Category: European Union

In 1993, 27 European countries came together to form a union that was aimed at increasing trade between them. The signing of the various treaties necessary for cooperation of these countries saw the birth of one of the biggest economic powerhouses. The fact that the union has a great organization and a parliament that controls its operation has seen it having a great impact on the global economy.

The same has been duplicated in the political arena as the union has one of best-controlled economies in the world. The union has also controlled the commercial activities of these countries, and it is a big contributor to the commercial activities in the world. However, in the recent years the going for this union has not been in its best of the forms (Kahn 2008).

Global economic crises have had a great influence at it and have caused some of the members to join hands to form other unions in an aim of fighting the arising crises. The resultant of this is the formation of two unions, the G20 and the G2, both with an aim of fighting the global crises.

The aim of this essay is to try to find out whether the formation of these unions poses a threat on European Union. Arguments in the essay will be aimed at deriving a wide range of information of the effects the new unions has on the global economy, as well as European Union.

Facts about the activities of these unions will be revealed and the effect they have on the European Union will also be accessed. A conclusive conclusion will be arrived at that seeks to show whether the European Union is facing any threats from the new emerging unions.

The G20 union is an organization of 19 countries and 1 union with an aim of bringing together the industrialized countries with the emerging markets. Dialogue is a valued asset of this organization as it bids to solve the problem of global economic crises. On the other hand, G2 is an informal association between two countries that is United States and china to promote a bilateral relationship between them (Dizikes 2009).

To start with, the global financial crisis that has been experienced in the recent years is a globalized affair. By this, I mean that it needs a combination of different countries of the world to solve it, and the G20 and G2 offer this solution as they incorporate members from different regions of the world.

Members range from Asia, America, Europe, Africa, and even Australia. Since not all economies of the world were involved in the decline of the economies, incorporating all of them means that the countries can share the resources left out by the crisis.

On the other hand, the European Union is a combination of countries in Europe, the lack of diversity with other countries of the work means that very little can be shared globally since all the countries have almost identical economies (El-Agraa 2007). The resultant of this is that the accomplishments by the G20 and the G2 are more than the ones brought by the European Union. In other words, the threat from the new emerging unions is great to the European Union.

Taking an example of G20, they have incorporated an association of industrial powers and emerging markets, and they encourage dialogue between the member states. Through this, the problem that existed of emerging markets failure to be included in the global economy discussion was solved.

In addition, the global international architecture has been strengthened, as well as growth and development around the globe. The various meetings held between the members have shown a great improvement in the globe, especially when it comes to the emerging markets.

The results from this association are tremendous, as the member countries have control of about 90% of the world’s global national product, as well as 80% of the world’s trading activities. Also, notable is the fact that about sixty six percent of the world population is involved in this association. The influence and the legitimacy of the G20 can be attributed to the broad representation as well as the economic weight it carries.

The influence it has on the world is undeniably the biggest ever. Clearly, the heights reached by the G20 union is one to reckon with, the transformation of the global economy and financial systems is the highest to be attained in the recent years. This is surely a scare to existing unions since none of them has enjoyed such. The threats to this union is therefore there and one of biggest around (Tindall 2009).

Another reason that the European Union should feel threatened by the new unions especially the G20 is the changes these unions have caused to the global economy. Financial regulations have increased in scope, as well as the strengthening of prudential regulations.

Policy coordination has also been enhanced through the creation of a framework aimed at ensuring that there is macro-economic cooperation between the members of the union (Baldwin 2009). Finally, the influence of the G20 union also has the eyes of international monetary fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and they have reformed towards improving global governance and putting to account the needs of the emerging developing countries.

The truth of the matter is the world has encountered many changes that have transformed it to a global economy, therefore, this is enough proof that the regional economic blocks are being overtook by this development and they risk losing their place to more globalized unions (Armijo 2002). Again, this should put a scare on the European Union, which is a regional economic block only operating in Europe.

The scope covered by the new unions also poses a risk to the European Union. The meaning of this is that the unions have taken an initiative far beyond the economic strengthening, and have taken social responsibility. A good example is G2 association between United States and China. Beyond their economic relations, they have established a mechanism to fight against global pollution. China and United States are the biggest polluters of the environment due to emitting from the production companies.

The bilateral relationship is aimed at the worldwide good where we have the world being saved from such problems as global warming. Through such measures like speedy research, both these countries have expounded their relationship beyond the normal economic level. The cooperation has seen this knowledge or implementation of the same extended to most parts of the world to ensure that the global environment has been kept safe for each and every one living in it.

The other beneficially to this cooperation is other Asian societies who have enjoyed photovoltaic cells, which have been produced through solar and wind power by china. However, the G2 union cannot just be seen as a replacement of the G20 union, but rather a facilitator to this union, especially in the economic terms (Klau 2008).

The European Union has its part, which it has contributed in fighting the climatic changes due to pollution of the environment. However, the scope it covers is allowed in Europe. This is where there is the need to incorporate a more globalized system of solving the problem since climate change does not know geographical boundaries.

Unification ensures the good of all, and is one important aspect in ensuring the success of an organized institution. The fact that most of the policies are set out by the individual countries rather than the European Union also creates partial division. Usage of such ways on policing is like have a constitution and another body that has laws that has powers over it.

There is a need to develop policies that are agreed upon by all the members or even a greater majority like what is happening in the new unions being formed. Having policies that are agreed upon ensures that there are less number of people who fail to follow them as they are universally binding.

Lack of unifying policies also means lesser interaction, especially when it comes to technology as experience by the countries that are not in the golden triangle (English 2005). No wonder growth is being experienced more in this area. The creation of unions like the G20 ensures that promotion of growth is all around the world with views of the member states inclusive irrespective of their economic capability.

In any market, there needs to be a seller and subsequently an able buyer. The two emerging unions offer this description in their operation, that is, the industrial able nations are cooperating with the emerging markets of countries that are not so developed in a healthy cohesive relation.

The example of the G2 has the same, as it sees a relationship between the world’s biggest debtor combining together with the world’s biggest creditor. Much can be achieved when such an organization is there unlike when an association of countries is towards the betterment of each other’s lives and promotion of employment.

Common interests are able to be arrived at through such cooperation, for example, the action of Washington backing of on the issue of human rights. Shifting the focus on the European union, their relationship is what can be termed as “promoting fairness and caring society” as it is not as strong, since there exists a common market, and the market is endowed with almost uniform products (Goldfarb 2009).

The inability to handle the competition is also another reason behind the European Union facing the threat of controlling the global economy. According to (Kahn) 2008, the European Union was unaware of the threat of new economies emerging, especially in India and China and was still falling behind United States’ economy. The fact that European Union is unable to handle the high competition discredits them of the control they have in the world economy.

The reasoning behind this, to be in control of any market or economy is because it is important to that competitive edge, to ensure that you do not lose to the other firms. If this is put in practice in this scenario, and the market being the global economy, the European Union would surely lose. The fact that they do not even know of the emerging powers is also a minus to their control of the global market (Garrett 2009).

Finally, the inclusion of the European Union to one of these bodies is also an indicator of the threat that the European is facing from the rise of the new unions. In G20, there are 19 countries and European Union makes the twentieth member of the union. It is always true that when you cannot fight them, the usual solution is usually to join them.

The action by the European Union to join the G20 signifies the same and brings the focus of the strength and the much success that can be achieved when countries of all regions of the world can come together. Though European Union is a strong economic house, it needs other economies outside its scope in its bid to increase its economic influence (Archer 2008).

To sum up, we cannot overlook the impact that European Union has had in the global economy, as much has been achieved. Among them has been the creation of a common currency, which has solved the problem of currency barrier as well as betterment of so many people’s lives through the provision of health services, and also fighting of unemployment. However, the problem of the scope has discredited the union. The fact that much of its focus is in Europe is a problem since technology has transpired the economy to be a global one.

That is why the union’s competitive edge has been on the downfall, and more globalized oriented unions are offering such a competition that is not able to handle. Diversity always has an upper hand when it is in competition with other competitors who have not embraced it. A “buyer-seller” relationship is also of importance in ensuring that the relations are beneficial economically. The meaning of this is that there needs to be people who are providing and those who are provided for economically.

The G20 and G2 had this in mind, and that is why they are reaping many benefits out of their associations (Jørgensen 2008). The inclusion of the European Union also is beneficial since the benefits of the G20 union will increase from the benefits accrued from the organization. Therefore, it is clear that the threats offered by both G20 and G2 are too great to be ignored, and that these two unions are in control of the world economy.List of

References

Archer, C., 2008. The European Union. New York: Taylor & Francis .

Armijo, L. E., 2002. Debating the global financial architecture. New York: SUNY Press.

Baldwin R, S. E., 2009. The Collapse of Global Trade, Murky Protectionism and the Crisis: Recommendations for the G20. London: CEPR.

Dizikes, P., 2009, April 29. America+China=New G2. Why progress on climate change hinges on our relationship with just one nation: China. Web.

El-Agraa, A. M., 2007. The European Union: economics and policies. London: Cambridge University Press.

English J, R. C., 2005. Reforming from the top: a Leaders’ 20 Summit. Hong Kong: United Nations University Press.

Garrett, G., 2009. The G2 in the G-20: China, the United States and the World after the Global Financial Crisis. Web.

Goldfarb, M., 2009, September 6. G-20 nation profile: European Union. Web.

Jørgensen, K. E., 2009. The European Union and international organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Kahn, P., 2008. The European Union. New York: Infobase Publishing.

Klau, T., 2008. G2 Instead of G20. Financial Times – Deutschland, Germany. Web.

Tindall, K., 2009. Framing the global economic downturn: crisis rhetoric and the politics of recessions. Canberre: ANU E Press.

Introduction

Like the United Nations and the United States, the European Union has maintained its relationship with Middle East countries for years since its formation. This is necessitated by a number of issues, including finding a peaceful solution in Israeli-Arab war, economic development and promotion of democracy among others. These efforts have are through its commitment to signed treaties, support of those who preach peace in the region and criticism of those who do not obey the rule of law.

Although there is a lot to be done in finding peace in the Middle East, analysts observe that EU’s role remains significant in establishing stronger international ties with Arab countries and the entire Middle East (Gad 1). In the understanding of this relationship, it is further important to focus on the concept of human rights and its influence or role in the EU-Middle East relationship. This research paper explores the role played by human rights in the European Union’s relations with the Middle East.

EU-Middle East Relationship

As mentioned above, the relationship between the Europe Union and the Middle East has been founded on several grounds. Some scholars have linked the interest of the European Union with the oil resources in the region for the purpose of allowing economic ties between the two regions. Although the United States has always dominated in Middle East affairs, EU’s role cannot be under estimated (Gad 1). More so, it is yet to engage in high profile issues of politics as it has been with other players fighting to either develop a relationship with the region or dominate in its day to day activities.

Importantly, EU’s interest in the Middle East has not started in the 21^st century. European countries under the European Community demonstrated their commitment in the peace process in early 1990s. This was officially started by the Madrid Peace Conference that was held in October, 1991. As the association headed to becoming European Union, it clearly demonstrated its reluctance in involvement in political matters of the region (Gad 2).

As a result, Europe distanced itself from discussions which surrounded Arab Lands, the root cause of conflict and continuous fighting in the Middle East. Instead, it surfaced during the signing of the peace agreement that was organized by the United States after a deal was reached between Israel and Arab parties through bilateral negotiations. This was further witnessed in Oslo in 1994 during the signing of the Jordanian-Israeli peace agreement. As a way of showing its steady commitment to realizing peace in the Middle East, the EU offered technical and economical support to the peace process even though its member states did not engage in any direct bilateral procedures that led to the signing of the peace treaties (Gad 2).

On the other hand, the European Union remained on the fore front in various multilateral talks, hosting meetings that discussed five major issues, which were affecting the region. These issues included arms control, water, economic corporation, the environment and refugees (Seeberg 292). Although these efforts resulted into good outcomes and hope for the region, the Arab parties that were involved did not view EU’s involvement positively.

These parties believed that the move was aimed at achieving normalcy without addressing the Arab boycott of Israel. As a result, Arabs have only linked success of the process with direct bilateral talks addressing Israel’s occupation of what has always been referred to as “Arab lands”. Others have viewed EU’s approach as a way of undermining negotiations by not giving it a first priority (Seeberg 292).

Another reason why Middle East countries have not cooperated with the European Union in finding a lasting solution is the belief that its close ties with the United States and Israel could be used to play a political role during bilateral negotiations. However, this has not been the case as the EU has remained focused in supporting peace efforts, leaving the supervision of the entire process to the U.S. Regardless of this position with the Middle East, EU has not remained silent in matters affecting the region. It has participated in various forums in finding peace, promoting democracy and protection of human rights (Seeberg 292).

