For a very log time Turkey has been trying all possible ways of becoming a member state of the European Union, the hardship of Turkey’s entry into the European Union has been necessitated by several purposes. for the people who have been on the Opposing of Turkey’s consideration into the European Union has been among other things the large size of the country of Turkey, the poverty state of Turkey being higher and the significantly difference in culture of Turkey as a country being different from the other European Unions member countries. But some critics have reasoned out that the consideration of Turkey into the European Union could be a great benefit and have so many advantages to the progress of the European Union.
The Advantages of Becoming E.U’s Member State
One of the outstanding advantages that the European Union will defiantly gain is the enhancement of the relationship of Islamic dominated countries and the European Union, since Turkey is a country which has a mixture of religion in bigger percentages.
Europe union without absorbing Turkey to be one of its definite member states is like a father abandoning his legitimate child. Since time immemorial Turkey has been a major player in the European History, in history Turkey fought in conjunction with Europeans against their enemies the likes of Russians in the famous Crimean War. it is also quit evident in the modern day and age that Turks have always been anxious of becoming part of the European Union to bring forth there various culture and political structures to be harmonized by the European Union and to contribute to the vast diversity of culture and ideology in the Union and as well known diversity is abundance.
The prospected Turkish membership into the European Union will potentially deliver tangible benefits for both Turkey and the European Union. There seems to be strategic benefits from the prospected union as regards security enhancement in the region. If the progressive rise in turkeys economical status continues and then it is allowed membership in the European Union then it follows that these will also reflect on the regional economic growth of the European Union. The two economies at the moment have already laid good integrated customs union. Hence it follows that the membership of Turkey into the European Union will lead to opening of new trading ties and rising of new up markets in the region and also in Turkey (Flex, 2000).
The acceptance of Turkey to join the European Union will enhance the economic and political strength of European, the union can become strong enough to an extent of being able to make potential influence to the rest of the world by for example advocating for useful global policies using the masses it could be having given that it has many member states. Turkey is a country which is strategically and geographically well placed on the globe and the European Union defiantly needs such a distinct and well placed country so as become a balancing and harmonizing zone of the European Union between China and the United States of America.
Turkey is the largest nations in Europe and has been known Historically as the friend to the United States of America the country is also situated in what can be seen as crossroads of the European continent, Asian continent and the entire Middle East, hence this has placed Turkey to be a well renowned global center of trade activities between the Central Asian countries, the Commonwealth countries, the middle east countries, southeastern Europe and southwestern Asia. The large population of turkey also offers a good market expansion for the European Union hence the union can truly benefit incase Turkey become its member state.
Turkey, however being regarded as one of the poor countries in the Northern part of the world can be of advantage to the European Union since if it is allowed to be a member of the European Union the Union can only spend less time boost Turkeys economic development, which has been the case in other poor economically rising countries, such as Spain then in the long run it will be an economically stable country and will provide the Union with ready and massive marker and the numbers it needs to become an influential union.
European Union when Turkey will become a member is projected to bring better food safety, this is projected so owing to the fact that Turkey is the largest country in Europe and hence has a massive agricultural productivity potentiality which will be able to sustain and feed the populations of Europe and facilitate the available industries with raw materials.
The illegal migration of people from Turkey to other countries of Europe will drastically be solved if Turkey becomes a member of the European Union this will be so since for Turkey to join the EU it has to improve economically and have sustainable development, and it is known that countries with stable economy will have less illegal migrates to other countries (Klein, et al. 2006).
One of the major prospects that Turkey’s membership in the European Union can bring is the aspect of Environmental sustainability this is because Turkey of recent years has started initiating and implementing the environmental requirements which are deemed necessary for it to qualify for the European Union Membership. These Environmental issues are a very high priority in the European Union and hence Turkey is most likely to upgrade the standards of environmental conservation and sustainability in Europe.
Conclusions
The pros and cons of the Turkey’s European Union membership could be regarded as one of the current contradicting issues in European the modern day and age. this has been due to the differences in culture for Turkey to the other European countries; its low economic power and per capita Gross Net Product being so low that it could consume the entire European Union development funds, the differences in policies and religious laws that exist in Turkey are quit different from the ones in the rest of the other European Union Counties, and the low recognition of Turkey on human rights has been used to continue denying a chance to Turkey o f becoming a member of the European Union. Therefore the European Union has always indicated that for Turkey to join them all the issues which prevent harmonization of Turkey and the Union first addressed so as to be able to comfortable allows it to become a member and help the European Union to balance off against the upcoming industrial super powers of China and India. But several critics are arguing out that Turkey is still very well placed o becoming a full fledged European Union Member state (Bruce, et al. 2004).
References
Bruce, A., et al. (2004) European Union and Turkey: Implications for Structural Policy and Development, Cambridge University Publishing.
Flex, F. (2000) European and Trade: The Merchants of Turkey and Genova, Cambridge University Press.
Klein, D., et al. (2006) Mixed benefits of agriculture and business in the European countries, Ecology journal.
Developed nations are able to afford better living standards compared to developing countries. As a result, most developing countries seek to trade with developed countries in order to increase market for their products. This is also propagated by the fact that people in developed countries have a high purchasing power due to high income levels in such countries.
Moreover, each country has a moral duty to help and therefore rich countries have to assist the developing countries. Consequently, there have been efforts from the developed countries aimed at enhancing living standards of the people in developing nations (Gribb 456). European Union (EU) is among groups of developed nations that have tried to help poor countries in several parts of the world.
Though the economic and political togetherness of some European countries can be traced back to 1950s, EU under its name came into being in 1993 and it has composed of 28 member countries. The need for economic, political and other forms of cooperation was necessitated by the events that led to World War II.
