.
References
Bilge, A.S., 2000., Buyuk Dus: Turk-Yunan Siyasi Iliskileri [Megali Idea: Turkish-Greek Political Relations], Ankara: Yuzyil Yayinlari.
George, A. & Bennett, A., 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. London: MIT Press.
Hurriyet Daily News, British PM says he will Passionately fight for Turkeys EU bid. Ankara Hurriyet Daily News. 2010. Web.
Macapahil, B., 2008. Turks to EU: Never Mind. Web.
Schimmelfennig, F., 2009. Entrapped again: The way to EU membership negotiations with Turkey. International Politics 46:4, pp 413-431.
Steinmo S., 2008. Historical Institutionalism in Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences. London: Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
European Union is the largest economic bloc in the globe. It is established based on shared values like liberty, democracy, human rights, and belief in the rule of law. EU is instrumental in the promotion of peace, stability and democracy in the universe. There are four institutions of the EU. The first is the European Commission which is made up of 27 commissioners and each commissioner is assigned a particular policy area. It is this institution that has the power to negotiate any deal on behalf of the Union.
The second institution is the executive organ of the organization; the executive organ is the decision-making body of the EU, and it is composed of ministers with each minister representing a state. It is this arm of the EU that can decide on foreign policy matters. The council presidency of EU is based on a rotational basis; the third institution of EU is the EU parliament which is considered as the voice of the citizens.
It has the responsibility of passing laws and adopting budgets. The EU parliament also approves the commissioners seconded to the EU Commission. Last, there is the EU court of justice which is the highest judicial organ, and it is bestowed with the responsibility of interpreting the laws. The court is an independent decision-maker.
The European Union is an international organization which is an association of democratic countries from the European continent. These countries are committed to the promotion of peace and pursuit of prosperity. The EU is more than an international organization due to its uniqueness.
EU as a Global Player
The EU is a global player. It achieves its ends by use of soft power, which can help promote stability, human rights, and democracy. EU has managed to deliver congregate results in the areas of eradication of poverty and realization of sustainable development. The EU has managed to address global challenges like peace, humanitarian aid, promotion of peace and democracy in the world, and security and counter-terrorism.
The EU is an international actor but this position has been clouded by several questions. The European Union has enjoyed a considerable success in its influence on international politics. The EU, in particular, carries a lot of weight with regard to environmental, monetary, and financial policies. The EU power as an international organization is so considerable even when compared to the US but still the expectations of the EU as a global power and actor in international stage is low.
The success of the EU as an international organization has been evidenced in the economic fields but its success in military and economic spheres is still questioned. From the late 20th century, the role of the EU in global affairs took a different direction since the policymakers shifted its capacity to enhance its participation in international activities and in multilateral negotiations.
EU Foreign Policy
Since its inception, the EU has been active in its member states as well as in addressing other international issues through the Common Foreign and Security policy. This led to its international involvement and increased capabilities.
It is, however, difficult to understand the kind of power that the EU assumes in the international system because it is not state or nonstate actor, neither is it a conventional international organization nor international regime, but it makes a significant contribution on international matters from economic to humanitarian and conflict.
The ever-growing emergence and the ascendance of the EU have been largely linked to its influential principles and aims, which guide its policies and other policies that articulate its international identity. The adoption of the European Security Strategy in 2003 was a key indication of the effectiveness of the EU as an international organization.
This European Security Strategy was instrumental in identifying what the EU member states considered as their main security threat and the ways to overcome such a threat multilaterally in cooperation with other international organizations.
The European Union is a perfect example of a political organization that is successful beyond the nation-state. There are still some assumptions that the European Union as an international organization is still limited but this assumption has been canceled by three main facts. These facts are: it is an acknowledgeable fact that there are international organizations that operate outside the boundaries of UN and European Union is one of them.
It is also necessary to take into account the fact that there are other means of the participation of EU as an international organization in international forums, which minimizes the differences between the members and the non-members states and lastly, despite the EU lacking membership in international organizations, it plays a principal role in various multinational bodies, which are established by conventions.
The various developments that justify that the EU is powerful as an international organization are:
The EU participates in discussions with the U.S.: in the international forum, the EU is a powerful tool, especially in areas of policy, which are exclusive to European Community. The EU facilitates policy coordination and can effectively articulate the interests of the member states.
Consequently, the EU is used by the member states as an instrument to provide both economic and political support to other states or other international organizations. European Union exists in two faces; the first face is the one that exists to serve and fulfill the aspirations of its people and member states, and it consists of the Council of Ministers and European Council of the Heads of States and Government; it seeks to serve the interest of their member states, particularly those that cannot be realized by the states individually.
The second face is the one that looks at the European Union in its entirety: European Union as an actor in international politics is represented by the EU Commission. This face brings out the picture of the EU as a matrix of transnational and international organizations and not just as an international organization.
Multilateralism
The EU has embraced effective multilateralism which has been central to its interactions with other actors in international community. This has added a new perspective into the debate regarding the EUs presence and orientation in the international community. This principle of effective literalism posits a particular modality for going international by the EU and this has shifted the focus on policy objectives of EU in the international arena.
As an international organization, the EU can be a principle-based as well as interest-based. With regard to a principle-based, the EU participation in international community can be genuine and sincere and considered a genuine pursuit and furtherance of the principles of multiculturalism.
The interest approach of EU as an international organization is an indication of its multidimensionality in international interactions. This principle of multiculturalism attributes the role of international organizations to the proper functioning of the entire international system.
Powerful international organizations like the EU can teach states what they need as well they have the ability to influence and to define the national interests of the member states. The EU has been a dominant player in the international arena; it acts as both the contributor to international activities of other regional-based international organizations as well as a benefactor of the contributions made by other international organizations towards the multilateral obligations.
The EUs role as an international organization can take different perspectives. It may take the form of monetary or material contributions or personnel. The success of the EU as an international union can be analyzed based on its cumulative contribution to other international organizations like the United Nations and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) among others.
Just like other organizations after the World War II, the EU included matters of good governance, human rights and democracy to govern its cooperation with external players. This is well captured in the European Neighborhood Policy. The EU, for example, has devised various strategies that will help to ameliorate the economic and political systems of fragile or poor countries and the entire third world.
Weakening Power of USA
The weakened role of the U.S. in the perspective of military, civilian, and normative capabilities has led to a paradigm shift in how the politics of international community is transacted. The world is turning to Europe to seek the direction of the affairs of the international community.
There is no single power, be it China, Russia or India that can match the power and the influence of the European Union. It is argued that the European Union is a latent superpower. The EU has its presence in diplomacy, peacekeeping missions, international law, commerce and environmental matters. Based on statistics on commerce and trade, the EU has demonstrated itself as a global economic powerhouse with regards to multinational cooperation, finance, trade and investments.