Role of Human Rights

In its involvement in the affairs of the Middle East and maintaining a stable relationship between the two regions, the EU has continuously supported the need to have to have peace through a wide range of ways. For instance, it considered having a special envoy for the Middle East, commitment to the European Neighborhood Policy Action Plan and through several civil society programmes (Gad 1). Not to mention that the EU is the leading aid offer in autonomous areas of Palestine.

Based on the involvement of EU in the Middle East, it is important to appreciate the role of human roles in the existing relationship between the two regions. This is evident through the manner in which EU responds to human rights-related issues in the region and its efforts to have an environment in which all human rights are honored. Human rights have defined the kind of relationship and basis of EU’s intervention in moments of war or actions which undermine the fundamental human rights of people from the region.

EU and Azerbaijan

The relationship between the European Union and Azerbaijan dates back in the year 1999 after the signing of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The initial focus of the relationship was based on basic assistance which amounted to 400 million Euros by 2004 (Boonstra 5). This basic package offered to Azerbaijan included food aid and rehabilitation and humanitarian programmes that were important in promoting human rights.

However, its efforts to support human rights issues during the period were limited and got involved through restructuring of Azerbaijan institutions for better functioning. Additionally, agreements with other organizations in the country were signed between the European Commission and the International Labor Organization and OSCE (Boonstra 5). Moreover, some member states including Germany, UK and Sweden offered assistance and showed serious concerns over the violation of people’s human rights after flawed elections that were held in the country.

In order to strengthen its support for human rights in Azerbaijan, EU went ahead to appoint a special representative in Southern Caucasus. The representative was to help the countries to solve frozen conflicts and assisted to implement reforms in the rule of law, human rights, democratization, poverty reduction and development. In the year 2007, EU expressed its dissatisfaction with limited media freedom and harassment of journalists which was a direct way of undermining the rights of people (Boonstra 5). The European Commission also established contacts with the civil society and officials from political parties to oversee implementation of an action plan.

Several developments however followed, which supported the functioning of the Europe House in dealing with human rights issues in the region. An action plan was proposed to offer training that would strengthen democracy through fair and transparent electoral process as defined by internal requirements (Boonstra 6). Secondly, the EC training was to focus on total protection of human rights in the region and the overall rule of law, complying with Azerbaijan’s international commitment. It can therefore be noted that throughout its interaction with Azerbaijan, human rights have taken center stage with most of its programmes and foundation of its association being determined by protection of human rights (Boonstra 6).

Arab Spring

Besides having established a relationship with the Middle East in early 90s, the EU has maintained its commitment towards protection of human rights even in the 21^st century. With the uprisings witnessed in most Arab countries, EU strengthened its objective by gathering support for the protection of human rights in all affected countries. The European Council on Foreign Relations has closely worked with FRIDE in strengthening its force to defend democracy and human rights in its entire neighborhood (Boonstra 1). Several instruments were identified through survey as important for the EU together with the operation of the European Neighborhood Policy.

EU-Iran

Iran is a major player in the Middle East with its advancement in nuclear weapons having placed it at odds with most European Union countries and the United States. Being an oil-rich country, several states and unions have considered strengthening their relationships for economic gains. This has not been the case for EU as it has focused on protection of human rights in recent years. During the summit meeting held on 10 October 2011 in Luxembourg, the EU expressed its concern over the deteriorating situation of human rights and restated the EU’s measures against those who were behind a series of activities seen to be undermining the rights of millions of Iranians (European Union 1).

This led to the release of a list of twenty nine people considered to be key players in the violations of human rights and were threatened to have their assets frozen and receive travel bans from Europe and other destinations around the world. It follows that human rights have led to EU and Iran to focus their relationship towards protection of people’s rights and ensuring that the country does not violate any of the fundamental human rights (European Union 1).

The EU alarm towards the human rights situation in Iran was summarized in five points, considered to be important in protecting human rights. First, it noted the rise in execution of minors with majority being held publicly using inhumane methods. The EU also took the opportunity to call on Iran to abolish death penalty as it was undermining the rights of many (European Union 1).

Secondly, Iran’s oppressive approach towards human rights activists, journalists and lawyers caught the attention of the EU, which argued that the affected people were being harassed and arrested for expressing their lawful rights. It therefore appealed for immediate and unconditional release of arrested people with strong condemnation of cruelty and inhuman treatment of its citizens.

EU also raised its voice on limited freedom of speech and movement and demanded the release of opposition leaders. Above all, it called on Iran to respect its obligation towards international human rights and promote human rights and fundamental rights of Iranians. This concern was followed by a commitment by the EU to continue monitoring the situation, extend the measures that had been adopted in April 2011 and continue speaking for the voiceless Iranians (European Union 1). Despite this situation, the EU further expressed its willingness to discuss violation of human rights with Iranian authorities.

EU-Syria

Like in other Middle East countries, human rights remain the focus of the relationship between the EU and Syria. As an advocate of peace, democracy and human rights, EU has expressed its dissatisfaction with human rights violations across the country. The Council of the European Union reinforced EU measures against Syria to have its leadership respect the rule of law and the fundamental human rights. EU has gone ahead to freeze assets belonging to some of the perpetrators of violence and supporters of oppression in the country (Mann, Kocijancic and Brabant 1). The same sentiments have been put against several Middle East countries like Bahrain, which continue to experience massive violation of human rights supported by respective leaders.

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis, it is clear that the European Union has maintained its relationship with the Middle East for various reasons. Having kept a low profile in most Middle East political issues, EU remains committed to ensuring a peaceful region that respects the rule of law and human rights. Importantly, the role of human rights in these ties has promoted the push for democracy in Middle East and the protection of its people from leaders who have no recognition for human rights and fundamental rights upon which each everybody is entitled to. Although the EU may be having other interests within Middle East, its recent approach has mainly focused on ending widespread violation of human rights.

Works Cited

Boonstra, Jos. “How serious is the EU about supporting democracy and human rights in Azerbaijan?” FRIDE, 2008. Web.

European Union. “Iran: EU reinforces restrictive measures due to serious human rights violations.” Europa-Eu-UN Articles, 2011. Web.

Gad, Emad. “The EU and the Middle East: An Egyptian view.” Acquisition Central, 2003. Web.

Mann, Michael., Kocijancic Maja, and Brabant Sebastien. “Statement by EU High Representative on the publication of the report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic.” European Union, 2011. Web.

Seeberg, Peter. “Union for the Mediterranean; Pragmatic Multilateralism and the Depoliticization of EU-Middle Eastern Relations.” Middle East Critique 19.3 (2010): 287–302. Print.

Introduction

Europeanisation may be understood as the development and intensive growth of identity that is specific to the European continent and/or its countries well above other countries and identities within Europe (Bailer et al., 2008).

In addition, with regards to Schneider and Hage (2007 p.312), “Europeanisation may also refer to the process through which European union political and economic dynamics become part of the organisational logic of national politics and policy making”.

Policies such as the agricultural guiding principles seek to boost the production of agricultural products, for instance, milk in all European nations may be considered as good examples of Europeanisation (Riedl 2008). Embracement of the policies means that all nations in Europe are committed to work under regionally integrated policy frameworks.

The main purpose of this essay is to provide a critical and informed understanding of the concepts and processes that are associated between globalisation and Europeanisation. The paper also aims at to evaluate the impact of globalisation and Europeanisation on governments and public policy.

Particular emphasis is placed on the impact of the globalisation and Europeanisation theoretical paradigms on governance, as well as and the development and implementation of public policies, especially in Britain. It is envisioned that, through such analysis and discussion, the extent at which policymaking is being Europeanised within member states of European nations may be determined

This essay is organised into two main sections. In the first section, a discussion pertaining to how practices of globalisation interact with governance and public policy will be addressed.

This will be followed by a critical analysis of how practices of Europeanisation are related to governance and public policy. In the second section, the paper investigates the causes and impacts of Europeanisation and globalisation, in an attempt to demonstrate how they reflect on public policy and governance.

Extents to which Policymaking is being Europeanised in Member States of the European Nations

Over several decades, the European Union has operated as a single trade block. Such operations were facilitated through the deployment of common trade and economic development policies and governance systems (Borzel, 2002; Boerzel, 1999).

An example of this is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is regarded as the first (and for many years, the only) redistributive policy of the European Community (EC) (Bache, George and Bulmer, 2008, p.371).

One of the key goals of globalisation is to spread the best benchmarks of handling problems across the world. In contrast, the concept of Europeanisation as it applied to the enactment of the CAP, was to integrate policies to ensure that all nations in the European nations become self-sufficient for their food supplies.

Thus, among the founding years of the Europeanisation theoretical paradigms for gaining food dependency, agricultural policies yielded success in 1960s.

Bache, George, and Bulmer (2008, p.372) support this assertion by further retaliating, “the success of agriculture sustained the hopes of the advocates of integration during 1960s when it was seen as the start of a process that would lead to other common policies”. Unfortunately, as time progressed, other common policies hardly appeared.

The attempts to Europeanise public policies have had severe implications to the economies of some nations in the European Union. For example, the attempts to deploy common EU policies such as environmental protection and conservation policies impair the productivity of the nations, which do not have the capacity to treat their industrial effluents in a cost effective way compared to organisations operating in the EU.

For a nation, especially in the developing world, to achieve the capacity to respond to the environmental conservations and protection concerns in the degree of the EU, much government expenditure is vital. Similar challenges are also experienced by the EU member states (Borzel 2002).

The question that emerges is how the perspectives of Europeanisation influence the direction taken by respective nations that form the European Union, in terms of public policies and governance approaches.

Globalisation, Public Policy, and Governance

Government actions are executed in a manner that is consistent with the law. This assertion underlines the significance of public policies within governance, which are important to define.

With regards to public policies, Plumper and Schneider (2009, p.67) classify them as “a principled guide to action, taken by the administrative executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a manner that is consistent with law and institutional custom”. Thus, the concept of Europeanisation is an endeavour to instil a custom that binds all EU nations in the approaches of design and implementation of public policies.

At an organisational level, governance refers to “the set of policies, roles, responsibilities, and processes established in an enterprise to guide, direct, and control how the organisation uses technologies to accomplish business goals” (Finkelstein 1995, p.368).

However, in the development of public policies, this term is used to refer to particular actions, such as making decisions, which provide the definition of expectations, mechanisms of according power and even ways of verifying performances (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009; Sorensen 2006).

The effort by the EU in creating integrated policies within various sectors of economies, which are applicable to all the nations that form the EU, is a remarkable measure in ensuring the EU develops collectively through the adoption of effective governance practices.

Development of policies that favour the expansion of local markets to promote free flow of agricultural products exclusively within Europe, has not only developed the EU economy over a number of years, but has also facilitated in shaping the EU to become a large marketing entity with a global feel (Dyson 1999: Howell 2000).

In reality, through globalisation, which is safeguarded by strategies to ensure the EU dominates in the trade at global fronts. The shares of global exports rose by 1.2% in 2006 i.e. 40.8% to 42% (Howell, 2009, p.81). This increase was realised amid hefty concerns over continual growth of China and India’s exportation abilities.

The net impact of governance and policies that foster enhancement of globalisation and Europeanisation amongst EU member states is boosting the economic growth of the EU. The replica for this outcome is the increased earning for European-based companies. The strategy has truncated into increasing employment rates coupled with incomes among workers in the EU (Börzel & Risse, 2003; Radaelli, 2008).

Most significantly, the EU is an enormous advocate for globalisation. It has worked considerably in establishing policies in its favour. Through the enactment of foreign trade policies, in an effort to make all markets across the globe integrated, the EU has managed to establish various relationships with different nations, including those in the developed and the developing world.

Having trade linkage with developing nations has resulted in EU consumers benefiting from lower cost imports, which in turn has aided in reducing inflation and increasing net income (Cowles, Caporaso & Risse 2001, p.23). Nevertheless, it is important to note that the advantages associated with globalisation are a cause for workers in certain industries to suffer immensely.

With Europe at the heart of globalisation, European nations have benefited greatly from the realisation of the merits associated with it Grazino and Vink (2008, p.56) outline that this gain ranges from lower trade barriers, greater opportunities for trade, rapid diffusion of technology to investment.

Arguably, policy reforms that encourage the spirit of globalisation have fostered immense flow of services and goods, people, capital, and even technical know-how between Europe and the rest of the world.

With Europe having been well established industrially, this flow has augmented progress and development at an astounding rate, by virtue of the fact that it is able to take advantage of the economies of scale (the advantages that organisations in a nation gain by being large or by having the capacity to produce many products and service).

Consequently, prior to the previous decade, when in China and other technologically developing nations posed a threat in terms of global distribution of low-cost manufactured products; the EU has been gaining a great deal from its trade global policies.

Such gains include the robust growth of imports, coupled with exports and large investment inflows and outflows (Exadaktylos & Radaelli, 2009). Overall, net inflows in labour have generated modest earnings and income amongst European nationals.

Europeanisation, Public Policy, and Governance

The approach deployed by the EU to realise economic development through engagements and integration of trade with other nations, constitutes an important benchmark that is imitated by many other nations.