After the war, it was agreed that economic cooperation between countries was likely to lead to mutual understanding and consequently avert conflicts (Molle 154).
It is important to note that EU is based on the rule of law where its operations are carried out in a democratic process with every member having an equal say on what happens. EU respects human rights throughout the globe and its member states work toward achieving this especially by observing the principle of equality.
Though basically founded to foster economic cooperation between member states, the EU has seen the removal of border restrictions between member states leading to political cooperation. Moreover, the EU has its own budget separate from those of different member states (Molle 316).
The EU also has a decision making body and can make some policies especially foreign policies on behalf of its member states. This foreign policies range from economic policies to political policies and are not only made for the benefit of its member states, but also for the advantage of the international community.
Notably, EU is the largest donor to developing countries in support of various development projects. For example, in the year 2006, 48% of EU’s €671 million budget went to developing countries (El-Agraa 476).
This can be attributed to its large number of member states as well as to its willingness to help. It is important to note that the huge number of member states forming the EU makes it highly influential in the world as far as policies towards developing world are concerned.
Since its initiation, the EU has been greatly concerned with the welfare of other nations in the world, more especially developing nations. As a result, several agreements have been signed between the EU and various developing nations. These agreements guide the cooperation between the EU and specific developing nations in the field of trade, aid and other issues of international concern.
In this regard, the foreign policy that EU formulates regarding developing nations is highly influential in development of these nations (Molle 318).
The main aim of EU’s foreign development policy is to reduce poverty in developing nations not just by giving these nations money, but also by initiating sustainable development. It should be noted that this is one of the millennium development goals. In this regard, the EU funds several development projects to increase income earned by people in developing countries.
Majority of aid to developing countries is given in form of grants. These grants are expected to be used in specific development projects. To ensure that the grants meet their expected aims, the EU has adopted the policy of conditionality in its foreign development policy. This is where certain conditions are supposed to be met for grants to be given.
The conditions may include specific projects that will be funded or the principles that should be met among others conditions (Gribb 456). Failure to meet the set out conditions can lead to withdraw of the aid or even sanctions on a country.
Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that EU’s foreign policy is founded on principles of equality, mutual respect, domestic ownership and sustainable growth. In this respect, the EU aims at formulating foreign development policies that will be in tandem with the domestic requirements of target countries. As a result, the EU tries to fit itself into development policies of various nations.
This is aimed at giving the local people power to control their own affairs. Efforts that EU takes to help developing nations include reducing the debt burden of developing nations and promoting self help poverty eradication strategies in several developing countries (Molle 320). Moreover, the EU’s foreign policy aims at aiding democratic process and enhancing respect for human rights.
Due to the dynamics in the globe regarding development projects as well as aspects of priority in several countries, the EU has had to change its development policies over the years. Anciently, EU’s development policy for developing countries was guided by The Yaoundé Agreements. These agreements emphasised on national sovereignty and offered special trade plans for signatory countries.
The agreements were comprehensive and covered most aspects in which the concerned countries needed support (El-Agraa 477). Though the agreements were advantageous to the respective countries, there were some dissatisfaction and these led to the signing of The Lomé Conventions. It was argued that there were some strong neo-colonial forces in The Yaoundé Agreements and these led to less than par economic results.
The Lomé Conventions came into being to correct the inefficiencies that The Yaounde Agreements suffered. Moreover, there was need to change the relationships due to changing economic events. Nevertheless, there was significant change in the 1990s as far as the relationships between developing nations and EU were concerned.
This necessitated reevaluation of economic policies of the EU particularly those that were concerned with developing nations. In this regard, The Cotonou Agreement was signed in the year 2000 (Gribb 460). It is more comprehensive than the past agreements and besides reducing poverty and contributing to sustainable growth, the agreement aims at ensuring full participation of developing countries in the world economy.
The agreement brought political aspects into the aid relationships between EU and developing nations. Moreover, it has underscored the importance of civil society and the private sector in development plans of every nation. However, the agreement was signed with some conditions that required involving countries to respect human rights, upholding democracy and ensuring that the rule of law is maintained.
It can therefore be depicted that the EU’s foreign policy has been changing over the years in response to changing economic needs. In 2005, the EU introduced what was termed as the “MDG” package as part of its foreign policy to developing nations (El-Agraa 493). This was aimed at helping developing countries to address challenges that are unique to each country.
The most recent dimension of EU development policies is represented by the Agenda for Change which focuses more on the changing issues regarding development in various parts of the world.
The Agenda for Change aims at ensuring good governance and democracy as well as ensuring that economic growth in any country is sustainable. Social protection, health and creation of employment opportunities are given priority. Emphasis is placed on making use of local resources in driving development of each country.
It should be noted that though the EU has highly supported developing nations in their quest to attain economic self reliance, there have been some reservations regarding various issues. To begin with, the EU imposes sanctions on countries that fail to meet specific requirements issued by the EU.
However, there are cases where member states of the EU have failed to implement the sanctions when they were supposed to do so. This has led to selective sanctioning of countries (Gribb 479). It goes without saying that this is likely to deter achievement of the expected goals of the aid given by EU.
On the same note, due to recent security threats in various parts of the globe, the EU is becoming more concerned with security of its member states. Consequently, some economists have been concerned that the EU is prioritising its interests at the expense of developing nations.
Arguably, the EU has in the recent past been concerned more on how to advance the security of its people in various parts of the world thus reducing its focus on development projects. Furthermore, there exists inconsistence as far as implementation of EU policies by member states is concerned. While some countries aim at fully implementing what has been agreed upon during EU summits, some nations do not bother.
There are countries that intentionally fail to implement EU’s principles and ideas (Molle 327). These countries do so in order to advance state interests in specific countries. This is due to the fact that different member states of the EU have varying bargaining powers despite the argument that EU is founded on the respect of rule of law.