Economic and trade wise, the EU has emerged as a dynamic economy. It is estimated that a combination of EU and US makes up for approximately 40 percent of all global trade while EU accounts for almost two third of the global investment in the world. EU is a member of the UN but its member countries are independent members of the UN.
For the influence of EUs foreign policy to be felt it should be supported by its members. The strong influence of EU in international community is supported by the fact that its member states should support and enforce the influence of the organization.
This has helped to enhance the influence of the power of the organization in international matters. The EU first has to agree at a situation and position before its stand is known. The EU maintains a joint position when it comes to voting taking in security and general assembly of UN. The EU is also considered to be the largest contributor financially to the UN which makes it one of the most successful international organizations.
Conclusion
When viewed from the lens of civilian, military, and normative power, the increasing role of the EU as an international organization will be clearly captured. The EU has been a successful international organization due to its participation in International fora, its power and success are also manifested in its economic mighty and the strength of its foreign policy.
Bibliography
Archer, C. International organizations. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Blavoukos, S., and Bourantonis, D. The EU presence in international organizations. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2010.
Cuperus, R., Duffek K., and Froschl E. The EU A Global Player?. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Hoffmeister, F. Outsider or front Runner? Recent developments under International and European law on the status in international organizations and treaty bodies. Common Market Review 44, no. 1 (2007): 41-48.
Krohn, F. What kind of power? The EU as an International Actor. Atlantic Community. Web.
Staab A. The European Union explained: institutions, actors, and global impact. Indiana University, IN: Indiana University Press. 2008.
European Union (EU) is one of the integration bloc found in France. EU is a profitable and political union with many states in Europe. EU has developed a single market with rules and regulations that govern all the member states.
According to Gibb and Michalak (2000), the EU in France has developed a single market that allows free movement of goods, services, people, and capital, where it maintains common policies on trade. Traders and firms are able to move to other countries for trade. EU is also represented by the United Nations other countries in the EU in Europe include Italy and Belgium.
In France, the regional integration between the country and others has benefited the traders, especially in agriculture sector because there is increase in production and high quality of life for farmers. They have provided stable markets and affordable prices because of price controls for consumers.
Trade between France and other countries in Europe that are in the regional trade agreement has improved education. EU has supported programmes such as the Erasmus programme, a university syllabus which started in 1980s. This programme has supported many university students. They encourage knowledge and learning in education in other countries while offering equal degrees with the same standards.
The EU in Europe has promoted use and knowledge of many languages. When France citizens trade in other countries, they are able to engage in other languages other than their mother tongue. Different cultures have been integrated that allows movement of workers within these European countries which are members of the European Union.
Therefore, as a member of EU, France has a wider selection of goods and services from different nations at lower tariffs. According to Bliss (2004), integrations allow small economies to collect their resources and enables local firms to get into larger markets. This has increased the economic growth in France and has brought additional trade, improved quality of goods, and more imports and exports. Integration has also made good international relations because of the integrated market while also promoting good channels of communication.
The Negative Aspects of Regional Integration
Although regional integrations aim is to improve the economic status of the countries in the EU union, not all the participants achieve the same benefits. Problems arise especially when determining whether participants have equal say according to the set policies. Some of the states appear to be more powerful than others.
Barnard (2007) argues that economic disruptions in some of the countries cause unequal distribution of resources with some states becoming the net recipients and others becoming the net lenders. Some of the countries may not benefit because more focus is on the affected countries. France and other big states often complain about the smaller states claiming that they do not give same share of the European Union. Also smaller states have complained that they are ignored because of their economic status.
Additionally, workers within the integration bloc face lower pays from their employers who threaten to export jobs. Companies in those integrated regions can loose their competitive advantage, especially when companies build better factories in lower-rated countries, making them as productive as those at their home country. When political crises arise, it is hard for the managing board to resolve those conflicts and this also includes immigration management and crossing of the borders.
Furthermore, regional integration is deemed to weaken the sovereignty of a country. This is because when countries like France entered the EU, they agreed to abide by the rules and procedures governing the body, but some EU rules are in opposition to some member countries policies.
The stiff polices restrict member countries from engaging in substantial economic development without consulting other countries in the system. Additionally, France and Germany are the most powerful members are the most powerful members in the EU with regards to security. This implies that the powerful nations have greater geo-political authority than small countries; therefore, the national integration is biased.
References
Bliss, C.J. (2004). Economic Theory and Policy for Trading Blocks and Integration. Manchester: Manchester University press.
Barnard, C. (2007). The Substantive Law of the EU. The Four Freedoms (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibb, R. & Michalak, W. (2000). Continental Trading Blocs: The Growth of Regionalism in the World Economy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Accountability is one of the main processes which help any organization or state agency to control its financial resources and expenditures in order to avoid fraudulent actions and misconduct. The European Union (EU) is a large institution responsible for financial funds and the EUs budget. In this case, political and managerial accountability is the only possible way to control distribution of resources and prevent misconduct. The core services that the EU is supposed to provide, such as legal and judicial protection for citizens, are the most affected by institutional weaknesses, although most of the public debate focuses on market institutions.
Main Text
Following Harlow: The significant semantic transition from responsibility to accountability reflects a change of practice in the English political system 8 which has not occurred or is incomplete in other European systems (Harlow 2002). For EU, it is important to keep independence in the accounting that it may be regarded as a cornerstone upon which much of the ethics peculiar to the institution is built. Note the radical change in focus when the accounting profession speaks of independence. Independence in fact is one of the most elusive aspects of ethics. The EU is ready to assert that for the most part independence in fact is the norm in daily professional life. The main body responsible for accountability in EU is the Court of Auditors (Anderson 33).
The advent of a new legal culture cannot be prompted unless a more comprehensive strategy is forged aimed at building institutional social capital. This will require bringing in line various organizations capable of acting as horizontal accountability agents, either formal or informal, and empowering them to act as partners, ombudsmen and audit agents for governmental agencies within the framework of large coalitions granting transparency and accountability on the part of governments and the public sector in general (Legitimacy, accountability and Democracy 2002). Corruption and accountability issues have been given little space on the agenda of European accession negotiations so far, the reason being that they are informal phenomena, while negotiations are extremely formal in their nature. Informal realities therefore, regardless of their importance, become the main casualties of the negotiation process. Since the reform of the East European public administration systems is Brussels-driven, the EU needs to further strengthen its position regarding accountability and best administrative practices, and use its leverage to support domestic mani pulita (clean hands) coalitions, not governments alone. If the EU wants the negotiations to succeed in countries where informal institutions are at least as strong as formal ones, there is little choice but to develop a strategy that will address informal problems, backed by part of the resources earmarked for formal ones (Anderson 39).