For instance, China understands that, although it has well-established links with other developing nations, in terms of supply of manufactured products, it cannot survive without having a strong market presence in the EU and the US because they form a large market that is dominated by middle class people (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009). Middle class people are the highest consumers of industrially mass manufactured products.

Throughout the history of the EU, upon adoption of common range of economic policies favouring industrialisation, the EU considers manufacturing as a major way of raising the GDP of all member states.

As evidenced by the rapid growth of the industrial capacity of China over the last two decades, China also considers manufacturing a noble mechanism of raising its GDP. Consequently, public policies and governance approaches deployed by China are influenced by the EU’s experience with globalisation as a mechanism of raising GDP.

Evidently, this case is an example of theoretical applicability of the concept of Europeanisation. However, the central point of this argument is that some nations make policies, especially those committed to trade growth and development, based on the EU’s ideologies and experiences (Graziano & Vink 2008).

The concept of Europeanisation is not only applicable to incidences where nations consider the experience of the EU (with integrated public policies) to have yielded success. Failures of some policies also form important benchmarks for avoiding the making of policies that would reflect on challenges that have been experienced in the EU.

For instance, the EU embarked on policies that sought to promote milk production by offering subsidies to farmers. This policy was incredibly Europeanised to the extent that all European member states implemented it. While this was a vital strategy in boosting the production of milk products, and hence increasing the level of income to farmers, policies advocating these steps were misplaced (LaBorde 2013).

Based on the implication of the policy, Europeanisation of public policy would ensure that nations in their quest of boosting their agricultural output capacities do not repeat such mistakes. From the EU perspective, subsidies on agricultural products, especially by major global giant producers such as the EU and the US, are not received in good faith within the international arena.

In this context, LaBorde (2013, Para. 5) believes that the reasons behind high global food prices in 2012 (which has been the case for the five years before this), was caused by a succession of weather-related catastrophes, such as severe drought in the US, Europe and Central Asia. Although the EU and the US are well acquitted with this implication, they have refused to heed to these calls.

Rather, they have opted to increase domestic subsidies on agricultural sectors. Such strategies have long-term implications on the worldwide food systems, coupled with impairing food securities in the developing nations (Babcock, 2007; Alston, 2008).

This move is not a welcomed experience; hence, Europeanisation remains important for nations that do not want to take risks, and are not calculated in the development of production policies.

Based on the EU experience, researchers explain that offering subsidies in the agricultural sector results in lowering the costs of production (Westcott & Young 2004: Chapman et al. 2006). In the European Union, in the year 2005, dairy products dealers got a financial assistance amounting to $47 billion.

This amount ($2.20) was actually more than the wages earned on average by each person in the developing nations. This finding means that EU farmers were able to produce their products relatively cheaper to those outside the EU because of government subsidies.

Based on Drabenstott’s (2008) arguments, foreign traders found it difficult to introduce their products into the EU markets because prices of the subsidised products, produced in the EU, were lower than selling price, even for them to break-even.

Such subsidies resulted in stimulation and subsequently an over-production of subsidised agricultural sector products within the EU. However, farmers benefited as they were able to place their surplus products in the market in higher quantities. This means that the consumption of the products also increased.

The disadvantage of such a policy is realised through curtailing the efforts of farmers operating elsewhere outside the EU. It further highlights a need to engage equally in the global trade for milk products, since non-EU farmers’ products were priced higher relative to those produced in the EU countries.

Any nation objecting to such an approach of boosting local production would be borrowing from the EU experience to frame its policies. Put differently, such a nation would be Europeanising its public policies and governance principles.

Causes and Impacts of Globalisation and Europeanisation on Public Policy and Governance

Globalisation is caused by a myriad of factors. Ease of labour mobility is one of such significant cause. The EU nations handle two forms of enhancing labour mobility, which Ahrens et al. (2005, p.220) explain the first one to emanate from the free flow of labour within the borders of countries in the EU.

The EU nations also benefit immensely from the low and high skilled labour that flows into it, particularly those that originate from external borders. One of the central visions of globalisation is to foster interaction of different skill levels for individuals from different nations across the globe.

With this ease of labour mobility across the EU borders, both internally and externally, it implies that the EU establishes this vision and forms a meeting point for all individuals worldwide. However, while permitting this free flow of labour, policies relating to immigrations are a necessity and worth enacting.

Ratifying such policies does not mean that the EU would obtain the very best on offer within the global workforce. A means for sieving the labour flowing into the EU and out of it is critical. It is in this extent that governance becomes important as a facilitating element for globalisation concerning labour mobility.

Aside from labour mobility, other causes of globalisation include the need for organisation information and knowledge sharing, technological transfer and global trade, and other forms of organisational interactions and integrations. For instance, global organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) act as incredible causes of globalisation.

In the operations of such organisations, different stakeholders are integrated often, thus fostering multicultural interactions of individuals from across the world (Bailer et al., 2008).

The single most cause of Europeanisation is the need to incorporate European ideologies of economic success into economic policies of nations using the EU as their benchmark (Parsons, 2002). Among the countries that members of the EU, Europeanisation is caused by the need to develop integrated regional policies that would see the EU develop as a single block.

In the previous section, it was argued that governance approaches and policies encouraging globalisation and Europeanisation have made nations that adopt the EU experiences and ideologies realise incredible developments. However, the benefits of Europeanisation of public policies, especially on matters involving trade integrations, are shared unevenly.

Featherstone and Radaelli (2003, p.59) support this argument by further stating globalisation is regarded as uncertainty and disruption for many Europeans. This argument implies that, while some individuals and organisations profit from globalisation, others have been operating on the losing end.

Directly congruent with the above argument, it is imperative to regard the benefits accrued from Europeanisation and globalisation, framing policy developments based on this ideology, gives rise to benefits that are widespread but also diffuse in various ways.

Indeed, globalisation can have an immense impact on certain communities and organisations, which can be tangible and quite traumatic (Featherstone & Radaelli 2003, p.59).Therefore, globalisation and Europeanisation of some policies would truncate into inflicting and driving economic changes.

In addition, coupled with disruptions on Europe and nations adopting similar ideologies in the development of their polices, it can also have implications on causing real and practical costs to certain members of the society. Such costs and changes have given rise to immense ambivalence in Europe, which is characterised by trade of goods and services, as well as people, technology and capital, (Boerzel 1999, p.574).

Any nation attempting to Europeanise its policies must therefore take into consideration the effects of devising policies that take after the European policies with regards to global integration of nations.

From the perspective of investments, Europeanisation has the implication of expanding global investment flow and ties. This impact is made even clearer by considering Howell’s(2009, p.79) argument, who states that Europe has been the primary supplier and recipient of foreign direct investment since 1990.

Such an immense economic achievement cannot be realised without proper governance through enactment of various policies that enhance the process of economic integrations and interaction between EU and other nations. In fact, this has enabled the EU to build an intensive linkage networks with nations across the globe.

Howell (2009, p.81) argues that between 2000 and 2006, Europe accounted for approximately 64%of global FDI outflows and roughly 50% of global FDI inflows. Consequently, outward FDI stocks possessed by the EU act directly as key boosters of competitive advantage that is gained by organisations in the EU member states through increased profitability.

Since Europeanisation entails spreading and adopting EU ideologies as pertaining to design and implementation of governance principles and specific policies for success, it is arguable that Europeanisation has the impact of making nations globally adopt practices that would yield similar economic merits.

Conclusion

Policies developed by a nation, especially economic policies, are not exempt from the influence of Europeanisation and globalisation. From this theoretical paradigm, this essay argued that policies adopted by various nations, including developing nations, are influenced by the European ideologies and theoretical approaches in design and implementation of public policies.

The essay also held that the principles of globalisation embraced by the EU, which have truncated into the immense success of the EU in terms of growth of GDP, also influence policymaking processes of the EU member states coupled with other nations that are not part of the EU.

These influences were described by the term Europeanisation. From the analytical discussion presented above, this concept has manifested itself globally to the extent that the EU-integrated policies are used as benchmarks.

References

Ahrens, J et al. 2005, ‘Deepening integration in an enlarged EU: a club-theoretical perspective’, Journal of European Integration, vol. 27 no.4, pp. 219-227.

Alston, J 2008, Lessons from Agricultural Policy Reform in Other Countries: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, American Enterprise Institute, New York.

Babcock, B 2007, Money for Nothing: Acreage and Price Impacts of U.S. Commodity Policy for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Cotton, and Rice in American Enterprise Institute, The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, AEI Press, Washington, D.C.

Bache, I, George, S, & Bulmer, S 2008, Politics in European Union, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bailer, S et al. 2008, ‘Oligarchisation, formalisation, adaptation? Linking sociological theory and EU enlargement research’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 16 no.1, pp. 162-174.

Boerzel, T 1999, ‘Towards Convergence in Europe? Institutional Adaptation to Europeanisation in Germany and Spain’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 37 no.4, pp. 573-596.

Börzel, T & Risse, T 2003, Conceptualising the Domestic Impact of Europe: In K. Featherstone and C Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Borzel, T 2002, ‘Pace-setting, foot-dragging, and fence-sitting: member state responses to Europeanisation’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40 no. 2, pp. 193-214.

Chapman, D, Foskett, K, & Clarke, M 2006, ‘How Savvy Growers Can Double, or Triple, Subsidy Dollars’, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, vol. 2 no.1, pp. 121-127.

Cowles, M., Caporaso, J & Risse T 2001, Europeanisation and Domestic Change, Ithaca, New York.

Drabenstott, M 2008, ‘Do Farm Payments Promote Rural Economic Growth?’, The World Economy, vol. 8 no. 1, pp. 57-61.

Dyson, K 1999 ‘EMU as Europeanisation: Convergence, Diversity and Contingency’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 38, no.4 pp 645-66.

Exadaktylos, T & Radaelli, C 2009, ‘Research design in European studies: the case of Europeanisation’ Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 47 no.3, pp. 507-530.

Featherstone, K & Radaelli, C 2003, The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Finkelstein, L 1995, ‘What is global governance?’, Global Governance, vol. 1 no. 2, pp. 367-372.

Graziano, P & Vink, M 2008, Europeanisation: New Research Agendas, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke, London.

Howell, E 2009, Europeanisation, European Integration and Financial Services, Palgrave, London.

Howell, K 2000, Discovering the Limits of European Integration: Applying Grounded Theory, Nova Science Books and Journals, New York.

Kooiman, J & Jentoft, S 2009, ‘Meta-governance: Values, Norms and Principles, and the Making of Hard Choices’, Public Administration, vol. 87 no. 11, pp. 818-836.

LaBorde, D 2013, The hidden cost of US and EU farm subsidies, http://www.ifpri.org/blog/hidden-costs-us-and-eu-farm-subsidies

Parsons, C 2002 ‘Showing ideas as causes? The origins of the European Union’, International Organisation, vol. 56 no. 1, pp. 47-84.

Plumper, T & Schneider, J 2009, ‘The analysis of policy convergence, or: how to chase a black cat in a dark room’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 16 no. 7, pp. 67-75.

Radaelli, C 2008, ‘Europeanisation: solution or problem?’, European integration journal, vol. 8 no. 16, pp. 212-231.

Riedl, B 2008,’ How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers’, European Journal of Economics, vol.3 no.2, pp 315-321.

Schneider, V & Hage, F 2007, ‘Europeanisation and the retreat of the state’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 15 no. 1, pp. 311-317.

Sorensen, E 2006, ‘Metagovernance: The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance’, American Review of Public Administration, vol. 36 no. 7, pp. 98-114.

Westcott, P & Young, E 2004, U.S. Farm Program Benefits: Links to Planting Decisions and Agricultural Markets, U.S. Department of Agriculture, New York.

Introduction

Australia’s first recorded links with Europe back date to Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, English and French explorers of the 17^th century. The British settlements of Australia in the year 1788 marked the beginning of a steady tributary of Europeans enthusiasm to counterfeit new lives in the great southern continent. A squirt of immigration as a result of the Second World War saw Europe and Australia develop boarder stronger cultural and social kinships underscored by common values of democracy.

Union between the Australian and European Union

Currently the Australian and European Union remain natural economic, political and social partners. Due to significant change in the nature of relationship from colonial era especially from 1973 when the United Kingdom unified with European community as it was known by then, the partnership in economy has remained as the mainstay of the relationship. According to the Ex European Vice president Sir Brittan, he remarked that the thumping heart of their relationship was to remain economic.

The European Union is the largest partner in economic when consideration of trade in merchandise goods, investments and services is made. Politically, the Australia and European Union have the same democratic parliamentary government systems. They took part in multilateral foral like the United Nations where they share common political issues of the day (Bishop 1952, pg 56).

The consultations of ministries between the Australia and European Commission began in 1976 which covered a wide range of aspects. They originated from talks on bilateral trades aspects to cover the multilateral matters of trade and international relations, industrial cooperation, environmental protection, science and technology, development aid programs, educational and training, consumer policy and competition.