Similarly, there has been an outcry regarding the conditionality that was introduced with the signing of The Cotonou Agreement. It has been argued that developing nations are sometimes compelled to prioritise the conditions placed in order to secure grants even when it is evident that these conditions are not a priority for the given countries.
As a matter of fact, the political conditionality leads to unequal powers between the EU on one hand and the recipient countries on the other. Using the political conditionality, the EU is able to determine what can be done it the recipient countries. This undermines the principle of equality as well as that of mutual respect which are among the main principles of the EU (El-Agraa 510).
Moreover, conditionality interferes with domestic ownership which requires that each country be given the freedom to run its internal affairs. In this regard, EU applies double standards by claiming to advance the principle of equality and self governance yet it limits the same through political conditionality.
Arguably, EU has also some difficulties merging its political commitments with its economical and other interests. It is important to note that while EU promises to support international development in various parts of the world, it has its own goals to meet too.
Security, economic affairs as well as European political interest are among the goals that EU must meet. There have been difficulties in ensuring that both international commitments and local goals are met without jeopardising either of the two.
The world is first changing not only because of globalisation but also due to research and development that has led to technological advancement. Moreover, there are several issues that are affecting the EU including the Euro Zone crisis and these are expected to affect the relationships between the EU and developing countries (El-Agraa 515).
It is important to note that the Euro Zone crisis is straining the budget of EU and this is likely to reduce the amount of money available to spend and consequently the volume of foreign aid. On the same note, emergence of China as the main trading partner of Africa is threatening the position of EU as the highest donor to developing countries.
The EU has created very good relationships with various developing countries over the years. Development of these particular nations is the main aim of the EU.
It is, however, important to note that in the recent past the EU has aimed at enhancing the principle of equality through recognition of mutual respect as well as enhancement of collective interest. There has been great effort from the EU to assist developing countries in their development programs while giving them freedom to run their own affairs.
Works Cited
El-Agraa, Ali. The European Union: Economics and Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.
Gribb, Richard. “Post-Lome the European Union and the South.” Third World Quarterly 21.3: 457-481. Print.
Molle, Willem. The Economics of European Integration: Theory, Practice, Policy. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2006. Print.
The European Union (EU) is an organization that was established in 1958 as the means of cementing the peaceful relationships between 28 states of Europe and promoting further international cooperation (Hartley 3). France, being one of its members, has been facing certain issues while trying to remain a part of the EU. The identified issues can be explained by autonomy and exceptionalism of the French culture (Hancock et al. 204).
France and the EU Deficit Target
The process of integrating into the EU is fraught with numerous challenges, and meeting the set deficit levels is one of them. According to a recent article published at Euractiv.com, while seemingly being an attempt to meet the high standards of the EU the identified step implies that France is not quite comfortable with the current demands. Indeed, a closer look at the discussion of the problem will reveal that France was practically pressured into making the said decision: “It was seen as a warning to new President Emmanuel Macron, who will produce his first budget in the autumn” (“France Pledges to Meet EU Deficit Target, Despite Strong Headwinds”). Therefore, Macron’s endeavor at complying with the rigid standards that the EU sets can be viewed as not purely voluntary but, instead, dictated by the necessity to align with the policies that the EU sets. The identified decision seems to reflect the skeptical attitude of France to the concept of the new Europe. As the authors of the article stress, there has been a significant concern about France not meeting the standards set by the EU for the deficit levels.
France and Germany Developing a New Fighter Jet
It is quite remarkable that, while having been a part of the EU for quite a while, France has been maintaining impressive integrity as far as its own development is concerned. The identified phenomenon can be attributed to the propensity among French citizens and, therefore, the members of the French government, to maintain their national integrity and choose their own track in political, economic, and technological development. In fact, the latter can be traced easily in the recent attempt by the French government to take the initiative and join forces with Germany to produce an innovative fighter jet (Hepher and Thomas).
The authors of the article point quite clearly to the fact that, with the United Kingdom leaving the EU, France is willing to safeguard its position in the global community and promote stronger partnership: “The move also reflects efforts to give fresh impetus to Franco-German relations in the aftermath of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union and was described by defense experts as a snub to Europe’s leading military power” (“France and Germany to Develop New European Fighter Jet”). Therefore, the article points to the fact that, while showing the propensity to develop independence, France also tends to secure its bond with the EU as the foundation for its further economic growth and political support (Stefanova 127).
Maintaining the Connection with the EU
Despite the fact that France has been a part of the EU for quite some time, it needs to adjust to the new standards set by the organization. Furthermore, the French government will need to make sure that the EU demands should not conflict with the French traditions and national identity. Therefore, there is the need to support France in its endeavor at building a connection with the EU and determine the common ground on which these relationships will be designed.
Hancock, Donald M. et al. Politics in Europe. CQ Press, 2014.
Hartley, Trevor C. The Foundations of European Union Law: An Introduction to the Constitutional and Administrative Law of the European Union. Oxford University Press, 2014.
This is a report on the topic ‘Size (number of members) of the European Union — good or bad for the cause?’ The paper is designed in such a way that, first, there is an executive summary followed by a table of contents. Then there is a brief introduction of the focus topic, which is the present increased number of the European Union, is good or bad. Then there is the body of the report in which there are some arguments or justifications for the position of the writer, which is a supportive argument. In the end, there are recommendations and a conclusion.
Executive Summary
This is a report on the topic the supportive arguments for increasing the number of members of the European Union (EU). The number of members has now reached 27. There is a good side as a bad side for increasing the number of member countries of the European Union. In this report, the arguments supportive of the increasing number of EU members are explained.