The main principle of political and managerial accountability in EU is transparency. It means that the EU announces all its decision and policy making processes which have a great impact on the EU and its community. Thus, Harlow criticizes recent policies of the EU stating that it follows an unorthodox idea of accountability, focused on the policy-making process. It pays minimal attention to the more traditional obligation of government to render an account of its doings. And there is almost no reference in the White Paper to classical definitions of responsibility and accountability as recognised within the democratic systems of government of the Member States (Harlow (b) 2002). The EU needs to build accountable governments and public agencies.
The dramatic public discontent with politicians and political organizations comes from a generalized feeling that governments are not accountable. More often than not this perception is rooted in reality since institutions of horizontal accountability are extremely weak or non-existent. In developed democracies, vertical accountability is ensured by constituencies, and by competition for resources between various levels of government. Legislative bodies and the judiciary provide formal horizontal accountability, but NGOs, interest groups and strong, impartial media also bring an essential contribution to informal horizontal accountability. The principles of openness, transparency and accountability&. are at the heart of democracy and are the very instruments allowing it to function properly. Openness and transparency imply that the decision-making process, at all levels, is as accessible and accountable as possible to the general public (cited Harlow (b) 2002).
The main problem of political accountability is that: the European Union, the elemental notion of democratic accountability in the sense of a process by which a government has to present itself at regular intervals for election, and can be ousted by the electorate 15, can be quickly passed over. At EU level, governments are not elected (Harlow 2002). Both subjective and objective estimates of corruption and accountability show the EU is falling into the bottom half of the scale. The Area of freedom, security and justice has shown an extraordinary build-up of structures and activities as a reaction to perceived transnational threats to internal security; the outcome was the proposed common structures and measures at the European level, of which there have been quite a few over the past ten years (Democracy and Accountability 82).
The Treaty on European Union is a complex document characterized more by pragmatism and compromise than idealism and coherence. It gives to the Union important responsibilities but divides responsibilities for making policies between the institutions of the EC and the member states acting together in political cooperation. It implies that integration is a dynamic process but does not provide a direction for the process. It also introduces subsidiarity as a principle of restraint in integration. It addresses the democratic deficit by giving more power to Parliament but obscures democratic accountability by creating a policy-making morass. It provides for flexibility in the integration process through the addition of protocols, but the resulting two-speed Europe may not be feasible when it is superimposed on a single market. In short, it is a flawed instrument but one which can serve to provide the amount of integration possible in the current situation in Europe. The European Parliament would not have any power of decision except through its budgetary powers. Yet for the accountability gap to be closed, it is essential for national parliaments to take matters into their own hands; they need toensure that relationships between national parliaments are strong and in good repair (Harlow (b) 2002).
Title II provides for more democratic policy making in the EC by increasing the power of Parliament and by limiting the number of cases in which a single member government can block action by the Council. Subsidiarity is the operational principle for determining the locus for policy making but is not an easy principle to apply. The treaty and its protocols provide an intricate map to the locations of the various responsible actors and the routes which they must take according to the circumstance or policy involved. The treaty provides for multilayered politics. Citizens, regions, political parties, national governments, and EC institutions have roles to play in the Union. One may easily criticize the treaty as a bundle of compromises (Harlow (a) 68).
One may even speculate that the EC might have been better if it had not been drafted. Once it was drafted, however, implementing it became essential to the future of the EC. The tenuous public support for integration would have plummeted in the face of a defeat in the ratification process. It could still plummet if implementation flounders on the complexities and ambiguities in the treaty; on the other hand, the treaty could encourage closer relations between the EC and citizens in the member states and lead to EU. The cost of the increased power, however, is high. The treaty provides for so many procedures that it fails to create the transparency or openness which is essential for democratic accountability. Interested citizens will have difficulty understanding the responsibilities of the various institutions. The provisions of the treaty also increase opportunities for disputes over the appropriate policy-making procedure. Such disputes have already occurred under the SEA over, for example, environmental policies. Given the greater complexity of the new treaty, one can foresee a vast increase in the number of disputes which will require a ruling by the European Court (Harlow (a) 65).
Conclusion
In sum, accountability is a complex issue based on democratic principles and social values. Accountability allows the EU to control its political and financial power, budgets and social policies. National parliaments play a key role in the accountability of the agents of cooperation, and this is a role that they have not yet exercised effectively. These highly complex and sophisticated instruments are to be adopted almost at the same time, and many of them either prior to accession or on day one of the accession by applicant countries. Given the current stage of institutional development of the EU, in many instances such adoption can only be formal.
Works Cited
Anderson, M. Policing the European Union. Clarendon Press, 1996.
Democracy and Accountability in the EU and the Role of National Parliaments: Report and Proceedings of the Committee v. 1. European security Committee. Stationery Office Books, 2002.
Harlow, C. (a). Accountability in the European Union.
Harlow, C. (b) Problems of Accountability in the European Union. 2002. Web.
Legitimacy, accountability and Democracy in the European Union. 2002. Web.
The European Union Member States must incorporate the EU law into their legislative framework and principles in the spirit of a constitutional treaty. In other words, the individual laws of the member states must be interpreted in the context of EU law. This means that the EU law takes precedence over the legislations of individual member states. EU directives addressed to member states provide guidelines on how the member states should enact their respective national laws to give effect to the EU law within a specified timescale (Tridimas 1999, p.214). The EU law is binding at the EU level and subsequently at the EU member states level where it involves both the private and public sectors.
The Equal Pay Law in the UK derives its framework from the EUs employment law. In particular, the inclusion of the equal pay provision in the EU treaty, the EU equal pay directive, the European Court of Justice case law, and more recently, the inclusion of social equality principles in the European Social Inclusion agenda and the European Employment Strategy has a significant influence on the UKs Equal Pay law (Dickens 2007, p.464). The EU, through these strategies, advocates for the implementation of laws that promote equal pay for men and women.
Accordingly, the Equal Pay Act that was incorporated into the Equality Act 2010 provides for equal pay and employment conditions for both men and women doing similar roles. Additionally, the 2002 EU directive Fixed-TermTerm Work led to Fixed-Term Employees laws that aim at protecting fixed-term employees from unfavorable treatment relative to other employees. From this view, it is clear that UK law derives its principles from EU law. The principles of the UK Equal Pay law are heavily dependent on the EU Employment law.