Although there is a tension existing in specific areas like the environment and agriculture, the sometimes harsh arguments over the Europeans Union’s common policy in agriculture have been much associated with significant CPA reforms of the early 90s and the European Union’s continuous increasing commitment to the world trade liberalization. An Australian and European Union declaration which was adopted in June 1997 has led to facilitation of reinvigorated bilateral relationship. Due to strong downturn in Asia and Australian terms of trade, following the Australia’s northern neighbor’s turbulence, there has been rediscovery of the significance of European’s Union dimensions (Bishop 1952, pg 103).

When these principles are related with the everyday life, a positive impact has been achieved. This is because some mandatory issues like trade between different countries have been facilitated. After ministerial consultations between European and Australian states, issues of Industrial Corporation were established to greatly assist the countries which lacked certain materials to have easy acquisition of same materials from their colloquies. Aid programs projects were also set where by the economically pressed countries could benefit from the wealthy nations. Also environmental protection issue was addressed to which was of very great significance to everyday life.

This is because every country treated it self as a beneficiary of the environment. As a result, every nation had a responsibility of environmental conservation hence limitation of environmental pollution. Education and training were other aspects addressed in the ministerial consultations. This was very beneficial in every day’s life because citizens from one state could seek educational facilities from another state. Agriculture which is the core economic activities from most of the countries was also addressed. There was a freedom for a certain country to acquire the agricultural products from another state thus boosting the agricultural sector.

The Australia and European countries also share common interests in a wider geo-political ground. Still the memory of losing many young people in the two world wars remains a reminder that moves to provide unthinkable welfare in European ground which is also of vital concern to the Australia. Initiatives like the enlargement of the European Union to include nations of central and east Europe, Russia’s increased involvement in the European common foreign and security policies are all welcomed approvingly by Australia.

This concern of public relations where a certain country is concerned about the ill events of another country impacts everyday life. This is because when a certain nation is in a trouble for instance politically like the civil wars, economically constrained countries like drought disasters, the neighbor countries would willingly assist in such calamities.

Constructive engagement with other countries

In the Pacific region of Asia, European Union and Australia share much of respects; constructive engagement with China, cooperative assistance operations in the highlands of pacific, peaceful outcome to the East Timor troubles and stability in Indonesia and re-booting of the South East Asia economies. The combined effort in peace restoration by the associate nations has greatly impacted every day’s life because if it were not for that, most of the countries would have civil wars which would result to violation of international human rights.

The political relation between United Kingdom and Canada are bound by culture, history the common wealth and their extensive family ties (Seligson 1979, pg 18). United Kingdom is the third largest exporting market worldwide and the second largest tourism source. Through its historical links, it also acts as an important market for Canadian public and private borrowing, and the favored entry for the Canadian business in to the European Union through this link in trade, the public relations has created a conducive environment of business from one state to another. Tourism trade among other forms of trades has generated income to the country thus boosting the states economy.

The United Kingdom acts as precious interlocutor for Canada on the foreign policy issues. Britain and Canada works jointly in NATO, the Common Wealth and the United Nations on aspects like democracy promotions, the broad human security issues and human rights. Britain supported Canada’s initiative in achievement of treaty which led to the abolition of anti personal land mines. This issue was very important in establishing the international consensus which eventually succeeded.

Defense relations are particularly very close with many mutual ventures in training, operations and significance defense procurement in all directions. In everyday life every one needs security for both property and life. This is due to increased incidences of criminal activities all over the world due to factors like unemployment, high poverty rates among other factors. The political relations have provided defense relations in turn where by the operations in defense and training are carried on collectively (Seligson 1979, pg 58). Through this case, one state can easily learn new defense strategies and mechanisms from another state thus improvement of technology.

In June 1997, Chrétien who was the prime minister and Blair discussed and signed a joint declaration reaffirming the potency of the bilateral relationship and also pointed it towards the future. Such relationship intensified cooperation and contacts in many sectors. This initiative succeeded with agreements in research use of internet in education, heritage civil exchange services and in the private sector where both countries aerospace firms and industries develop a cooperate framework which is inspired by the joint declaration. As a result, new types of cooperation continue to evolve.

The public relationship played an important role in every day’s life because some sectors like internet education are not common to all countries. When this joint declaration was signed, people could further in studies while at their home countries. This was facilitated by use of new technology of internet application in technology. Also other fields like research were facilitated because researchers could travel to other countries to conduct the exercise without any restrictions.

More so, civil service exchanges were available. This helped in that; experts would be employed in other countries where there is a shortage of such services to assist in specific areas. In turn, this crease a positive impact in everyday life because services are delivered where needed at the right time by the government. For instance, in case of outbreak of a certain killer disease, solution would be arrived at quickly through seeking assistance from well equipped nations to handle the problem.

After the May 1997 election, a new era in United Kingdom politics was opened (Trommier 1990, pg 76). Tony Blair’s labor party won by positioning new labor as a party of moderation, a centrist foreign party, committed to economic prosperity and reform of the United Kingdom political system. Immediately, the government delivered its promise to devolve power to Wales and Scotland where the modern parliament in the case Assembly and Scotland in Cardiff are currently operating. When this case is linked with everyday life, it positively impacted the economic prosperity because of addressing the weak economic countries and carry out the necessary reforms. It also improved the political systems in the associated countries.

References

Bishop D, (1952). Soviet Foreign Relations: Documents & Readings. Syracuse.

Seligson M, (1979). Politics and the Poor – Vol. 2. New York.

The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community counting 27 countries located predominantly in Europe. The EU takes control over the countries through the system of independent institutions and intergovernmental organizations operated by the member states.

The main policy of the EU lies in developing a single market through ensuring free movement of goods, services, people, and capital. One of the main policies integrated by the EU involves monetary union. This policy represents the control of fiscal and economic policies and a common currency, the euro.

In total, these countries constitute the euro area. Certainly, the integrated economic and monetary union produces a plethora of advantages for the members of the European community in terms of a single market and free exchange of products and services.

However, there have been rigid debates concerning the optimal conditions for creating Eurozone countries with a single currency area due to the inflexibility of monetary policy. The point is that individual member states fail to act independently, which prevents the countries from printing money to pay their creditors and diminish the risk of default.

As a result of the above-presented problems, the European sovereign debt crisis occurred, leading to the difficulties to re-finance the debts without support of the third parties.

At the end of 2009, a sovereign debt crisis became serious due to the increase in private and public government debt levels all over the world along with a range of debts in European countries (Berend 2012). The ramifications of the crisis were different in various countries.

In some member states, private debts emerged because of the property bubble that were turned into a sovereignty debt due to the banking bailouts and government reactions to lower levels of economic post-bubble. Hence, although there is one currency for the region, pension plans and taxation remain different in the European countries.

The currency limits the states’ possibility to stand various financial problems. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the policy in order to develop a more flexible system of single currency operating (Berend 2012).

The consistency should be connected with integrating the single taxation scheme in all countries, as well as creating an optimal fiscal and pension systems for the population.

Before developing a unified economic system, these problems should be solved by organizing international meetings and specialized committees that can scan the environment and highlight the most vulnerable areas of the EU economy.

Rationale for the Action: Negotiations and Decisions Made

After the 2009 crisis, the EU institutions have started working on a common legal instrument that could stabilize the financial situation in Europe by providing financial assistance to European countries experiencing serious economic difficulties.

As a result, the European Financial Stability Facility was created in 2010 to stand the debt crisis through organizing specific funds to provide loans to the countries in need (James 2012). However, the development of new funds and reserves does not provide a viable solution to the problems of financial flexibility in the countries.

The peculiarities of various economies, such as that of export-driven Germany and high-tax level France, create serious challenges for the European Community to strike the balance between single currency and fluctuations in taxes, fiscal policies and property issues.

In addition, Hullett et al. (2010) supports the idea that the performance of the EU currency creates high unemployment rates, varied output, and investment growth problems. As a result, the performance of the euro undermines the efficiency of the single market development in practice.

With regard to the above-presented problems, non-action, superficial policy does not introduce improvements to the currency system and can even aggravate the situation (Fioramonti 2012).

It is highly important for the EU to be more sensitive toward local markets through creating statistics centers and surveys evaluating the readiness of the countries to accept the single monetary system.

The rational of this strategy is fully justified because the global market development in the European region is impossible without considering the specifics of local markets and financial systems.

Background of the Situation

Due to the financial instability and unequal access of the European countries, there is a growing tendency in economic disintegration due to the absence of common fiscal practices that have great pressure on the European Community (Hanson et al. 2011).

Therefore, the Euro was initially created to ensure financial integration of the European countries, but the massive financial difference between member states does not allow the countries to bailout the crisis that do not address the actual root of the problem.

According to Hanson et al. (2011, p. 24), “the real concern now is with Spain and Italy…they are much larger economies and have far bigger debt than Greece, so if they default, the consequences will be dire for the Euro”.

Further, the introduction of the European Central Bank has provided new problems to the EU monetary and economic integration. At a glance, the new financial reforms produce a number of improvements in terms of investment, employment, and growth.

However, much deeper considerations provide the evidence distinction between long-termed and short-termed problems, including increased unemployment rates in some countries and increase in financial stability in other countries.

At the beginning of the Euro formation, eleven countries has joined the union and accepted a single currency. However, their inflation levels were diverse and, as a result, the group was supported by the three best performed states – France, Austria, and Ireland.

According to Welfens (2001, p. 4), “the costs of disinflation … have leveled, and no further significant increase of unemployment should occur as expected and actual inflation rates have converged at a very low level”.

In this respect, the history of euro formation shows that the problems occurred to local levels of economy were ignored by the community, which has led to diverse rates of integration (Buti and Sapir 2002).

Monetary union focuses more on a global political decision according to which the selection criteria has not been premised on the optimum currency framework, but on the convergence criteria.

The analysis of future perspectives of the EU commission requires reconsideration of the single currency system because it can become a problem for Britain in terms of exchange rate. In particular, there are a number of factors that undermine democracy system and budgeting principles.

Democratization of the European currency, as well as the European Central Bank is crucial due to the deficiency in political system inconsistency.

In addition, the Commission criticizes the EU government that acts illegally by ignoring the need to punish Germany and France for infringing the budget rules (Implications of the Euro: A Critical Perspective from the Left n. d.).

The unequal treatment of countries of the EU is also connected with the inflexibility of the euro principles, as well as the role of ECB. In order to eliminate the problems, the local economies should be analyzed in more detail to face the requirements of the single area.

Description of Possible Strategies for Reducing the Currency Inflexibility

As it has been mentioned briefly, the main approach to reducing the unemployment rates and removing the diverse economic and financial rates in countries implies developing reforms that can introduce greater sensitivity to local markets to be ready to face challenges of diverse requirements and budgeting rules in various countries (Cline and Wolff, 2012).

What is more important is that the currency should be congruent with the taxation systems in the countries. Certainly, modifying the taxation systems in countries undermines other financial and political spheres, but the introduction of a singly currency should not be premised on a one-dimensional approach.

In fact, the policy should cover all spheres of country’s life, including social plans, budgeting, financial funding, investment, taxation system, and pension schemes (Credit Matters: The European debt crisis – a solution? 2011). Lack of awareness can lead to even greater difficulties and economic disintegration.

In order to the fight unemployment and unequal inflation rates, specific emphasis should be placed on developing new budget disciplines that could solve the problem of the deep crisis.

In this respect, Ségol (2012, p. 70) insists that the current paradigm for reducing the inflexibility implies “cutting pay and social welfare, attacking bargaining mechanisms and making employment contracts ultraflexible”.

In this respect, there should be a relatively equal level of salaries and wages that can allow the governments to predict further complications and losses, as well as avoid inequality among the employees.

Second, introducing the art of negotiation is crucial in all spheres of political control that should be assigned to a single political organ that regulates all financial transactions.

As a result, the development of a common fiscal system would allow the EU to create a community where the crisis in one country will not affect the situation in other countries.

In this respect, Fontevecchia (2012, p. 82) explains, “banks and pension funds in Europe can choose between many different sovereign bonds to operate, leading to a relocation of capital in times of stress that can put intense pressure on borrowing costs”.

Absence of analogous institutions in countries, such as gilts in the UK do not have analogues in other countries, provides fewer restrictions on the borrowing costs. In this case, governments of the EU should actively participate in negotiating for price, tax levels, and wages (Baimbridge and Whyman 2003).

It is also important for a government to establish a common system of informing the population about the shifts in prices. One the one hand, earlier stages of the funds relocation can cause serious protests on the part of the countries with greater financial opportunities.

Therefore, they could be reluctant to cede their political and economic positions. On the other hand, the development of a strong European Community requires the acceptance of certain risks.

Finally, focus on the root of the problem, rather than on its cause, can allow the European Union. In this respect, Adams (2012) asserts that the Greece crisis has becomes the starting point of the debt challenge.