The report tries to argue that increasing number of members is good, with proper justifications. Some of the justifications include creating a better relationship between the member countries, a common rule for the member countries, the political and economic stability of European regions, smooth trade relation between member countries, Welfare and well-being of the citizens of the member countries, and unity in the European region as a whole, etc. The opinions of the European Union have a significant influence on the world economy.
Those who oppose increasing the number of the member of the European Union might have their own justifications like, it may affect the main objective of the Union that is, economic and political stability or the increase in number may result in the absence of individual focus of each member country by the Union. But these arguments are counterfeited by the supportive arguments.
Introduction
The European Union exists for the Welfare of the citizens of the member countries by way of providing different facilities such as reduced barriers between countries, economic, political stability, etc. The present number of European Union (EU) members is very high. There are so many reasons for the increase in the number of EU members.
However, the topic of the discussion here is that whether this increased number is good or bad. There are so many people who argue for the increased number and so many people who argue against this. Both the groups have their own justifications for their argument. Here in this report, the writer argues for the increased numbers with proper justifications.
Increasing the Size of the EU Is Good
There is a variety of justifications for arguing that an increase in the number of members of the European Union is good. “The European Union is a major economic and commercial power and the world’s biggest donor of development aid to poorer countries.” (The European Union- a Success Story). In the initial stage, the number of members was six. Now it has increased to 27 nations. It was formerly referred to as European Community (EC) or European Economic Community (EEC).
Political stability, economic prosperity, border-free single market, and single currency are some of the outcomes of establishing the European Union. Even though all European countries cannot become a member in the EU upon their wish, countries can become a member when the Union invites application for the membership. Increasing the membership in European Union can be regarded as good, and I do support it due to the following reasons:
Close and friendly relationship among the countries
Enlargement helps the countries to live in harmony. “ The EU’s external borders should not become a new dividing line in Europe separating the Union from its neighbors — Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucasus and Balkan regions to the east, and the countries of the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa to the south.” (A Friendly Neighborhood).
People have a sense of belonging, and they get to know each other, reducing the disputes among them. “European Union countries are no longer at loggerheads like they were in the past.” (Benefits of European Union) That is, the EU helped in creating a friendly atmosphere between member countries.
Political and economic stability of the European regions
Europe comprises large countries with different people and cultures. Increasing the membership may increase respect and mutual understanding of the people in member countries in the ethnic and cultural diversity environment. The European Union offers certain rights to the citizen like to move freely and reside among the member countries. A large number of equal employment opportunities is created to increase the number of the working group.
There exist legal norms for gender equality and offer equal pay for equal work. “No boundaries among all EU countries, no passwords or visas necessary, easy traveling, possibility to move to any member country and find a job everywhere in a membership country (free transfer of persons).” (Joining European Union, List of Benefits (II)). This may reduce poverty.
Trade relations may become smooth – A single market with a single currency
“Although the EU makes up only 7% of the world’s population, its trade with the rest of the world accounts for approximately a fifth of global exports and imports.” (Economic activity and trade). It will create a free big trade area among the member countries, thus helping the movement of goods and services under the single currency of the Euro freely. Free movement of people among the countries makes trade easy in the single bigger market with a large number of products.
Protection of minority and improvement in the living conditions
“The EU offers a unique example of elaborated and inclusive rules and procedures for its constitutive minorities. Despite this, the Union has little to say to guide states in the protection of their own, national, minorities.” (Tsilevich). EU also provides financial and other support to its member countries. Also, a single rule of law and democracy respecting human rights help in the uplift of people in European countries.
Formation of unity in the European region
Currently, there arises a great disparity among eastern and western Europe in terms of economic, social, etc., factors. So becoming a member of the European Union by the Eastern and Western countries reduces these disparities and gives a platform to compete against the foreigners. Technology can be improved, thus bringing more foreign direct investment to the countries. Thus more regional stability can be obtained in the eastern, western, and central regions. The principle of Subsidiary helps in the reformation of the European countries.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it is clear that the European Union can do many things for its member countries, and also it can contribute much in ensuring harmony and peace in the world. When the number of member countries, it can give better results due to the reason that the European Union has become a common platform for more and more European countries. Also, the increase in number can result in can have the effect of becoming the member countries a single country.
Works Cited
A Friendly Neighborhood. Europa: Key Facts and Figures about Europe and the Europeans. 12009.
Benefits of European Union. Economics Help: Helping to Simplify Economics. 2009.
Political theory is one of the most profound expressions of the human desire to be truly rational that is guided in its activities by reason rather than emotions or instincts (What is Political Theory.pptx.). According to McKinnon (2015), “political theory is a normative subject: political theorists tell us how to interact, the sorts of laws we ought to pass, etc.” (p. 4). Political theorists differ from other citizens not only by the fact that they have certain political views. They are distinguished by the quality of these views. They strive to make the vision of a holistic policy well-founded relying on modern knowledge about the person and the world around him. This paper examines the notion of political thought and represents three political theories resulting in a concise analysis of the best theory.
In spite of the fact that plenty of countries apply separation of powers theory developed by Montesquieu, there is evidence of the necessity to reconsider it resulting in a more relevant and balanced system. The problem of separation of powers faces humanity at all stages of its development. The division of labor as well as the separation of agriculture from pastoralism – all this testifies the search for the optimal organization of society. This search for the optimal organization of society leads to the emergence of the theory of separation of powers, which has set a goal to protect human rights and freedoms. The principle of separation of powers primarily lies in the fact that they belong to different state bodies.
Comparing three theories of rationalism, social contract theory, and separation of powers theory, this study investigates the separation of powers principle in relation to the EU.