The Implications of EU Law on UK Equal Pay Law
The EU equal pay law contains provisions on non-discrimination on various grounds such as gender or nationality (among the member states). Article 12 of the European Commission Treaty (TEC) forbids discrimination and provides that all nationals of the member states qualify for the Unions citizenship (Dickens 2007, p.467). Additionally, the EU legislation (Directive 2000/78/EC) provides a framework for non-discrimination in employment and all occupations. It forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs, or disability and provides for equal treatment of workers in all occupations (Wells 2003, p.254). The equal treatment principle implies that no individual shall be subjected to unfavourable treatment, either directly or indirectly, on any of these grounds. Moreover, this principle provides to persons with disabilities. In this regard, employers are required to implement appropriate measures, such as training, to facilitate the participation of persons with disabilities in employment.
With regard to ethnic and racial discrimination, the general EU anti-discrimination principle is enshrined in the EU directive 2000/43/EC (Dickens 2007, p.466). This directive requires employers to implement the principle of equal treatment of persons regardless of their ethnic origin or racial background. The directive covers both private and public employment sectors in areas of healthcare, education, social security, and commerce. It forbids direct and indirect discrimination of persons working in these sectors. Indirect discrimination may involve a less favourable treatment of an individual or an act, though appearing neutral, results in an unfavourable outcome for an individual or a specified group. However, this directive does not include discrimination based on an individuals nationality.
On the other hand, the UK law contains parts of the European Employment Directives. In particular, the Employment Equality Act of 2003 implements parts of directive 2000/78/EC in the UK. The Act protects persons from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and religion or beliefs (Dickens 2007, p.471). In 1995, the UK Parliament enacted the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) to protect persons with disabilities from employment discrimination. According to this Act, disability is defined as any impairment, often medical, which places a person in a disadvantaged position within the society. By contrast, the EU law takes a more social view with regard to disability, and thus, the UK domestic law may not adequately meet the demands of the EU law in this respect.
In 2006, the UK enacted another Employment Equality (Age) law to prevent discrimination based on age. The EU Directive 2000/78/EC provides for the protection of all age groups across Europe, especially older people, from discrimination. Another UK anti-discrimination law, which relates to the EU law, is the Race Relations Act of 1976 that was amended in 2003. This Act protects persons from employment discrimination based on their racial or ethnic origin.
The Legislative Framework of Equal Pay Law
The equal pay law regards equal treatment of both men and women in employment. Under the EU legislation, equality in the treatment of men and women in the same employment is covered by three distinct laws: The Equal Pay directive, the Equal Treatment directive, and the Equal Social Security directive (Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) 2002, p. 7). The Equal Pay directive (Directive 75/117EC) reflects the laws of the individual member states regarding the principle of equality of men and women in the workplace. It provides that any employer pays persons doing similar roles equally irrespective of their sex (EOC 2002, p. 4). Additionally, the directive specifies that the same criteria for job qualification be used for both men and women during hiring. In other words, the criteria for job recruitment should be not discriminate between the two sexes.
The second EU directive regarding Equal Pay is the Equal Treatment directive (Directive 76/207/EC). This directive regards equality between two sexes in terms of access to work conditions, vocational training, and employment growth opportunities (Fairhurst 2005, p. 106). The directive ensures that all persons have equal access to better work conditions and on-job training opportunities without discrimination based on gender. In particular, it forbids dismissals of women because of maternity issues or pregnancy. However, most notably, this directive does not cover occupations that exhibit bias towards one gender. These two EU directives (Equal Treatment and Equal Pay) demand that individual member states undertake necessary legislative measures to cushion employees from unfair dismissal after filing a legal suit over unfair treatment in their workplace.
On the other hand, three directives protect women and men from unequal treatment in social security schemes. The Equal Social Security directive (Directive 86/378/EEC) provides for equal treatment of both sexes with regard to social security schemes (Fairhurst 2005, p. 109). The directive applies to both the employed and self-employed individuals of both genders. It also covers mothers under maternity leave, persons temporarily out work due to accidents or illnesses and retired workers. However, this directive does not cover contracts at individual levels or schemes comprising of one member. The major purpose of this directive is to prevent employer gender discrimination with regard to the benefits or regulations of their employee pension schemes. In other words, the directive ensures equal treatment of all persons with respect to their pension schemes.
In contrast, the Statutory Social Security directive (directive 79/7/EC) has an expanded scope; it includes the unemployed, disabled workers and individuals incapacitated by industrial accidents or sickness (Tridimas 1999, p.218). Additionally, it specifies that employers should not discriminate employees based on their sex, marital or family status besides the conditions outlined above. The other directive, directive 98/49/EC, concerns the labour mobility between two member states. Its purpose is to protect the pension schemes of workers moving within the Union member states. This EU directive covers the workers pension rights in both compulsory and voluntary pension schemes. It applies to persons having pension rights in pension schemes, in any EU member state. Another regulation (EEC/1408/71) covers the pension schemes of the workers moving with their families within the EU (Fairhurst 2005, p. 111). The regulation also applies to social security branches within the EU with regard to old age benefits, maternity benefits and illness benefits. However, medical benefits or social pension schemes of war a victim is not covered by this regulation.
Under the UK law, various acts and laws have been enacted to implement the Equal Pay directive. In contrast, the Equal Pay Act of 1993 (amended to Equality Act 2010) provides for similar terms of employment (pay and work conditions) between men and women. It specifies three conditions regarding this requirement; men and women employees with similar roles, different jobs rated as equivalents through job evaluation and work that requires opposite but similar level of skills (Dashwood, & Oleary 1997, p. 79). Additionally, the implementation of the Equal Treatment directive (directive 76/207/EEC) involved the Sex Discrimination Act of 1986. The legislation protects persons from employment discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
The directive on equal treatment of women and men with regard to social security (98/49/EC) has been implemented in the UK through the Personal and Occupational Pension Schemes Act of 1996, later amended to the Occupational and Personal Pensions Schemes legislations 2005. Additionally, the implementation of the EUs Statutory Social Security directive in the UK has been done through the Social Security Act of 1991 (c. 42) (Dashwood, & Oleary 1997, p. 83). On the other hand, the EUs Social Security directive (86/378/EC) has been adopted into the Social Security Act (c. 24) of UK law.
The Equality Act 2010
Various sections of the Equality Act 2010 cover different aspects of workplace discrimination of employees. In particular, issues of training opportunities, recruitment, evaluations, and promotions are covered under this Act. It forbids discrimination in employment based on nine personal characteristics: disability, sex, age, pregnancy, race, religion, marital status, and sexual orientation (Neathey, Dench, & Thomson 2003, p. 19). However, the Act offers some exceptions on employer practices regarding civil marriages and younger employees. Another aspect of the Equality Act relates to the EU directive regarding fixed-term employees. The resultant UK legislations encompass the prevention of unfavourable treatment to contract-based employment relative to similar staff with indefinite contractual terms. Specifically, this UK regulation covers the pay for employees working currently under fixed-term basis as well as new employees under contractual terms.