In addition, the researcher argues that the fall of tax revenues, as well as social safety net, does not contribute to the debt reduction (Barston 2006). On the contrary, focus on the local market should be confined to total rejection of the previous currency and price rates and absolute penetration to the EU space.

Hence, the member states should accept a genuine political union, with permanent transition of independence from the country’s capitals to the center of the European community.

The Implications of the Action

Regulating local budgets and reducing deficit spending should be included into future EU treaties because they can ensure closer economic union among the member states. However, these regulations have already been violated by the Great Britain with the Czech Republic and Hungary.

The reluctance to obey the established rules is explained by the desire of power-states to establish dictatorship. Hence, historic circumstances play a crucial role in strengthening the political and economic positions of such countries as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Austria.

However, the European Union implies the development of relatively equal opportunities for all the participants (Buttsowrth n. d.). As a result, the governments should reconsider the issue of power to be able to compromise.

Further, the Greek crisis proves that the problems in a separate region have a tangible impact on other participants and, therefore, the necessity for creating a single political organ regulating financial and economic issues is crucial (Lynn 2010).

In particular, the created equality in access to the financial resources, as well as stable pricing policy, will eliminate further rises in currency devaluation in the country.

Conclusion

The development of UE monetary system ensuring the flow of the single current in Europe ensures greater exchange of good, services and people. Moreover, it simplifies the transport system control and allows the EU members to freely move from one country to another.

However, apart from the proposed advantages there are a number of shortcomings of the policy, such as unemployment rates, inflexibility, and diverse tax levels in countries. In this respect, the proposed strategy refers to the analysis of local markets and absolute transition to an absolute currency system.

Stabilizing tax payments and introducing relatively equal wages provide a new platform for the EU development. These recommendations should lead to ensure successful transition to a single market system.

Reference List

Adams, T 2012, ‘When Greece Exits The Euro’, Coloradobiz, 39, 7, p. 10.

Baimbridge, M and Whyman, P 2003, Economic and Monetary Union in Europe: Theory and Practice. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.

Barston, RP 2006, Modern Diplomacy, Pearson Education, London.

Berend, I 2012, Europe in Crisis: Bolt from the Blue?, Routledge, New York.

Buti, M, and Sapir A 2002, Economic and Monetary Union and Economic Policy in Europe, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.

Buttsowrth, M n. d., Democracy and Debt – the European Debt Crisis, Mat Buttsworth, US.

Cline, WR, and Wolff, G 2012, Resolving the European Debt Crisis, Peterson Institute, US.

‘Credit Matters: The European debt crisis – a solution?’ 2011, Euroweek, 1209, p. 82.

Fioramonti, L 2012, Regions and Crises: New Challenges for Contemporary Regionalisms, Palgrave Macmillan, US.

Fontevecchia, A 2012, ‘How to Solve Europe’s Sovereign Debt Crisis, SocGen Style’, Forbes.Com, p. 24.

Hanson, G, Kovacs, R, & Lanham, P 2011, ‘The global economy — lessons learned’, Money Management, 25, 31, p. 24.

Hullett, AJH, Mooslechner, P, and Schurz, M 2010, Challenges for Economic Policy Coordination within European Monetary, Springer, New York.

Implications of the Euro: A Critical Perspective from the Left n. d., Routledge, New York.

James, H 2012, Making the European Monetary Union, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, US.

Lynn, M 2010, Bust: Greece, the Euro and the Sovereign Debt Crisis, John Wiley & Sons, US.

Ségol, B 2012, ‘Towards growth and a “social contract” for Europe’, OECD Observer, 290/291, pp. 70-71.

Welfens, PJ 2001, European Monetary Union and Exchange Rate Dynamics: New Approaches and Application to the Euro. Springer, New York.

Abstract

Within the European Union, institutions can implement powers that have been bestowed upon them by the member states. As such, execution of fundamental rights is usually at the state level.

This paper investigations the perimeter of such a decentralised usage of the fundamental rights recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights as values which the Member States have in like manner, and it displays the open technique for coordination as an issue to move past these cut-off points without suggesting further transferrals of forces from the Member States to the Union.

A first piece of the article reviews the current understanding of the relationship between the security of fundamental rights inside the Union and the inquiry of abilities. Second, the paper proposes an option perspective of that relationship, taking into account the instinct that an endeavour by the Union to appreciation fundamental rights may suggest, in particular cases, a positive commitment to represent the satisfaction of fundamental rights.

In fields where the skills are imparted between the Member States and the Union, the open technique for coordination may be seen as an issue component to distinguish where an activity of the Union may be needed, because of the externalities, both constructive and adverse, which the activities of every Member State creates on the various States, with which they impart a typical zone of flexibility, security and justice– a range in which, specifically, the free development of persons and the free procurement of administrations are ensured and in which rivalry is to be free and undistorted.

Additionally, the open strategy for coordination could be a satisfactory method for better accommodating the prerequisites of business sector (monetary) opportunities constitutive of the inside business with crucial rights, particularly social rights, which the Member States are sure to ensure and actualise under their ward.

In conclusion, the open system for coordination could be seen as a consolation to common adapting, as the arrangements favoured in certain Member States may motivate the selection of comparative arrangements in other Member States, particularly where such replication maintains a strategic distance from the hazard that the usage of fundamental rights at the level of each one State reproduce deterrents inside the inner market or obstruct the collaboration between the Member States in the territory of flexibility, security and justice.

Introduction

The relationship between the open technique for coordination and the assurance of fundamental rights might right away be portrayed by the potential strain between two bearings in which the institutional advancements inside the Union have been diverted (Búrca 2003a).

One set of improvements could be described by the quest for a ‘high manifestation of constitutionalism’ prompting ‘the moulding of a compelling and obvious EU government’. An alternate, differentiating, set of improvements, could be portrayed by setting up of a thick and composite arrangement of administration close by the formal structures of government, best illustrated by the open system for coordination in the fields of work, social strategies, and the change of the benefits framework.

Under the in the first place, sacred, mode of government, fundamental rights work as an issue to the activity of the forces of the EU establishments and the Member States going about as decentralised European organisation. This compares to the capacity they have satisfied up to now in the arrangement of the Union, and which the reception of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2000 looked for just to affirm.

Considered from the perspective of the second mode of administration, major rights show up not just as points of confinement forced from the outside to the activity of the forces which exist inside this multilevel manifestation of administration, yet they could likewise satisfy a positive part.

In reality, they could serve to arrange the utilisation of these instruments the Member States and the establishments now have available to them – benchmarking, trades of data and the recognisable proof of great practices, assessment of encounters and the advancement of imaginative practices, and maybe defend growing the response to these new modes of administration to the execution of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a rule.

This paper looks to recognise the handiness of the open system for coordination for the execution of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It proposes a path in which this may be imagined in practice, and accordingly it analyses the conditions under which such an expansion of the open strategy for coordination may be fruitful.

It relates this new and extended part for the open system for coordination to the inquiry of the division of forces between the Union and the part states, and to the thought of administrative rivalry between the states.

In substance, this exposition investigates the cut-off points of a decentralised execution of the fundamental rights recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights as qualities which the Member States have in like manner, and it displays the open technique for coordination as an issue to move past these points of confinement without intimating further transferrals of forces from the Member States to the Union.

Fundamental Rights and issue of proficiency

The guarding capacity that fundamental rights have satisfied in the arrangement of the Union is generally reported. Fundamental rights were transported in and created in the legitimate request of the Union to react to the anticipation that the transferral of forces from the Member States to the European Union would bring about reducing the level of assurance delighted in by the people under the national lawful frameworks.

This clarifies both the introductory advancement of fundamental rights as general standards of EC law by the European Court of Justice, and the translation by the Court of the optional enactment which tries to offer a negligible level of security of fundamental rights at the level of the Union or opposite the foundations of the Union (Coppel & O’Neill 1993).

Fundamental rights as external threshold

Fundamental rights are thought about in the structure of the Union as points of confinement, and not as an issue to satisfy. They make certain demarcations that cannot be undermined; they do not demonstrate the course in which to make headway.

This trademark has been most unmistakably communicated by the European Court of Justice in the Opinion 2/94 that was conveyed on the inquiry of the promotion of the European Community to the European Convention on Human Rights. It expressed that the Community foundations don’t have available to them a ‘general force to establish leads on human rights or to close global traditions in this field’, in spite of the fact that it didn’t address that appreciation for human rights constituted a ‘state of legality of Community acts’.

The centrality of these announcements has been tremendously wrangled in convention. Specifically, Ph. Alston and J.H.H. Weiler have underlined that the Court in that Opinion at no time proposed that ‘the security of human rights was not a target of the Community, nor did it say that the Community needed fitness to enact in the field of human rights’ (Alston & Weiler 1999).

The Convention in charge of the drafting of the Treaty securing a Constitution for Europe, on the other hand, appears to have received the inverse perspective, by considering that fundamental rights as a rule don’t constitute a destination of the Union, albeit a percentage of the qualities recorded in the Charter of Fundamental Rights have been raised to the level of targets of the Union.

This last view, in fact, appears to speak to the prevailing conclusion. Human rights are stipulations which the establishments of the Union need to consider in all their exercises. On a fundamental level, they are not targets to be satisfied by the foundations in the activity of their forces. According to that context, fundamental rights stay outer points of confinement forced on the Union.

The impartiality on distribution of expertise between the Union and the Member States

Second and all the more in a general sense, the instrumental mode through which major rights were transported in inside the established structure of the Union – all the more definitely: the way they were included to that structure – intimates a division between the rationale which managed the division of abilities between the Member States and the European Economic Community, and now the European Community and the Union, from one perspective, and the rationale of fundamental rights, then again.

Up to this point, these two inquiries have been dealt with as plainly different. How the forces ought to be imparted, or ascribed, has never been settled on the premise of the outcomes the diverse modalities would create on the security of crucial rights.

Rather, when the talk on fundamental rights rose in the connection of the EEC in the late 1960s, the security of fundamental rights through the general standards of Community law was introduced as important to utmost the dangers involved for the privileges of the single person by the confirmation of the supremacy of European Law on the national law of the Member States and the distinguishment of its coordinate impact inside the national legitimate requests.

The need to admiration fundamental rights, therefore, went hand in hand with the transferral of forces. Yet the association went just in that bearing: the transfer of powers to the Community and the Union, on a fundamental level, has not been advocated by the need to guarantee a viable assurance of major rights.

Fundamental rights – Different than basic market freedoms

In spite of the obvious hesitance of the European Court of Justice to peruse social rights into the Treaty of Rome past those which are expressly perceived, the Court did acknowledge that States may defend forcing certain obstructions with the free development of merchandise, the free procurement of administrations, or opportunity of rivalry, where these impedances were defended by the need to save certain social rights or to advance targets of a social nature.

Nevertheless, the point of concern is whether the objectives have been met or not (Barnard 1996; Davies 1993; Deakin 1996; Kenner 2003). This is obviously to be invited.

It highlights, on the other hand, a third outcome on the status of fundamental rights in the EU lawful request of their instrumental nature, i.e., of the way that fundamental rights were foreign made inside EU law keeping in mind the end goal to secure the Union from the allegation that the development of its powers would bring about bringing down the assurance of the rights which the people appreciated under the national legitimate frameworks.

Surely, in this connection, where a clash emerges between the supposed ‘crucial opportunities’ perceived by the EC Treaty and the insurance of fundamental rights, the European Court of Justice has a tendency to acknowledge that the last target may advocate that certain confinements be forced on the previous, yet just to the degree that forcing such an impediment is vital for a Member State to appreciation its commitment towards human rights.

The further a State wishes to go on the way of the dynamic acknowledgment of human rights, the more troublesome it might be for the State to legitimise such confinements. This relationship between financial flexibilities constitutive of the inside business and fundamental rights – especially social rights – is obviously an outcome of the diverse capacities these sureties satisfy in the protected structure of the Union.

As communicated by Nicholas Barnard, business rights have been conjured in a hostile mode against measures received by Member States vulnerable of frustrating the acknowledgment of the inner business (Bernard 2003). By method for complexity, social rights have essentially been conjured in an opposing, to secure national capability from Community law invasions prone to have a negative effect on national frameworks of social security.

The intermediate view

There exists, accordingly, the established perspective, which Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights looked to solidify; and there exist the building squares for an option view, which would profoundly stretch the extent of use of the fundamental rights perceived inside the lawful request of the Union, contribute the Union with an order to understand them, and make the assignment of skills between the Union and the Member States subordinate to the need to guarantee the successful assurance of fundamental rights, as opposed to have this insurance rely on upon the current portion of abilities.

A third view might likewise be safeguarded. This perspective does not keep itself to the established understanding of the capacity of fundamental rights inside the protected structure of the Union; not one or the other does it deliver the sweeping outcomes the option see recently exhibited may involve, which are dreaded by numerous and would absolutely change the European Union into an association committed to the advancement and assurance of human rights.