Political Theorists
René Descartes is one of the outstanding philosophers of the Enlightenment. In France, at a time when the philosophical thought of Descartes established, there was a strengthening of the central government. Descartes studied at the Jesuit College of La Flèche (Bracken, 2010). In a number of biographies of Descartes, it is stated that the conservative and pedantic training did not satisfy him. He manifested the negative attitude to the scholastic understanding of science and philosophy after visiting plenty of parts of Europe as a military. The most outstanding of his philosophical works are works devoted to methodological issues of scientific knowledge.
John Locke is an English philosopher, sometimes called the “intellectual leader of the 18th century.” His theory of knowledge and social philosophy had an intense impact on the history of culture and society, in particular, on the development of the American Constitution. Locke was engaged in developing a political line, in theory, arguing the philosophy of liberalism and expressing interests of nascent capitalism. He was against any type of tyranny when the government neglects the rights of its citizens and publishes laws according to its own needs rather than the interests of the people.
Charles Louis de Montesquieu was the greatest theorist of the French Enlightenment. As a result of years of research of the legislative history, Montesquieu created the first detailed political ideology doctrine of the Enlightenment (Waddicor, 2012). In his studies, he sought to expand the evidence base of social and political theory, to describe causes of changes in laws and customs, and, by generalizing the accumulated material, to reveal the laws of history. Montesquieu was convinced that history is not determined by the divine will and not a coincidence, but the action of corresponding laws.
Political Theories
The rationalism theory of Descartes claims the presence of content and properties not derivable from the external experience. To create his rationalist method of objective knowledge, it was necessary to find and identify the so-called “reason” of thought, through which the consciousness rationally segments, articulates, and controls it (Political Theorists (4).pptx, slide4). Stressing that issues in relation to the intellect should be treated differently than in relation to their real existence, Descartes shows that people understand the world objectively and rationally to the extent that they understand the organization and structure of their cognitive ability of intelligence. Therefore, the philosophy of Descartes forms a new, solid, and rationally grounded image of the world not only according to the actual state of the natural sciences but also completely determining the direction of its development.
The social contract theory by Locke leans toward the interpretation of the state of nature as the equality and freedom of individuals. Locke provides a complete and systematic concept of the social contract understood as a transitional stage from the natural to civil society (Political Theorists (4).pptx, slide 16). He substantiates the thesis of consensus as to the main subject of the agreement pointing property relations, political independence, and human rights as principal foundations of civil society.
The separation of powers theory developed by Montesquieu ensures the rule of law and freedom. Developing the teaching of Locke, Montesquieu determines types of authorities, their organization, and relationships in detail. He distinguishes the legislative, executive, and judicial powers (Waddicor, 2012). The theorist states that the concentration of all power in the hands of one person, institution, or class inevitably leads to abuse and arbitrariness. In addition to the distribution of powers, the principle of separation of powers requires the provision of each of the three authorities special powers so that they might limit and restrain one another.
Journal Article
“Recovering a Separation of Powers in the European Union” article by Conway represents the description of the separation of powers theory in the European Union (EU) and proves its appropriateness as well the necessity.
The EU is a developing body. According to Act. 7 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, “The implementation of the tasks entrusted to the Community provided by European Parliament; Council; Commission; Court of Justice of the European Communities; Accounts Chamber. Each institution shall act within the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty” (Grenville & Wasserstein, 2013, p. 571). Despite the EU is organized according to Montesquieu’s theory, there are some deviations from the classic principle of the separation of powers need to be considered.
The intervention of the legislative power in the sphere of activity of executive authority. In particular, the Commission gives the Council the competence of the executive regulations developed by the latter. The Council might set certain requirements for the exercise of these powers. At the same time, the Commission reserves the right to carry out its decisions. Thus, the legislative body might implement executive authority.
“The exclusive right of initiative of the Commission to propose new legislation” (Conway, 2011). Nevertheless, the European Parliament and the Council might request the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters which he believes Community act is required. The provision cited above leads to the conclusion that the Commission has the exclusive right of legislative initiative. However, Parliament and the Council might indicate the Commission’s gaps in the legislation, but it does not limit the exclusive right of the Commission.
In some cases, the solution of individual character in respect of an individual member of the EU prepared by the Commission is the subject of approval by the Council. For example, when there is a case of the “emergency budget deficit”.
Conclusion
It seems that such an organization of the EU was introduced to protect the interests of its members by means of the Council and the Commission control. Legislative powers are distributed so that both executive and legislative branches take part in the decision-making process. I consider that the existence of the exclusive legislative initiative of the Commission is a positive aspect as the Commission might see some gaps in the legislation and with the help of its power could eliminate them.
At the same time, such a position leads to a breach of the principle of separation of powers, the essence of which is to provide independent functioning of the various branches. The existence of the executive right in legislative authority could lead to the paralysis of the legislative branch. Therefore, I reckon that it is necessary to expand the range of subjects of legislative initiative. However, it should be noted that the balance of powers of institutions shows that the normal functioning of institutions with the partial exception of the classic triad is possible.
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that this paper examines three theorists and their theories: Descartes, Locke, and Montesquieu and rationalism, the social contract theory, and separation of powers theory respectively. In addition, it studies the article concerning the principle of separation of powers in the EU and its appropriateness in conditions of modern life. It was stated that the EU applies the mentioned theory. I believe that Montesquieu’s theory is worth applying nowadays. The example of the EU clearly demonstrates its successful functioning with some deviations. In my opinion, these deviations were implemented due to the desire to achieve the efficient operation of the power mechanism.
References
Bracken, H. M. (2010). Descartes: A beginner’s guide. Oxford, England: Oneworld.
Conway, G. (2011). Recovering a Separation of Powers in the European Union. European Law Journal, 17(3), 304-322.