For part-time workers, the EU directive 97/81/EC of 1997 provides the framework for part-time contractual agreement. It specifies the employment terms and conditions for part-time employment. The directive requires employers to consider worker requests to convert full-time employment to part-time employment and vice versa. Additionally, the directive specifies that employers avail information regarding part-time and full-time employment opportunities to various departments within the organization. The resultant Equality Act, (the Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment legislations 2000), provides for favourable treatment be accorded to part-timers just like full-timers (Davies, & Kilpatrick 2004, p. 124). This implies the employment conditions of employees working part-time must be comparable to that of full-time employees. This includes favourable work conditions and wages. However, this regulation offers exceptions such as childbirth and pregnancy.
Challenges facing the Implementation of the EU Law in the UK
Across the EU member states, a gender pay gap exists, which varies from one state to another. In the UK, the gender pay gap is most pronounced with the pay gap in 2002 being 81% (as a percentage of mens earning) for full-timers (Davies, & Kilpatrick 2004, p. 121). In comparison, the pay gap was 63% in 1970 but rose to 72% by 1980. This implies that the implementation of the Equal Pay Act produced positive results during this decade (Neathey, Dench, & Thomson 2003, p. 16). However, in 2002 the gender pay gap dropped to 81% in the UK, which means that gender parity in terms of pay is far from becoming a reality. Additionally, part-time employees often have lower pay rates than their full-time counterparts.
Additionally, the requirement for an employer to provide equal pay for equal work often faces difficulties in the current legal structures. In particular, the equal work done by employees irrespective of gender is difficult to quantify. In this regard, employers nowadays consider both the nature of the work and the level of quality (value) of the workers performance in designing pay structures for their employees (Deakin, & Hobbs 2007, p. 69). The EU employment law caters for the analysis of the work content while most employers in the UK emphasize on performance and competencies of the worker. In todays market environment, the competencies of a worker increasingly influence the employer pay and reward schemes. The modern pay schemes, unlike the traditional pay systems, seek to reward competency and efficiency. Thus, current pay systems are dependent on the level of performance or competency, which has implications on the pay gap between men and women or age groups.
The performance-based or competency-based pay affect the implementation of the Equal Pay law, as they are often not gender sensitive. The European Court of Justice has issued guidelines in this regard. However, the market forces affect the principles of equal pay in capitalist economies. The current UK equal pay legislation revolves around equal pay for work of the same value, equal pay for similar work and equal pay for unrelated but equivalent work. However, the current pay systems rely not only on the analysis of work done, but also on the analysis of the work performance or standards (Deakin, & Hobbs 2007, p. 71). This calls for a review of the equal pay legislative framework to include these developments and ensure pay parity across the population.
Conclusion
The EU directives require the EU member states to implement regulations in line with the European integration treaty. The provisions of the EU employment law largely inform UKs Equal Pay law, the Anti-discrimination law and the Equality Act 2010. The UK Equal Pay law aims to establish pay parity between men and women and across all age groups. However, recent trends indicate that most pay structures are competency and performance-based. In light of this, a review of the current equal pay legislations is necessary in order to achieve gender pay parity.
References
Dashwood, A., & Oleary, S., 1997. The Principles of Equal Treatment in Ec Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Davies, P., & Kilpatrick, C., 2004. UK Worker Representation after Single Channel. Industrial Law Journal, 33, pp. 121-151.
Deakin, S., & Hobbs R., 2007. False Dawn for Csr? Shifts In Regulatory Policy and the Response of the Corporate and Financial Sectors in Britain Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, pp. 68-76.
Dickens, L., 2007. The Road Is Long: Thirty Years Of Equality Legislation In Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(6), pp. 463-494.
The key similarities and differences between health care systems in EU Member States
The European Union is a formation that is comprised of several states belonging to a particular legal environment. It means that there are specific similarities in legislation. For instance, in 1992 institutions of the EU adopted a set of regulatory measures that should be applied to the sphere of health insurance. It resulted in the appearance and development of diverse practices aimed at the preservation of the level of health and its improvement in the majority of the EU states. For instance, private health insurance might be sold by diverse entities, both public and private to guarantee that its buyers will be provided with the needed health services.
It is one of the central similarities between health care systems in the EU. Additionally, there is one more common feature peculiar to the majority of the EU Member States. The fact is that care is provided through health systems. In other words, every member state is responsible for offering medical services to citizens via a systemic arrangement of public and quasi-market relationships. Additionally, every state of the EU is obliged to protect the health of the nation within its territory using health insurance and other methods.
At the same time, there are several differences in the functioning of health care systems in EU Member States that are preconditioned by the peculiarities of local legislation. For instance, one of the key differences is the extent of centralization of health system administration. Some states might manage their public health systems at the national level by suggesting specific recommendations to all units across the country. Other members of the EU administer these entities at sub-national levels. These differences result in the emergence of numerous divergences in the ways how health sectors are organized and function. However, the central vector of their development and reforming remain similar for all EU states.
Patient mobility based on EU law affecting health systems
Patient mobility is one of the central issues of the modern health care system of the EU. The fact is that the freedom of movement of people within Europe demands the provision of the appropriate health services and care if some emergent situation appears. Additionally, the increase of the extent of EU citizens mobility means that efficient regulation is needed to adapt health systems to these new conditions and ensure the collaboration across borders. For this reason, under the impact of these factors, the majority of member states introduced specific regulations to guarantee that all citizens of the EU will be provided with the access to all needed medical services.
That is why the prior authorization that might be demanded to receive health care services abroad is considered a significant barrier to the free movement of services and should be eliminated to ensure that all individuals will be able to move in diverse directions across the EU. At the same time, tendencies towards the further increase in the patient mobility give rise to numerous appeals for better coordination between states and their health sectors with the primary aim to ensure that all individuals will obtain the needed care. In such a way, patient mobility is one of the central factors impacting the EU health system and promoting its further integration and enhanced cooperation between member states. At the same time, numerous changes appear due to the future rise of patient mobility and their desire to obtain care in diverse regions.
References
Hervey, T., & McHale, J. (2015). European Union health law. Themes and implications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, S., & Mossialos, E. (n.d.). Private health insurance and the internal market. Web.
The European Union is the formation of countries having similar geographic locations along with similar economic and political goals. This formation occupies its strong positions in the world political arena for decades. For this reason, its structure and its state concepts present an interesting area for research. In the following report, the European Union (EU) and the United States (the US) will be compared to conclude the main concepts of the EU formation. Overall, the evaluation of the facts shows that the EU is a unique union of independent countries having not many similarities with the other political formations in the world including the US.