The point of contention is to understand the extent to which the Charter of Fundamental Rights could be considered to accomplish its principles (Búrca 2003b).

Forces to create fundamental rights strategy for the Union

The moderate perspective investigated here is this. With a specific end goal to encourage agreeability with the positive commitments got from the Charter, the Union ought to be perceived suggested forces to understand certain fundamental privileges of the Charter, when these harmonise with targets the Union needs to satisfy; despite the fact that the crucial rights arrangement of the Union ought not prompt the transferral of supplementary skills to the Union.

It might be focused around the requirement for the Union to practice the forces it imparts to the Member States, where the decentralised usage of fundamental rights produces imperfect results; at long last, a commitment to act to actualise the privileges of the Charter at the level of the Union may be forced, specifically, where separating methodologies to fundamental rights danger making an impediment to the key opportunities of development perceived by Union law – at present, by the EC Treaty.

In addition, as the Member States are bound by the Charter in the execution of Union law, they may be obliged not just to avoid abusing the privileges of the Charter when they execute Union law, additionally to take measures to guarantee that fundamental privileges of the Charter will be completely ensured in the concerned territories. Even though the implementation of fundamental rights does not have a reference in EU’s objectives, Opinion 2/94 has implications for the same (Weiler & Fries 1999).

Constructive commitments drawn from the Charter

It can’t be rejected from the earlier that the Charter may force such a commitment on the Union organisations (Alston & Weiler 1999). Article 51(1) of the Charter specifies that the organisations and bodies of the Union and the Member States, to which the Charter is tended to, are gratified to advance the implementation of the rights and standards contained in the Charter.

The detailing proposes in any event that the drafters of the Charter perceived that it may force commitments past the simply negative obligation to keep away from meddling without avocation with these rights and standards (Maduro 2003). This ought not to be seen as being in strain with the procurement as indicated by which the Charter does not secure any new power or assignment for the Community or the Union, or alter powers and undertakings characterised by the Treaties (Article 51(2)).

In reality, as obviously perceived for example by the Working Group II ‘Consolidation of the Charter/promotion to the ECHR’ comprised inside the European Convention, where similar inquiry emerged as the Group surveyed the effect that the increase of the Union to the ECHR would have on the division of forces between the Member States and the Union, the activity of existing powers with a specific end goal to adjust to fundamental rights does not sum to the transferral of new powers.

Given the solid connection which the drafters of the Charter have looked to keep up between that instrument and the European Convention on Human Rights, in addition, this thinking for every similarity appears to be consummately reasonable. It is in accordance with the thought that, as the Charter of Fundamental Rights constitutes an instrument for the security of human rights, it ought to be deciphered likewise, and thusly ought to be seen as fit for forcing positive commitments where this seems, by all accounts, to be needed for the powerful insurance of those rights.

Barnard (2000) and Wedderburn (1992) contend that in an attempt to minimise the level of safeguarding fundamental rights, member states have a tendency to enter competition with their counterparts as far as deregulation of economic activities is concerned.

The meaning of an abnormal state of insurance of fundamental rights under Union law

Obviously, the Member States are certain to admiration the Charter of Fundamental Rights when they actualise Union law. It is expressed, on the other hand, that Union law itself ought to specify the assurances got from the Charter, as opposed to abandon it to the Member States to distinguish such ensures when they perform in the extent of use of Union law, under the control of the European Court of Justice.

The Member States are under commitment to uphold fundamental rights when they perform in the area of utilisation of Union law. This is not a substitute for guaranteeing, in every particular circumstance, that these rights will without a doubt be completely regarded by the Member States in this system.

A positive commitment ought to be forced on the Union administrator to guarantee that where it intercedes, and accordingly develops the extent of use of EU law, it builds its intercession with respect to an abnormal state of insurance of fundamental rights.

In reality, where an EU instrument characterises rather a certain insignificant level of assurance of certain fundamental rights or makes for the profit of the Member States certain special cases, this may make the feeling that gave they agree that instrument or stay inside the limits set by that exemption, the Member States are acting in congruity with the necessities of fundamental rights – an impression which, albeit in specific cases mixed up, may be hard to disperse.

Also, a preventive methodology of the dangers of crucial rights being disregarded, over a methodology which satisfies itself with the presence of a post hoc legal control including an audit of whether the Member States follow fundamental rights when they act under Union law.

To be sure, this last approach brings about subordinating the level of insurance of fundamental rights to the extent of the forces of the European Court of Justice and the components through which these forces may be worked out. Three different contemplations may be advanced to defend this assertion on a preventive methodology, in light of the burden of a positive commitment on the Union legislator.

Conclusion

European Union nations are bound by the EU Charter; the Charter includes details of human rights that have been approved by the EU. European Union nations have an obligation towards implementing the EU law but at the same time, they have to ensure that the fundamental rights of their citizens are not compromised under any circumstances.

As such, the Charter has become an effective tool for the people. By virtue of their fundamental rights, they are authorised to question the EU and/or its member states if they fail to deliver according to the provisions of the Charter.

The Charter also assists policy makers to formulate policies and strategies that are in congruence with the human rights requirements. Member states are individually responsible for upholding the fundamental rights of their citizens. In order to assist them in this endeavour, various courts have been set up to give judgments pertaining to conflicts on fundamental rights.

The penalty for non compliance of EU law is an exemplar of the apprehensions that might arise due to a difference between the commitment to execute the concerned law and the obligations of fundamental rights (Snyder 1993; Fitzpatrick & Szyszczak 1994).

References

Alston, P & Weiler, J H H 1999, ‘An even closer Union in need of a human rights policy: the European Union and human rights’, in Ph Alston, M Bustelo & J Heenan (eds), The EU and human rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 24-25.

Barnard, C 1996, ‘The economic objectives of Article 119’, in T Hervey & D O’Keeffe (eds), Sex Equality Law in the European Union, Wiley, Chichester.

Barnard, C 2000, ‘Social dumping and the race to the bottom: some lessons for the European Union from Delaware?’, European Law Review, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 57.

Bernard, N 2003, ‘A new governance approach to economic, social and cultural rights in the EU’, in T Hervey & J Kenner (eds), Economic and social rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A legal perspective, Hart Publications, Oxford, p. 249.

Búrca, G 2003a, ‘The constitutional challenge of new governance in the European Union’, E.L.Rev., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 814-839.

Búrca, G 2003b, ‘Fundamental rights and citizenship’, in B de Witte (eds), Ten reflections on the Constitutional Treaty for Europe, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and Academy of European Law, European University Institute, p. 21.

Coppel, J & O’Neill, A 1993, ‘The European Court of Justice: taking rights seriously?’, Common Market L. Rev., vol. 29, no. 1, p. 669.

Davies, P 1993, ‘The Emergence of European Labour Law’, in W McCarthy (eds), Legal intervention in industrial relations: gains and losses, Blackwell Publ., London, pp. 313-359.

Deakin, S 1996, ‘Labour law as market regulation: the economic foundations of European Social Policy’, in P Davies, A Lyon-Caen, S Sciarra & S Simitis (eds), European community labour law: principles and perspectives, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 62-93.

Fitzpatrick, B & Szyszczak, E 1994, ‘Remedies and Effective Judicial Protection in Community Law’, Mod. L. Rev., vol. 57, no. 1, p. 434.

Kenner, J 2003, EU Employment Law. From Rome to Amsterdam and beyond, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, pp. 2-6.

Maduro, M P 2003, ‘The double constitutional life of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’, in E O Erikson, J E Fossum & A J Menendez (eds), The chartering of Europe. The Europe Charter of Fundamental Rights and its constitutional implications, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, p. 199.

Snyder, F 1993, ‘The Effectiveness of European Community Law: Institutions, Processes, Tools and Techniques’, Mod. L. Rev., vol. 56, no. 1, p. 19.

Wedderburn, L 1992, Inderogability, Collective Agreements and Community Law’, Industrial Law Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 245.

Weiler, J H H & Fries, S 1999, ‘A human rights policy for the European Community and Union: the question of competences’, in Ph Alston, M Bustelo & J Heenan (eds), The EU and Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 159-160.

Abstract

Freedom of movement among the citizens of the European Union has taken a progressive and historical process. This began with workers in the steel and coal industry and progressed to the freedom of movement of all persons including ordinary citizens. This study is mainly concerned with the anti-discriminatory clause of the freedom of movement legislation.

There were various forms of discrimination among the EU member states that rendered exercising of the legislation ineffective. The study explores the agenda behind the anti-discrimination directive, decision making process through to its implementation.

The study also examines some of the controversies surrounding the implementation of this directive by the member states. In order to succeed in exercising these rights the EU member countries ought to pursue convergent and well harmonized strategies that match with EU policies.

Introduction

Free movement across the EU member states was founded upon the Maastricht accord, which like the Rome statute did not considers the legislative challenges of these EU affiliate countries in their social system. This brought a new political dimension to the already existing economic integration among the EU member states.

Each and every citizen of the EU affiliate states automatically gains EU citizenship but still retain their national citizenship. On the other hand, EU citizenship increases the economic benefits to the citizens of the EU member’s states as stipulated in the treaty¹.

Maastricht treaty gives EU citizens right to enjoy within the scale of the treaty the same treatment in the law regardless of the nationality.

For that reason, EU citizenship has increased the rights of the persons within the EU member states considerably. EU court of justice ruled that citizens of the EU are eligible to live in any state as citizens, consequently the EU citizenship gives citizens of the EU member states right to move freely across the these countries².

In the EU, the policy for free movement of people is mainly associated with labor mobility. The EU’s Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment could not be achieved without guaranteeing the right of citizens to t lives and work anywhere in the Union. The mobility of workers is encouraged because it brings benefits to the individuals in terms of personal and career development³.

The paper analyses the EU s policy on free movement of people and more specifically the Directive in the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 29 April 2004 (2004/38/EC)⁴.

In the first place, the paper identifies the nature of the policy process, its setting in the EU agenda, the actors who are responsible for its formulation then it evaluates the power and influence exercised in the policy making process, as well as its implementation.

The Nature of free movement of persons

The European Union ability for legislative acts and other initiatives on free movement of people is based legally in the provisions in the Treaties of the European Union. In the treaty of Rome, the universal right of free movement was not enshrined.

It was only the Treaty of Maastricht which introduced the freedom of movement as a fundamental right that the EU citizens have irrespective of whether they have economic activities or not. Article 3 /2/ of the TFEU stipulates that the Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which free movement of persons is ensured⁵.

Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for the freedom of movement of workers who shall move freely within the territory of member States and shall stay in the Member States for the purposes of employment.

The rights of economically-active persons to free movement within the EU have been complemented by limited rights for non-economically-active citizens to move freely within the EU, under Article 20 (1) of the TFEURegulation 1612/1968 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on the freedom of movement of workers within the Community only provides for the free movement of employees⁶.

Agenda setting

Towards the end of 1970s European parliament on all the EU stakeholders to fight forms of discrimination the EU citizens were facing in relation to their freedom of movement within the EU’s jurisdiction⁷. In most occasions the EU council opposed this action arguing that EU had no legal base to deal with this issue.

One of the issues that attracted great concern especially in UK was the protection of the immigrants linked to immigration policies of the individual member states. Debates on appropriate policy to fight racism and xenophobia continued and deepened in 90’s.

The fight against racism also involved policy consultations among non-governmental organizations and action groups which resulted to the formation of European Network against Racism (ENAR). Simultaneously, a group of legal experts from these groups of activists formed Start Line Group (SLG).

This organization became a major tool for policy formulation and also helped in organizations of awareness campaigns to support and promote synchronization of the policies against discrimination of the EU member states⁸.

The above group of activists lobbied rigorously across Europe to acquire the legal basis for the anti-discrimination policy geared towards the preparation of the Amsterdam treaty. Starting Line Group later on supplied the EU commission with a particular draft proposal for the directive on combating religious and racial prejudice.

Their contributions were openly supported and authenticated by the European Parliament which issued a number of resolutions pushing for the EU commission to utilize the SLG proposals as foundation for main proposal, which was accepted by the commission⁹.

The following events were taking place in order to integrate all the debates which were also taking place in the EU member states. Therefore, pushing of this agenda at the European level was very attractive to rights group since they wanted to bypass some o the EU member countries that were reluctant to adopt this policy.

In spite of the obstacles experienced within the EU institution wise, attaining a unanimous decision for safeguarding protection against the above forms of discrimination was very vital in choosing EU as the policy platform¹⁰.

Therefore, the coalition between different set of players with the European parliament and commission with the well organized competence of the Starting Line Group in consolidating information and authenticating support to raise the subject on the agenda was very important.

Policy formulation

Besides the intensive lobbying, the research carried out by the legal experts was also used for awareness and formulation of the legislative proposals. Those who took part in the debate utilized existing research, assigned new research or assumed this role on their own.