Grenville, J. A., & Wasserstein, B. (2013). The major international treaties of the twentieth century: A history and guide with texts. New York, NY: Routledge.
McKinnon, C. (2015). Issues in political theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Political Theorists (4).pptx.
Waddicor, M. H. (2012). Montesquieu and the philosophy of natural law. New York, NY: Springer.
The concept of a common European body was first mooted by the then French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman on May 9, 1950. (The Symbols of the EU).
It was first considered to end warfare and to enforce a common identity among the European community. The six founder members were France, Germany, Luxemburg, Belgium, Italy, and Netherlands.
Today this figure has swelled up to 27 countries who hold membership in the EU and they are United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, Hungary, Greece, Italy, Finland, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Malta, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Denmark, and Belgium. (European Countries).
It is seen that most of the laws governing the EU are gained from Treaties.
However, the European Parliament, European Commission, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Directives that are issued, bind the member countries.
The “traditional” right to free movement means that no special formalities are required in order to enter any EU member state other than to hold valid travel papers. This fundamental right extends to members of an EU citizen’s family without any kind of prejudice to their nationality, or country of origin within the EU member state. It is also seen that there are no internal restrictions on traveling in locations within the EU, but there may be external border checks, etc in order to authenticate the genuineness of people coming into the EU member states.
Figure 1. European Countries.
The main issue that arose, post World War II, was the legacy of a war torn Europe, where individual countries were not in a position to solve their economic and social problems by themselves. Added to this was the polarization of the two Superpowers, USSR and USA, with the USA dominating western hemisphere, and the USSR, the eastern bloc. There was no doubt in the minds of most governments that the cold war would be a long drawn affair, and American hegemony needed to be neutralized, if not effectively controlled.
Since the economies of most European countries were badly mauled after the war, it became necessary to establish the European Coal and Steel community during 1951, the first intent of the European integration process. Again, in 1957, with the set up of European Economic Community (EEC) following the Treaty of Rome, this received a major stimulus. The present EC could be said to be a successor of the EEC, and to a reasonable extent, could be said to be a successful European organization.
The three pillars that underpin EU endeavors
It is now necessary to consider the Three Pillars which embody the EU as enunciated in the Treaty of Maastricht, which underpins the European Treaty.
The three pillars are:
PILLAR 1- Community pillar which consists of the European Union, (EU) the European Atomic Energy Commission (EURATOM) and the European Coal & Steel Commission (ECSC)
PILLAR 2- The enunciation of a common foreign and maritime policy envisaged under Title V of the EU treaty
PILLAR 3- The pillar devoted to law enforcement, viz. police and the jurisprudential understanding and cooperation in matters of dealing with crime in society found in Title VI of the EU treaty. (Pillars of the European Union).
Membership in single European market
One of the main aspects that underlie the formation of the EU, and in effect the European Commission, is the establishment of a common European market that would substantially break barriers to trade and establish just and equitable tariffs that are applicable to all member states.
The need for a common market for Europe is the denominating factor, especially in the post World War II scenario, where it became necessary to feed the millions of people in Europe who were displaced during the war, and common agricultural and trade practices became essential and imperative. (Pinder, and Usherwood).
By establishing a common market it is believed that the movements of goods, services, people and currencies would be smoothened, inasmuch as now the costs of airfares and telephone calls within the EU Member states have been slashed by 50%. Through the establishment of a common market, what was intended was that the imbalances between member states be corrected and the entire EU Member states adopt consistent and standard laws that could be easily replicated all over the EU countries. While the idea was indeed impressive, its implementation was difficult, since it became necessary to scrap or amend national laws to accommodate EU conventions. Again, members differed over several economic and trade matters and legal recourse needed to be taken by the ICJ to solve differences amongst members.
Free movement of citizens across European Union (EU) member countries
It is seen that free movement of citizens has been a dream of founding patriarchs of the EU, way back in the 1950’s. However, it could not be enforced until
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 came into force. (Free Movement within the EU – a Fundamental Right).
At the beginning, the aspect of free movement was restricted to working people but later on, this was broadened to include all kinds of movements, including families, etc. The activities of the European Union to protect the environment will affect the quality of life of the current and future generations. The main goals are combating climatic changes, protecting biodiversity, minimizing pollution and better use of natural resources. (Activities of the European Union Environment).
Criminal laws regarding the protection of the environment are established. This makes the system more efficient in protecting the environment. The main activities that are considered as criminal offences are illegal disposing of radio active elements, activities that result in death or harms to the people, pollutes air, water or soil and harms the environment or animals. Also, the slaughter or destruction of protected animals and plants, illegal trafficking and also the illegal manufacturing and usage of products that deplete the ozone layer are offensive. This is adapted to protect the environment and has been a very effective process. (EU Directive on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law).
Equality of the people
The European Union has a well defined constitution that makes the European society. It has a clear-cut idea about equality of the people. The EU has trans-nationalized society and has established the concept of equality for all European citizens. The treaties show that the union has extended the concept of equality among all European citizens, gradually over a period of time, replacing the nation-state concept of equality.
The nationally limited equality gives equal chance to all citizens living within the state, differentiating them from other European citizens. The EU has changed this concept and equality has been established between every states of Europe. This is a gradual process and presently does not imply in the case of national elections. But in the job market, this concept is implied and it has revolutionized the European market. Whether the people support this idea of the EU regarding equality is a major concern. What is their attitude on the idea of other European citizens enjoying the same job and opportunity as well or do they support nationally bounded equality that differentiates between nationals and foreigners. Surveys show that not many citizens support the idea of equality, mainly due to the differences between the countries. Also, this can lead to greater competition in the employment area and hence people who are insecure about their job might oppose this idea. But otherwise this is a revolutionary idea that can offer more jobs to the poorer section and hence can benefit everyone by leading to the availability of cheaper goods and services.