The EU is not a nation or a state, it is a political and economic union or confederation of twenty-seven independent countries situated in Europe. This form of union is unique and has no other precedents in the history of humanity. According to The Columbia Encyclopedia (2009), the European Union is an economic and political confederation of European nations and other organizations (with the same member nations) that are responsible for a common foreign and security policy and cooperation on justice and home affairs . The following countries are the members of the union: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. The member states of the EU perceive themselves as sovereign and independent countries united through confederation bonds and regulations. The citizens of member states view the EU in a very different way. In particular, the population of poorer countries such as Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania expresses contentment and joy on the reason of their being a part of the EU as this provides better economic opportunities for these countries. However, the citizens of Great Britain, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries are less enthusiastic at the current period. Their negative position is explained by the fact that they have to feed the other countries of the EU being the major sources of financial help for the countries of the Eurozone which appeared in a difficult economic situation. In 2011, when the economic crisis badly affected Greece to the extent that the country was about to announce default, the citizens of Germany and the Scandinavian countries started lively discussions concerning their exit from the EU as they believed that such a decision will secure a better life for them in future. Below, the table is shown with the results of one of the latest surveys among the citizens of the EU concerning their trust in the other countries belonging to the union. The results shown in the table prove that Europeans do not contend with the reason for the presence of certain courtiers in the union. In addition, the worries of many nations are connected to their goals of maintaining their cultural peculiarities and local languages which are threatened, as they believe, on the reason of global European culture.
The government of the EU is very different from the one in the US; however, there still exist some similarities. Discussing the differences, it should be stated that the EU is a different form of a state organization that has many reflections on its government organization (Burgess, 2000). The US, on the contrary, is a federation with traditional governmental bodies for this form of country organization. As a result, the EU government consists of unique parts including the European Parliament (which is the only similarity in the formation of the governments of the two countries), the European Council, the European Commission, and Directives.
The picture shown below illustrates the peculiarities of the US government formation. It shows that its main parts are different from the EU ones. They are the Senate, the President, and the Vice President, and the Supreme Court.
With regards to the similarities, it appears that they are not many: both of the formations have their parliaments and principal representatives such as the US President and the President of the European Council.
In the EU, identity plays its due part, but it is not as significant as in the US. Race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual identification are viewed differently in the EU. They do not cause so many hardships and conflicts as it happens in the US. Of course, from time to time some difficulties occur. They are mainly caused by the constant waves of immigration of Arabs and Africans to such countries as France, Germany, and Great Britain. The local population becomes indignant about the reason for occupying their working places and other social positions by the immigrants. In this vein, several cruel conflicts occurred in France and Great Britain in 2010 and 2011. However, evaluating the general situation, it should be stated that the EU has fewer problems in this area than the US which is explained by the traditional mentality and way of thinking European people possess. They are accustomed to showing tolerance to the representatives of the most varied races and ethnicities. In addition, Europe is much more emancipated. The cases of gender discrimination occur here on a more random basis than in the US. Even the heads of many European countries including Germany and Latvia are women.
Addressing the economic relationship between member states in the EU and the EU, it should be stated that they are rather transparent. First of all, every country of the EU makes its contribution to the budget of the union. These funds are spent on varied economical programs including providing economical help for the needy members of the union. One of the very important organs exercising control in the area of financial distribution is the Joint Commission. The table below shows particular ways and mechanisms it uses for this purpose. The situation with the EU economy is somehow similar to the situation with the US economy. In the US, funds are also collected from the local budgets of states to the federal budget. Then they are allocated in accordance to the needs of all the states and the country as a whole including defense and environmental protection.
There are also differences in the economical systems of the two-state formations, as the EU is a confederation of the independent countries, and it has no purpose of solving economic issues of any particular country whereas the US is to accomplish both local and federal economic tasks.
In conclusion, the EU and the US are different state formations which can be seen from the detailed discussion of their political, economic, and social peculiarities. The EU is a unique confederation union never existed before during the history of humanity. Of course, the EU is also a democratic state formation which makes it similar to the US in a way. In particular, some similar economic and political strategies are observed while studying the structures of these two formations.
References
Burgess, M. Federalism and European Union: The Building of Europe, 1950-2000 /. London: Routledge. Web.
European Union. (2009). In The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Web.
The European Union was created with the aim of contributing economic growth and development of European countries through establishing a common currency and a single market. According to economics, breaking down existing barriers will cause the escalation of positive economic effects through efficiency and redirection of resources to cost-effective investments.
However, equal distribution of profits among the members in freely competing markets is not possible. Newly entering member states having different conditions received different end results from the integration. This uneven distribution within the integration may be hindered by cohesion thus a need for regional policy.
The European Union regional policy covers all European regions and consists of three objectives: employment and regional competitiveness, convergence as well as territorial cooperation (Cini, 2003). The regional policy environment has however become very complex and regional policy makers at the national and EU levels are facing the key challenge of globalization.
The increasing internalization of economy, the removal of trade barriers within the EU, technological change and the shift towards knowledge-based economy has been actively restructuring the competitive advantage of regions and countries (Boldrin & Canova, 2001).
Arguments for EU regional Policy
The main argument for the EU regional policy is the presence of large income disparities within the EU. In the Treaty of Rome signed in 1957, the goal of the EU regional policy was aimed at strengthening the economic units of the community as well as ensuring their harmonic development according to Steinen (1991).
In any economic unit, there will always be stronger and weaker territorial units in terms of dynamism and economic performance. It has been seen that regions in relative ascendancy and decline can be found in all member states.
These disparities are not temporary aberrations but have persisted over long periods. National policies have been under heavy pressure from the effects of globalizations and have mainly focused on increasing competitiveness in areas where different countries can afford and handle.
In the EU, uneven economic performance can be limited through a top-down approach in which the EU policy takes responsibility (Krugman & Venables, 1999). Justification of a common EU policy has been provided on the grounds of solidarity. EU regional policy seeks to find spatial balance in economic development so as to ensure that all economies achieve their full potential.
The EU regional policy also presses for cohesion within the member states and in the community as a whole. Cities such as London and Paris can be able to deal with any problems of deprivation in their worst affected territories while others such as Portugal and Greece have for a long time been unable to deal with regional disparities. Argument for a common EU policy can thus be made on an institutional capacity as well as in a political capacity.
Some member states have been unable to institute internal cohesion policy or to develop proper priorities for such a policy. The EU on the other hand has developed a cohesion policy that relies on two basic measures: unemployment rates which is social cohesion and GDP per head that is economic cohesion (Midelfart-Knarvik & Overman, 2002). Policy development and spending in the EU is based on a well researched model that seeks to improve weak areas so as they conform to the whole EU requirements.
Regional policy at the national level has also been unable to adapt sufficiently to the ever changing economic environment. International competitive pressures have been slowly increasing with some countries unable to keep up.