In fact, the migration policy group in collaboration with the European Centre on Racism and Xenophobia analysed and compared the proposed legislations from the EU commission and the SLG and the national versions¹¹. This was done to come up with the common ground by accommodating all the proposals to convince the restrained governments. The main distinction between the SLG’s proposal and the Commission’s proposal was the insertion of religion as a basis or discrimination.

This was removed by the EU commission but later re-introduced by the European parliament. Framing the religious subject into the EU agenda as an obstacle to free movement of people was considered to be an effective strategic approach. Another positive aspect was the decision by the commission to handle the issue of racism separately from other forms of discrimination¹².

Decision making

At the proposal stage, the EU commission had most of the influence on the proposal in line with the EU comitolgy in decision making process. The commission voted for the proposal and submitted the draft for adoption in EP and the council who approved it.

The commission took over most of the implementation process. The decision making process was facilitated by a number of factors including domestic politics and tactics from the European parliament. Politics as a factor in the decision making process was very much unpredictable¹³.

Australian election in the year 2003 brought the extreme right Australian freedom party into the then coalition government resulting to solemn concerns and unilateral approval by the rest of the EU member states. This also underpinned the necessitated urgent response from the EU institutions which analysts believe was a crucial factor for quick adoption of the directive.

European parliament strategically narrowed the debate by persuading the EU commission and council to move the directive on racism swiftly. Henceforth, the decision making process took place in a consultative manner, isolating the process behind the close doors of the council thus keep away from the interference.

This was specifically frustrating for the European parliament which had been a more active proponent of the EU obligation against racism. However, the European parliament stepped up its opinion delivery after gaining more seats¹⁴.

With the decision making process clearly in their hands, EU member states managed to control the decision making process and resulted into a weaker directive than the earlier proposals.

Their main topic of debate was based on auxiliary principles, probable cost of implementation, non interference with the national policies on immigration, and a constricted treaty base. Even though, in principle, no EU member country was opposed to the new directive, a number of issues resulted to acrimonious debate for instance impact of the directive on the third country citizens¹⁵.

The great support Australian accorded the proposed directive minimised opposition from the other member states who feared being compared negatively for instance Germany. Earlier declarations and unanimous reaction after election in Australia made it very perilous for any government to exhibit inconsistency in the adoption of the anti-discriminatory legislation.

It should be noted that after the adoption of the directive article 13 and respect for the minority group were also included for new countries joining the European Union¹⁶.

Implementation

The implementation process was both well strategized and followed effective division of work between the external and internal actors. External actors were mainly the NGO’s, who provided the design for the policy and technical know-how while the internal actors were mainly the EU parliament and the commission.EU member states were given 3 years to realign their legislations with the EU directive.

In mid 2004, the EU commission began proceedings for the member states who contravened the EU directive within the July 2003 directive. By the year 2007, complete implementation of the directive was still not yet achieved and additional set of formal appeals from the EU commission was sent to 14 members to fully implement the directive.

Realising the serious loop holes in the implementation process, the European parliament also added its support in calling for the full implementation of the legislation¹⁷.

Some of the agencies promoted by the commission in the anti discrimination campaign faced many challenges until they were restructured with a wider mandate into the EU agency for basic rights. ¹⁸United Kingdom “good fit” is regarded as the most effective piece of legislation on antidiscrimination.

Several countries have also followed the same direction and in some cases surpassing the EU directive for instance France. The political situation in Germany made the implementation process very difficult, similar to Poland and Denmark thus lack of comitology in the implementation process.

Controversy surrounding implementation of the directive

In Germany the implementation of this directive led to higher immigration rate particularly during the electioneering period. The directive clashed with the other receptive issues such as citizenship law and gay marriages which delayed its adoption by the government in that time.

The directive also faced hostility in Poland and Denmark. UK was the strongest opponent of the EU directive on racism arguing that the impasse surrounding discrimination had to be tackled at the country level.

EU court of justice has offered clarification for the interpretation of the directive but the lack of proceedings relating to the racial discrimination has restricted its influence.

A court can only take action when permissible violations of rights are brought to its attention by authentic actors. However, the European court of justice has put a lot of pressure on a number of member states who failed to comply with its directives. But these cases take almost forever to be heard¹⁹.

Local changes among the EU member states that can be traced back the EU-level have somewhat limited. There have been a number of reforms and introduction of new laws in all EU member countries but the facts on the ground reveals that there is a broad difference with little convergence.

The impact of this directive is also very difficult to isolate from other legal and policies adopted by EU and the outsiders relating to anti-discrimination²⁰.

Factors that have brought about convergence of these policies seem to be the compatibility of the directive with the social and political environment in many countries. Introduction of some legislations related to the directive have caused a lot of confusion and snarl up to the implementation process.

For instance one of the requirements of this directive is the setting up of an autonomous body to encourage and promote equality, assist victims and oversee development. However, several years after this clause was added in the gender equality directive it opened arguments in many countries whether to establish a joint or separate bodies encasing several discriminatory issues.

Division of the intricate issues facilitates adoption of the policy but complicates the implementation process²¹. Swift implementation of the EU directive left little time for the public to debate nor reflect on the consequences of the these laws at the country level.

Conclusion

The quest for freedom of movement and legislations that are against all forms of discrimination that affects effective exercising of this freedom have taken an historic and strenuous journey. Following intensive lobbying by the European parliament and NGO’s plus the politics in Australia, the quest for freedom of movement and the legislation against all the discriminatory elements that acts as the obstacle for the same was realised.

The multi-level engagement between the NGO’s and the EU relevant divisions resulted led to daring and ground-breaking piece of legislations with high expectation and standards in the comparatively new policy areas. Despite of the limited role of the European parliament, the process was fairly democratic.

This is evident in the implementation process which was not smooth due to influence from the state quarters. The directive was a break through in the social policy issues but the implementation was relatively weak and deficient.

Bibliography

Bell, M. ‘Beyond European labor Law? Reflection on the EU racial quality, Directive.” European law journal, vol.8, no. 8, 2002, pp. 384-399.

Golynker, O. “Jobseekers’ Rights in the European Union: Challenges of hanging the Paradigm of Social Solidarity”. European Law Review vol. 30 no.1, 2005, pp. 111–22.

Guild, E. The Legal Framework of EU Migration. Working Paper No. 2, Pemint, 2002

Guild E. European Community Law from a Migrant’s Perspective. Katholieke niversiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 2000

Hailbronner, K. “Union Citizenship and Access to Social Benefits.” Common Market Law Review vol.42, 2005, pp. 1245–67

Hix, S. “The political system of the European Union”. UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005

Nanda, VP, Folsom, RH, & Lake, RB. European Union law after Maastricht: a practical guide for lawyers outside the common market. The Hague: Kluwer, 1996

Steiner, J & Woods, L. Twigg-Flesner, Christian’, EU Law (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 56–60.

Verwilghen, M. ‘Thirty Years of Free Movement of Workers in Europe’, Proceedings of the Conference Brussels, European Commission, Brussels, 1998

Weiss, F & Wooldridge, F. “Free Movement of Persons Within the European Community”, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2002

Footnotes

¹ E, Guild , European Community Law from a Migrant’s Perspective, Katholieke niversiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 2000

² K, Hailbronner, “Union Citizenship and Access to Social Benefits”, Common Market Law Review vol.42, 2005, pp. 1245–67

³ M, Bell, ‘Beyond European labor Law? Reflection on the EU racial quality, Directive”, in European law journal, vol.8, no. 8, 2002, pp. 384-399.

⁴ E, Guild, The Legal Framework of EU Migration, Working Paper No. 2, Pemint, 2002

⁵ M, Bell, ‘Beyond European labor Law? Reflection on the EU racial quality, Directive”, in European law journal, vol.8, no. 8, 2002, pp. 384-399.

⁶ O, Golynker, “Jobseekers’ Rights in the European Union: Challenges of hanging the Paradigm of Social Solidarity”, European Law Review vol. 30 no.1, 2005, pp. 111–22.

⁷ S, Hix, “The political system of the European Union”. UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005

⁸ S, Hix, “The political system of the European Union”. UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005

⁹ E, Guild, European Community Law from a Migrant’s Perspective, Katholieke niversiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 2000

¹⁰ M, Bell, ‘Beyond European labor Law? Reflection on the EU racial quality, Directive”, in European law journal, vol.8, no. 8, 2002, pp. 384-399.

¹¹ M, Bell, ‘Beyond European labor Law? Reflection on the EU racial quality, Directive”, in European law journal, vol.8, no. 8, 2002, pp. 384-399.

¹² K, Hailbronner, “Union Citizenship and Access to Social Benefits”, Common Market Law Review vol.42, 2005, pp. 1245–67

¹³V, Nanda, R, Folsom, & R. Lake, “European Union law after Maastricht: a practical guide for lawyers outside the common market”. The Hague: Kluwer, 1996

¹⁴ S, Hix, “The political system of the European Union”. UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005

¹⁵ M, O’Mahony & B, van Ark, “EU productivity and competitiveness: an industry perspective, European Commission”, 2003

¹⁶ VP, Nanda, RH, Folsom, & RB, Lake, “European Union law after Maastricht: a practical guide for lawyers outside the common market”. The Hague: Kluwer, 1996

¹⁷ Weiss, F & Wooldridge, F, “Free Movement of Persons Within the European Community”, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2002

¹⁸ S, Hix, “The political system of the European Union”. UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005

¹⁹ Steiner, J & Woods, L,’ Twigg-Flesner, Christian’, EU Law (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 56–60.

²⁰ Verwilghen, M, ‘Thirty Years of Free Movement of Workers in Europe’, Proceedings of the Conference Brussels, European Commission, Brussels, 1998

²¹ S, Hix, “The political system of the European Union”. UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005

Introduction

For three years now, the Euro zone has experienced major fiscal inadequacies that have threatened to disintegrate the union. The crises have led to categorization of European members as either debtors or creditors. Germany remains to be the most influential creditor within the union while Greece, Spain, Italy and France are among members that have received momentous bailouts from other countries.

Under the prevalent economic and financial policies within the region, the debtors will continue to pay significant amount of risk premiums to finance their debts. Consequently, the policy has plunged some economies into depression and denied some members a competitive advantage.

This is not only in the short term but the trend has also started to be a permanent feature of the respective economies. This position paper asserts that many European Union members will abandon the Euro in the long term due to the ever-increasing fiscal challenges and problems.

Disintegration of the Euro Zone in the Long Term

The current trends in the Euro zone have continued to illustrate the inevitability of disintegration of the European Union. Various reasons are critical in the analysis of the fiscal challenges within the Euro zone. First, economists argue that the Euro Zone is headed for disintegration owing to the fact that some of the policies have become redundant.

Indeed, they say that the introduction of the Euro came about due to a series of mistakes in the formulation of policies. Before its inception, it was almost obvious that the euro was an incomplete currency without a treasury but with a central bank. Members were not quick to realize this mistake and went ahead to give up their sovereign right to print their currencies.

This predisposed them to the high risk of default. Undoubtedly, this became apparent at the start of Greek crises. Upon the onset of the crises, the policy makers within the Euro Zone did not seem to understand the problem. Instead, they erected measures that only made the situation to deteriorate. Outstandingly, lack of cooperation within the Euro Zone was apparent leading to a lack of plan that could alleviate the crises.

In fact, Germany was unwilling to take up increased liabilities leaving few if any chances to resolve the fiscal problems. As the problem spread, it became clear that other members were facing similar challenges. It is only then that Germany attempted to put up minimum measures to hold together the euro owing to the apparent breakup.

As such, lack of cooperation between members of the Euro zone has exacerbated the fiscal crises leading to the assertion that the euro may not hold on for long considering the attitudes of other members. The Maastricht Treaty was a failure from the start. Although the policy aimed at stabilizing countries transitioning into the Euro Zone, it left out some important details that were only apparent during the fiscal crises.

Indeed, the treaty failed to ensure that the Euro Zone had a common treasury where members issued with bonds could have equal obligations. To this end, the Eurobonds printed by the European Central Bank face resistance from many members including Germany. Contrary to the belief of the formulators of the treaty that members will have a political will when the need for common treasury emerges, the political will is lacking.

Despite this mistake, the euro also suffered from other defects that the financial crises of 2007-08 revealed. Further, the Euro Zone continued to rely on the Maastricht treaty that had overlooked the potential inability of the financial markets to correct their own inadequacies. In fact, the treaty formulation came under belief that only the public sector suffers from chronic deficiencies and deficits.

Ideally, fundamentalists in economics would argue that the treaty had correctly articulated the financial markets’ ability to correct their own defects. Nonetheless, the dawn of the financial crises that engulfed the world in 2008 revealed the weaknesses of the Euro. Initially, the European Commission had continued to take the stance that the crises were only fiscal.