Turkey’s inclusion into the EU
Turkey is one among the many new member states that joined the EU. In a survey conducted, only one-third of the people supported this idea of including Turkey. (European Integration and the Idea of Equality).
The EU believes that none of the citizens should be prevented from benefiting from or contributing to the economical and social development. The Social Inclusion Process was found in 2000 with the concept of removing poverty by the year 2010. The main goals to be met include eradicating child poverty, making labor markets truly inclusive, making sure that everyone has decent housing, overcoming discrimination and tackling financial exclusion and over-indebtedness.
When several countries agree to share a single currency among them, that situation is called a monetary union. The Euro is the EU’s single currency and it is used by most of the member states. After a period of some years, the euro is expected to compete with the US dollar. A single currency system leads to the establishment of a single market. (Dermine, and Hillion, 27).
EU views may not take in a global perspective
It would not be wrong to state that there are founded fears that the EU membership, could to a large extent, be termed as a regional or insular organization which, while furthering the interests of its membership, may actually isolate the European community from the rest of the civilized world. While trade build ups within states would prosper, the wider context of European interactions with the world community would tend to be ignored, or lowered.
It is seen that such fears need to be dispelled, especially in the present form of global business, irrespective of parochial considerations, however well founded and intended they may be.
Conclusions
In retrospect, it could be seen that the very fundamental purpose of the inception of the EU has been to prevent war that existed at that juncture of history, especially between Germany and France, and also the grave consequences that war had wrought on most European countries. No matter how hard they tried, successive governments could not effectively address social and economic problems in a war torn region, besides the domestic problems of unemployment, low trade and animosity and absence of trade links, between even neighbors. Thus, the precursor of the EU, the EEC played a pivotal role in laying the foundations for the future EU, which is serving the European community as well as it possibly could, under the present global situation. It was necessary for Europe to unite, not only to save the civilized world from yet another major catastrophe, The Third World War, but also for Europe to regroup and integrate in the common interests of its citizens. Over its eventful and chequered history, the EU has been able to provide legal and administrative succor, not only to individuals and agencies in member states, but also usher in an era of peace, prosperity, social and economic development to the people of these regions.
The EU ethos of free movement of currency, people, trade services, and capital has ensured that most barriers are dismantled, and even customs duties among member states have been rationalized and made equitable and uniform. Despite the fact that EU has not found favor with many countries, either outside the EU membership states or outside the European blocs, it has carried out its vision and mission with perspicacity and quiet determination, much to the chagrin of other countries that could not integrate and regroup themselves economically. This could be seen in the context of many legal confrontations that have dogged the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its eventful history and many cases that have remained unsolved due to the intractable nature of its surrounding history and sequences of events. It needs to be said that arguments heard before the ECJ or other competent courts need to have litigants who may need to make concessions and allowances, to allow the legal course to move along, but this depends not only upon the litigants themselves, but also in terms of their respective governments and authorities.
However, it is necessary that the EU acts with dispassion and equanimity in dealing with cases placed before it, and endorsing the highest standards of jurisprudential application in the settlement of litigation.
A common ground of complaint may lie in the fact that wherein disputes involve member and non member states, the EU courts may manifest a marked proclivity to side with the litigants or agencies belonging to EU states and perhaps not in the best interests of justice, equity and good conscience. These aspects need to be rectified and the process of justice, in the larger context of global activities needs to be enforced.
The other aspect that needs to be considered is whether, in the modern context, rest of Europe needs to have a European Union, where borderless traveling and duty free trade and commercial transactions do take place. It could be argued that membership in the EU needs to meet and fulfill a large number of criteria and nobody could get a membership within a short term. Besides, the views of the other member states, whether to accept, or decline membership to such kinds of unions need to be considered.
While EU has restrictive membership practices and members need to abide by directives of the European convention, European Parliament and the directives from time to time, it would be difficult for non-EU members of Europe to convene to form an alternative to the EU, not only in terms of geographical locations but also in terms of a coherent, cohesive trade and commercial policies and procedures that could be binding in nature.
The Rest of Europe, in most probability, exclusive of EU memberships, needs to regroup, outside the ambit of EU, in order to form another European convention independent of member states of the present EU. However, given the task at hand and the implications, directly or indirectly that impinge upon it, it is indeed a daunting task, given the fact that such states may have contractual obligations with EU member states which it may not be able to renege.
Coming to the issue of EUNYUL , it is also seen that more memberships may be forthcoming (10 nations joined in 2006) and in all probability, most of the major European countries would be joining the EU by 2020, which leaves little room for the constitution and inception of any other European body.
Moreover, it is also seen that given the kind of recessionary trend that has gripped the world, developed countries in particular; the validity of another EU type organization is a matter of ardent conjecture if not of limited practical feasibility and implementation.
Two major theories have been suggested to describe the formation of the European Union (EU). One of these theories is known as the neo-functionalism model. This theory asserts that the major forces that encourage nations to unite are supranational or subnational. This theory has been supported by thinkers like Joseph Weiler. The second theory is the “liberal inter-governmental” and asserts that societal groups in a given country will develop specific interests thus dictating the common policies developed by different nations.
According to Moravcsik, domestic actors benefit significantly from the increased level of market liberalization. Consequently, the nations are forced to cooperate in an attempt to minimize barriers to trade (Moravcsik “De Gaulle” 12). This essay discusses and compares the theories of John Weiler and Andrew Moravcsik.
Discussion of the Theories
In the work “The Transformation of Europe”, Weiler argues that the integration of different European states transformed the continent into something similar to a federal arrangement (Weiler 27). The move allocated joint power and authority between national legal entities and supranational orders. By so doing, the nations managed to enhance their judicial authorities. The neo-functionalist theory presented by Weiler shows conclusively that the drivers of the EU integration were sub-national and supranational.