In many EU member states, the past few years have been described by rising numbers of unemployment, public expenditure constraints, structural change and productivity as well as concerns on international competitiveness (Wallace & Wallace, 2000). Antagonism towards movement intervention has supported a market-led approach to economic development.
Internalization of the economic environment has resulted in countries being unable to make sustainable long term planning and has rendered more regions susceptible to the rapid changes resulting from global market shifts. The EU structural funds have mainly concentrated on solving most of these issues according to Ehlermann (1995). Traditional policy instruments have been overhauled and a new direction has been developed.
The focus on large-scale business aid and infrastructural aid has been abandoned in favor of softer policy measures. Financial aid has however proven to be a more durable policy instrument capable of bringing policy makers and developing industries together in a positive policy environment.
Another main problem is that spatial problems have become more complex and localized. Regions of urban decline described by social exclusion dominate parts of many cities in the member states. Focus on interpersonal and interregional disparities in prosperity is not always straight forward.
At a spatial level, national policies have proven ineffective and EU regional policy instruments have proven to be better equipped in dealing with this issue (Cini, 2003). Regional policy objectives were created in terms of minimizing spatial disparities in economic growth, infrastructural provision and employment issues.
Over the past 20 years, regional policy goals have been increasingly directed towards optimizing the contribution of regional resources to the establishment of economic growth through promoting entrepreneurship and competitiveness. Spatial problems have been seen to be best solved through education, welfare and social measures. The EU policy focus is on wealth creation at the local level through Small Market Enterprises (SME) formation, skills formation, employment and innovation (Wilson, 2002).
National regional problems have always been an obstacle to the cohesion of the community. There are wide disparities between the individual members of the community each having its own set of policies.
In order to enable cohesion and reduce disparities, the Structural Funds were put in place and designed in a manner that those different classes of regions and member states were treated appropriately. Most of the money in the fund is targeted at low GDP regions matching the convergence objective. Fewer fiscal resources are available domestically for the low GDP countries in the region (Cini, 2003).
These regions also have lesser institutional capacity and while it can be assumed that low GDP member states can profit from rapid growth while they strive to catch-up with the other richer states, this process has resulted in regional inequalities in GDP per head. Although the cohesion policy was created to ensure that economic development is balanced within the member states, there is a need for an EU regional policy that curbs the widening disparities (Ehlermann, 1995).
The total Hungarian or Polish growth that attains the optimum catch-up path may be best supported by concentration of activity in the more developed parts of those countries with trickle down being expected to influence the other parts of the country. Such an approach however, may result in an enduring special imbalance that is evident in Italy (Wilson, 2000).
The growing interest in decentralization of government is changing attitudes to regional disparities and problems. National policies have been unable to keep up with the pressures of devolution and deconcentration in many member countries. These pressures resulted from a mix of social political, economic and cultural factors, and from reshaping the structure of governance (Cini, 2003).
Due to the EU, there has been a significant shift of powers to lower government levels. However, this shift often takes place without the corresponding allocation of additional resources and devolution of revenue-raising powers.
Intervention was required in economic development both in respect to the instruments required to address regional problems as well as the broader issues related to fiscal transfer systems. The EU policy debates have been dominated by changes in modes of governance (Boldrin & Canova, 2001).
The EU policy has been able to foster balance and ensure equity in economic development. In the UK, Italy and France, recent decisions reveal a more decentralized approach to regional policy making. A more coordinated approach to the EU policy both within the regions and centrally can be witnessed.
The growing concern with political and economic consequences of regional inequality is also an issue that necessitates an EU regional policy. Due to the community, some countries feel that national political stability is under threat. In the 1990s, most countries sidelined questions about regional development (Krugman & Venables, 1999). The relationship between sectoral and regional issues has not been fully established resulting in several problems.
Member countries face pressures from major problems, such as dynamics of growth, external economic relations, macro-economic stability, and balance of payment. In most member states, concerns of regional differences and the marginalization of certain territories are still considered minor problems.
The EU competition policy has however introduced a new powerful shift between EU regional policies and national policies. The original treaty documents developed provisions for control of the state aid policies of member countries under the competition policies. The EU began to have an impact on the use of state aids as instruments of the regional policy in the early 60s, as soon as the treaty was developed (Steinen, 1991).
Many scholars have argued that an effective cohesion policy can only result from a strict control of state aid. The EU competition policy has thus not only created a means to prevent the growth of regional inequality but has helped in shaping the coverage of other policies especially those under the realm of the structural funds.
The EU community has been plagued by political squabbles and bureaucracy problems (Cini, 2003). A driver for change from reliance of national policies to EU regional policy has been the bureaucracy associated with Structural Fund implementation.
It has been generally accepted that the implementation of funds carries with it a heavy administrative burden and substantial investment in institutional capacities at different levels. The negotiation of the Structural Funds regulation has made it clear the power of precedent in the European Community regional policymaking.
According to different objectives, the EU regional policy has been able to quell differences in Structural Funds allocation and cut down on the bureaucracy involved in the process (Midelfart-Knarvik & Overman, 2002). The EU policy has also influenced the allocation of EU funding within the national policy delivery system in most member countries.
Some countries such as Spain, Germany and Austria have effectively included EU structural funding within their own national funding mechanisms while others such as UK and Sweden have set up different delivery systems for administering the funds and delivering programmes. Despite the mode of delivery, considerable policy transfers from the EU to the national regional policies can be seen.
Conclusion
The EU is an integration initiative that has proven to be very effective and structured. There are however many different national policies that can affect the overall effectiveness of the EU cohesion objectives. It can be seen that national territorial policies can hinder the effectiveness of the EU regional policy.
The thrust to achieve cohesion can lead to internal disparities as countries neglect some areas in order to succeed in others. The EU regional policy is concerned with overall development, reduction of poverty and increase in the GDP of member countries. Some urban policies in member states can steer resources to favored regions neglecting other areas.
Another problem is the employment measures taken by member states that fail to contribute to the regional convergence of the community. The EU strives for the promotion of entrepreneurship and creation of SMEs within the member states in order to improve international competitiveness and economic stability.
Apart from this, national policies have been unable to deal with the decentralization of power required for the EU to prosper and the promotion of convergence.
National policies have been unable to meet the main objectives set out during the formation of the EU. The main problem however has been that national policies hinder cohesion within the EU. There is a greater need for a comprehensive policy that understands and conforms to the needs of the EU and fosters convergences of the member states without fostering regional disparities.
References
Boldrin, M. & Canova, F. 2001. Inequality and convergence in Europes regions: Reconsidering European regional policies. Economic Policy, 32, 207-245.
Cini, M. 2003. European Union Politics. London: Oxford University Press.