To the contrary, only Greece experienced fiscal crises while other countries faced budgetary problems. Besides, they suffer from the lack of competitiveness leading to negative balance of payments (BOP). Instead, the Euro Zone attempted to buy time with the hope that the crises would disappear. In contrast, many countries continued to plunge into recessions.

The level of recession that many countries in the Euro Zone experience has precipitated temporary actions that are not necessarily in line with the objectives of the European Central Bank. Specifically, Spain has attempted to erect measures that have increased its national debt and budgetary deficits. These measures according to the European Commission were not objective and failed to resolve future crises.

Indeed, it is apparent that the measures failed to address the banking regulations, economic growth and unemployment in both the short term as well as in the long term. To this end, many countries have begun to formulate policies that fit their situations as opposed to having one ‘blanket’ policy that governs the entire zone.

In the long term therefore, it will become a difficult task to harmonize the policies in line with the objectives of the European Commission. This is a precipitate of the impending disintegration of the Euro Zone. Finally, many countries that are currently in the Euro Zone and do not suffer from fiscal policies problems have expressed interest to leave the Euro.

Particularly, Prime Minister, David Cameron of Britain has shown dissatisfaction with the euro. The rationale is that the austerity measures erected by the EU have had negative effects on the population due to deceleration in the economic growth. Consequently, this has led to an increase in the rates of unemployment in the country.

In addition, protests across Europe against austerity measures have grown immensely questioning the ability of the euro to remain together. Germans too are a concerned lot. The reason is that the country has used huge amounts of money to loan and bail out member countries whose economies look bleak. As such, it is a matter of time before the Euro collapses.

Conclusion

Since the inception of the euro, many countries were willing to join the common currency. However, the current financial and policy challenges have lend to an inevitable abandonment of the euro. The reason behind the threat is that the euro suffered major faults since its inception.

Lack of cooperation among the members, shortsighted corrective measures, protests against the euro and the austerity measures have exacerbated the situation. To that end, it is important to state that many members of the euro will abandon it in the long term.

Introduction

The free movement of people under the European Union law is set forth in Articles 14(7a) ECT, 1818(8a) ECT, and 61 (73i) ET Seq (IV).¹ The free movement of persons is meant to establish a free market. In order to achieve this, it was also deemed necessary to establish the free movement of capital, goods and services within the jurisdiction of the EU².

The efforts to establish a non-restrictive union have been met with several challenges and some resistance in other instances. Article 39 (ex 48) ECT allows the citizens of EU member states to look for job opportunities, move freely and reside in other member states. However, several limitations are attached to these provisions, such that the movement is not as free as it seems.

The rights mentioned above ought to be justifiable on the basis of public policy and health, as well as public security. Furthermore, the rights do not apply to any person seeking a job opportunity in the public service. A case that was solved in 1980 attempted to solve the problem set forth by the latter condition.

The public service commission held that EU member states ought to clearly tell the difference between public service job opportunities which lie within Article 39 such as the judiciary, police and diplomatic jobs, and those that are not governed by the service such as civil research and educational establishments³.

This paper aims at uncovering such tensions which arise from economic and human aspects of the free movement of persons within the EU. These tensions cannot be measured to any degree but it is agreeable that the EU law and case laws decided upon by the EU’s Court of Justice have played key roles in dealing with these tensions as they arise.

Free movement of workers

The original Treaty that formed the EU did not contain the humanitarian reasons establishing the free movement of persons. These were incorporated later via the Amsterdam Treaty⁴. Before this treaty, the ECT viewed people as economic actors and as such their free movement was allowed on the basis of participation in productive or economic activities. The current treaty that governs free movement of persons under the EU does not discriminate on citizens on the basis of their nationality.

The EU law has helped to deal with tensions by allowing member states to choose whether to allow, restrict or prohibit worker movement (commonly referred to as labor migration) from newly incorporated EU member states⁵. This choice is given bearing in mind that mass movement of unemployed people from a new member may disrupt the activities of the employed people in the already established state.

These restrictions only cover a period of seven years during which the restricting state has to communicate the reasons for restrictions to the Commission. This helps to protect the economic environment of the host country, although on a minimal level. The EU law advises member countries to open up their economic environments to free trade which involves free movement of persons, services, capital and goods.

Ideally, this is an imperative move in enhancing economic development but can be burdensome to some members due to unequal status of economy. This has been of concern to developed economies that run to the EU law for protection against unscrupulous measures that would emanate from developing economies.

The EU law provides for free movement of non-EU workers in an EU member state⁶. The non-EU family members have a conditional right to the freedom of movement within the EU. This is founded on their status as family members of the worker and their nationality. Directive 2004/38/EC allows for entry of non-EU family members into the host country of the worker⁷.

These could be spouses, descendants or dependent children and ascendants. The legal residence of the EU-citizen family member is the ultimate requirement for most cases⁸. It gives the non-EU member a right to reside in the host country. They also retain the right upon the demise of a spouse, separation and when the citizen stops working.

Permanent Residence (PR) is only allowed after five years of legally residing in the host country. Once issued with the PR, the non-EU family member can permanently reside in the host member state irrespective of the relationship with a citizen of the EU. An exception to this was justified in a 2011 case involving a Moldovan wife of a citizen from Romania.

The Irish court sets forth a denial of EU free movement of people’s rights⁹. The woman was denied entry into Ireland even after presenting her Residence Card and a marriage certificate. The Court of Justice is charged with the responsibility of interpreting and ruling on cases brought forth by member states.

In a bid to reduce economic and social tensions, the court has made numerous attempts of combating illicit unemployment, preventing social dumping and unfair competition among members. Its efforts in curbing disturbances to domestic labor markets can also not go unmentioned. Such cases are brought to the court as a way of enhancing protectionist measures aimed at safeguarding a member’s economic interests¹⁰.

The Court often uses the “test of proportionality” to rule on such issues and this plays a major role in reconciling the member interests with those of the EU. The Court of Justice at times justifies the discrimination based on nationality on the criterion of ‘objective grounds’ between citizens and non-citizens of EU member states¹¹.

For instance, the non-discriminatory provisions of Article 48 (2) ECT came into play in a 1998 case. The court held that “…nationals of a member-state shall enjoy, in the territory of another member-state, the same tax advantages as national workers”.¹²

The court had ruled in a similar case in 1994, where it asserted that indirect discrimination came into force in a scenario whereby a member state failed to evaluate the periods of public service work for a citizen of a different EU member. The two cases in point show how the Court of Justice helped to deal with tensions.

Free movement of students

For any student to be accorded the free movement within the jurisdiction of the EU he or she must fulfill two conditions; they must be in possession of adequate resources within their reach. This ensures that they are not a burden on the host country in terms of social aid. The second condition that they are subjected to is possession of health insurance in a bid to deal with risks that they would be exposed to in the receiving country¹³.

Students have a pre-condition of years of residence, when they are viewed as people who have been integrated fully into the host country. Thus, they are eligible for some privileges such as student loans services¹⁴. Under the EU law, free movement of students can only be curtailed on the basis of public health and policy, and national security¹⁵.

The EU law holds that such exceptions must be proportionate and grounded on legal evidence or proof. The student also has a right to appeal, in case they feel the freedom was denied on unfair grounds. With regard to citizenship, the Court of Justice supports assimilation without discrimination on nationality.

It states that “union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of Member States, enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for”.¹⁶

Exceptions to this provision came into play in a 1998 case whereby the court found a Portuguese national by the name Sala, not to be qualified as a worker and therefore not eligible for EU citizens social benefits¹⁷. However, students are allowed to enjoy equal benefits as the citizens of the host country, for as long as they fulfill the two conditions set forth.

Conclusion

The EU law and the Court of Justice have played leading roles in eliminating the tensions propagated by economic and human issues in free movement of persons within the union. The Court is quite efficient in dealing with cases as they arise, and it is significant in providing legal advice on how to deal with economic and social tensions.

One cannot lay a claim that the EU law and the Court have reached a certain measurement in diffusing the tensions. However, the roles they play in the same are felt from time to time. The fact that member states petition their cases in the Court of Justice clearly highlights that people have confidence in the Union laws as well as the Court’s justice system.

Bibliography

Baldono E, ‘The Free Movement of Persons in the European Union: A Legal-Historical Overview’, Pioneur Working Paper, 2003, p. 6.

Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium [1980] ECR 3881.

Craig P and G de Búrca, EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials. (5th edn, Oxford University Press, 2011). P Craig and, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (3rd edn, OUP, 2003).

Craig P.P. & G de Búrca De, EU law: Text, cases, and materials (Oxford University Press, 2011).

El-Agraa A. M, The European Union: Economics and Policies (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

European Commission. Non-EU Nationals. Web.

European Parliament, Freedom of movement for persons,European Parliament Fact Sheets, 2001. Web.

Foster, N.G. EU law: 2007 and 2008. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).

Guild, E & S Carrera, ‘Labour migration & unemployment- what can we learn from EU rules on the Free Movement of Workers?’ CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 2012, p.2.

Jacques Foster v. Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep Case C- 158/07 [2008] ECR I-8507.

Klaus Biehl v. Administration des Contributions du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg [1990] FN1 175/88.

Klaus-Dieter, B. The ABC of European Union law. (European Union Press, 2010).

Margot H, and M Humphreys, European Union law. (7th ed. Oxford University Press, 2012).

Martinez Sala v. Freistaat Beyern Case C-85/96 [1998] ECR I-2691.

R Grzelczyk v Centre Public d’Aide social Case C-184-99 [2002] ECR I-6153 Raducan & Anor -v- MJELR & Ors [2011] IEHC 224.

Scholz v. Opera Universitaria di Cagliari and Cinzia Porcedda C-419/92 [1994] ECR 1-505.

Footnotes

¹ European Parliament, Freedom of movement for persons, European Parliament Fact Sheets, 2001.

² P Craig and G de Búrca, EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials. (5th ed, Oxford University Press, 2011) 1-15.

³Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium [1980] ECR 3881.

⁴ E Baldono, ‘The free movement of persons in the European Union: A legal-historical overview’, Pioneur Working Paper, 2003, p. 6.

⁵Margot H, and M Humphreys, European Union law. (7th ed. Oxford University Press, 2012)110-126.

⁶ A. M, El-Agraa The European Union: Economics and Policies (Cambridge University Press, 2011)45-68.

⁷ B Klaus-Dieter, The ABC of European Union law. (European Union Press, 2010)67.

⁸ European Commission. Non-EU Nationals.

⁹ Raducan & Anor -v- MJELR & Ors [2011] IEHC 224.

¹⁰ E Guild and S Carrera, ‘Labour migration & unemployment- what can we learn from EU rules on the Free Movement of Workers?’ CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 2012, p.2.

¹¹Scholz v. Opera Universitaria di Cagliari and Cinzia Porcedda C-419/92 [1994] ECR 1-505.

¹²Klaus Biehl v. Administration des Contributions du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg [1990] FN1 175/88.

¹³ N.G Foster, EU law: 2007 and 2008. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007)34-55.

¹⁴Jacques Foster v. Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep Case C- 158/07 [2008] ECR I-8507.

¹⁵ P.P Craig and BG De, EU law: Text, cases, and materials (Oxford University Press, 2011)65.

¹⁶R Grzelczyk v Centre Public d’Aide social Case C-184-99 [2002] ECR I-6153.

¹⁷Martinez Sala v. Freistaat Beyern Case C-85/96 [1998] ECR I-2691.

Introduction

In the studies related to European Union, a significant contribution has been made by the article “Security, Social Control, Democracy and Migration within the ‘Constitution’ of the EU” by D. Melossi (2005).

Description of an article

The article significantly addresses the importance of the emerging concept of social control in the place of the decaying concept of state based on Foucault’s criticism of a ‘theory of the State.’ intending to imply the meanings of the present efforts to make a ‘Constitution’ for the European Union. For this attempt, the article sets aside the questions that relate to America. The article deals in detail with the various aspects of the theory and the conditions needed for the common constitution for the European Union. The concepts such as democracy, social control, and ‘the state’ that originated in America are discussed in detail in comparison with the European environment.

From all these discussions, the paper proceeds to the more significant factors that contribute to the central concern of the paper as they relate to the European Union. The possibility of a ‘democratic constitutionalization’ of Europe suggested by Dieter Grimm is analyzed in detail as it responds to the central concern of the paper. The paper addresses the question, in great detail and with much logic, regarding the possibility of a common European constitution. Another central concern of the paper has been in finding the relation among language, social control, and a democratic European constitution and this process the paper specifically focuses on the relationships among migration, criminalization, and security which has been the result situations of today’s Europe as a sort of basis for evaluation of those connections. The article makes an ultimate conclusion that a common language for Europe, as it is the elementary condition, is of paramount relevance, to the European Union, its democracy and Constitution, and for the concept of ‘social control’.

Conclusion

The common European language is the first step toward an actual European will to be expressed which in turn will realize the idea of ‘European Union’ and thus the article makes a pertinent and emphatic statement about European Union and its procedures.