Ehlermann, C. 1995. State Aid Control in the European Union: Success or Failure? Fordham International Law Journal 184, 1212-1229.
Krugman, P.R., & Venables, A. 1999. The Spatial Economy: Cities. Regions and International Trade. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Midelfart-Knarvik, K. & Overman, H. G. 2002. Delocation and European Integration: is Structural Spending Justified? Economic Policy, 35(10):323-359.
Steinen, M. 1991. State Aid, Regional Policy and Locational Competition in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies, 41(1):19-31.
Wallace, H. & Wallace, W. 2000. Policy Making in the European Union. London: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, T. 2000. Obstacles to European Union regional policy in the Northern Ireland borderlands. Human Organization, 122, 33-38.
Most countries have found it difficult to do business isolation without being in an economic bloc. The difficulties experienced have escalated the need to form economic group. Economic integration occurs when countries experience pressure to join forces and operate under a common market with a controlled business environment.
Such pressures have resulted into several economic integrations such as European Union, Common Wealth, OPEC, and African Economic Community among others.
All these integrations have had many positive impacts on the member countries. As member countries, trade freely amongst themselves or under certain tariffs agreements, they accrue benefits. This essay strives to illustrate how the European Economic Community has affected European businesspersons.
Impact of European Custom Union
A customs union is a kind trade bloc where member states operate in a free market while they form uniform external tariffs. The European Union is a custom union that allows members to operate freely amongst themselves. Chalmers (11) asserts that the European Union treaty required all tariffs to be abolished among the member countries.
This treaty obliges members to operate freely or to form a free market zone. In addition, the treaty advocates free movement of goods, services, capital and labor within the member states.
There was also an agreement to harmonize trade laws where differences existed (Chalmers 12). Further agreements ensured that private competition barriers did not transcend national barriers. Similarly, countries fiscal regimes were not to discriminate imports.
The inclusion of the above agreements in the treaty affects business both positively and negatively. Any business that conducts its affairs within the market enjoys an increased market size. Due to the free market agreements, European organizations can freely sell products across Europe without any restrictions.
On the same note, in case a firm wishes to import raw material from another member country, it can do so cheaply since all import levies are withheld. The same applies to labor and capital market operations. The free market makes it easier to outsource them at local cost.
On the other hand, the custom union has exposed many businesses to stiff competition from firms from other countries within the union, which are also keen or willing to take advantage of the lucrative local market.
The intensification of competition drives local market prices down while firms are forced to produce quality products to avoid losing market. All this means an increase in production cost that reduces the profit margins of the organization. Thus, as the market conditions become tight and tighter, only the best in the market will survive; the rest of the organizations will be compelled to close down.
Right of Establishment
The European Economic Community has also elaborated vividly on the requirements of establishing a new business entity. The treaty provides that any business firm has the freedom of establish or open branches in any member country (Alberto 44). He further says that business organizations have the rights similar to those of natural persons within the Community.
However, the golden share provision curtails the freedom of establishment (Alberto 45). The golden share allows the member to deny formation of any organization that infringes the health, public policy or national security. Apart from the above excuse clause, the rest of the treaty reinforces the argument against any discrimination against establishment of the organizations.
Moreover, a firm is only required to attain all the requirements of establishing organization in the host country just as local firms do when they apply. Once these conditions are met, the organization is to be allowed to run freely in its entire lifespan.
The freedom of establishment provides opportunity for the firm to set up operations in the host country. The freedom of establishment reduces the strenuous processes that limit ease at which organization are set up.
Without this treaty, foreign firms would be subjected to many rigorous bureaucratic formalities that ought to be met. Once these restrictions are abolished it becomes easier for a firm to relocate and establish in some other country speedily. Hence, any businessperson from the EU has the liberty to open an organization, merge or acquire a new firm without any restrictions anywhere within the EU.
It is worth noting that the freedom of establishment attracts potential business to ventures in any worthwhile market. For instance, when a firm in Germany wants to expand to serve its customer in France, it can easily do so without engaging in many formalities.
On the other hand, many aspiring business will establish their branches in any area that offers a comparative advantage. For instance, if France is rich in iron ore, firms dealing with iron apparatus in Portugal will open branches in France to acquire competitive edge.
On the same note, mobility of capital would imply that there would be stiff competition that will only allow well-established firms to survive while the weak organizations will be absorbed or crippled down.
The other issue that will affect business operations is technological mobility. Stable organization will invest on modern technology in order to increase production.
The augmented production will earn the firm economies of scale enabling the firm to sell its products at lower prices i.e. to assume low price leadership. Hence, local firms will find it difficult to retain their share of the market unless they develop better production mechanisms to offer substantial competitive impetus.
History, Law and Taxation
European Union has a long history that cuts back to the 1950s. Throughout this period, the union has been restructuring itself to improve trade status as well as amending law and taxation policy that govern its operations. All the changes have been effected to improve business transactions and eliminate trade barriers. In 1972, the EEC opted to amend taxation law because Italy was imposing tax on the exports of art treasuries.
This was contrary to the EEC treaty and it was felt that amendment was inevitable to evade such instances in the future. The countries were therefore compelled to abolish completely any customs that existed amongst themselves (Moens and Trone 383). Kiekebeld (65) points out much controversy played out due to countries imposing taxes that contravened the EEC treaty.
It was agreed that no independent country was entitled to enforce any tax on exports without consulting with other members to determine whether such a move was indistinguishable with the agreed provision of the treaty.
The historical amendments to the EEC law and taxation policy have enabled improvement in free movement of labor, capital, goods and services. The changes effected overtime have only increased mobility of factor components.
Therefore, all business managers and investors ought to seize the opportunity presented to increase their market dominance. However, failure to realign operations and business processes would mean that the organization faces imminent danger of being brought down due to stiff competition.
Conclusion
The formation of the European Economic Community has presented numerous business opportunities to business managers to diversify organizational operations. The reality of the custom union not only provides unexploited potential but it also facilitates realization of cheap outsourced resources.
Similarly, the right of establishment reduces the bureaucratic rigidities that obscured easier establishment of firms in other countries. However, all these opportunities present untold challenges to dismally performing firms since they cannot withstand stiff competition associated with it.
To avoid being wound up due to intensified competition, managers and entrepreneurs need to invest in best practices i.e. better and effective production methods.
Works Cited
Chalmes, Damian. European Union Law: Text and Materials. Edinbough: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Kiekebeld, Ben, J. Harmful Tax Competition in the European Union. Alphen: Kluwer International, 2004.
Alberto, Maria. European Economic Law. 2nd Ed. Alphen: Kluwer Law International, 2009.
Moens, Gabriel and Trone, John. Commercial Law of the European Union. Heidelberg: Springer, 2010.