This is true because the integration was “driven by sub-national and supranational actors working tirelessly to pursue their interests in a sphere that was insulated politically” (Moravcsik “Preferences and Power” 491). Since the integration of the EU was engineered and managed by the court, the author conclusively shows that the process can be supported using a neo-functionalist approach or theory. The court, therefore, had a direct influence on both the political and economic aspects of the EU integration. The neo-functionalist theory goes further to describe how the interests of individuals were subordinated over time thus forming collective expectations in the long run.
Weiler’s argument shows conclusively that law can function as an integral aspect of politics. This means that the unique role of neo-functionalists is to forecast economic developments and political changes. The integration was something that could never be separated from the notion of politics. However, it would provide an acceptable buffer to ensure positive results are realized by specific nations. Such results could “not be realized in the political realm” (Weiler 44). The theorist shows “conclusively that law is something widely perceived by political decision-makers as the most technical” (Weiler 44). This fact explains why more lawyers have been given the freedom to speak for the national governments forming the EU.
On the other hand, Moravcsik focuses on a liberal approach to examine the economic interests and preferences of different countries. The preferences of nations are shaped by several competing demands and expectations. This notion explains why the scholar supports the liberal inter-governmental theory. The theory argues that nations tend to act rationally. The foreign policies implemented or embraced by a specific nation will always reflect their economic interests at home (Moravcsik “Preferences and Power” 484).
Moravcsik goes further to assert that societal groups in a specific country will tend to have special interests. At the same time, each government will be willing to exercise its liberties and freedoms. That being the case, the societal pressures presented by different groups put force governments to unite. This notion is used by Moravcsik to explain why the EU was formed.
Domestic actors in these nations have therefore continued to benefit from reduced business tariffs and trade barriers. The model goes further to explain why cooperation is fueled by the desire to improve the level of policy coordination. This is the case because “domestic policies might undermine local markets” (Moravcsik “Preferences and Power” 486). The model has also been used to explain how the Monetary Union associated with the EU might have been influenced by different domestic players.
Similarities and Differences
These two theories are the major models describing the integration of different European nations. The theories have been observed to co-opt ideas from each other. Some scholars have indicated that Moravcsik’s argument is refutable because it lacks concrete evidence. For example, some experts argue that “de Gaulle’s European policy was decisively influenced by agricultural interests through their peak organizations” (Lieshout, Segers, and Gluten 116).
Moravcsik was aware of the limitations surrounding this argument thus modifying it in his future works. The scholar gives powerful insights to analyze the facts and prospects of the European Union. This fact explains why some aspects of the two theories appear to converge. For instance, the political expectations of different nations are identified as unique forces that encouraged these countries to unite. The two theories use the concept of a stronger region to describe the purpose of EU integration.
The theories go further to present conflicting descriptions of how and why the EU was formed. For instance, the neo-functionalism theory views integration as a continuous process aimed at addressing the legal and political issues of the targeted nations. On the other hand, the liberal inter-governmental theory treats integration as a unique choice made by each of the member states. The neo-functionalist theory indicates that integration is supranational.
The liberal inter-governmental model views the decision as state-centric (Moravcsik “Preferences and Power” 491). In his theory, Weiler asserts that the decision to unite under the EU umbrella has continued to weaken every member state. Moravcsik model indicates that the decision to form the EU was aimed at strengthening the economies most of the member states.
Complementary Understandings About European Integration
These theories can be studied as complementary arguments trying to describe the driving factors and aspects of European integration. It is agreeable that the integration was fuelled by a wide range of forces and actors. On one side, Weiler’s arguments present the legal and political factors that motivated the integration. In his works, Weiler indicates conclusively that “every political outcome is usually decided or debated in the language and logic of law” (Weiler 44).
This fact explains why the theory has been widely applied whenever analyzing the development and facts of the EU. Using the theory, the author focuses on the fields of politics and law to explain the unique issues associated with this integration (Weiler 48). By so doing, the neo-functionalism theory explains how “the role of law in European integration was a product of a rational motivation and choice” (Weiler 76).
The other theory outlines the economic demands and societal pressures that encouraged more nations to unite and form the EU. With numerous threats facing the region, the decision to unite was favored to stabilize the nations. Consequently, the union made it easier for the countries to reduce trade barriers, improve transportation, and address the major challenges affecting them (Moravcsik “De Gaulle” 18). Despite the unique differences associated with these two theories, it is agreeable that they can be adequately used to describe the economic and legal drivers that catalyzed the formation of the EU.
Strongest Disagreement
Although the above discussion has indicated clearly that these two theories can be used to present complementary understandings about EU integration, the outstanding fact is that they disagree on the strength of each member state. The neo-functionalist approach indicates that the integration has the potential to weaken each member state while the liberal inter-governmental concept indicates otherwise (Moravcsik The Choice 72). That being the case, Moravcsik’s model is plausible because it shows clearly that each of the member states will need the others to remain strong. For instance, the EU has made it easier for many companies and business people to engage in profitable international trade.
The case of Britain can be used to describe this issue further (Moravcsik “The Great Brexit” par. 1). The decision by Britain to leave the union is something that has attracted the attention of many scholars. It is agreeable that Europe has developed because of the opportunities availed by the union. The EU has continued to stabilize trade, secure investments, and improve transportation. Member states have emerged stronger than ever before. That being the case, the politicians who “encouraged many Britons down the path to leave Europe would have to lead them back up again the next day to save their political skins” (Moravcsik “The Great Brexit” par. 14). This means that Britain might suffer the consequences of the decision. Britain might encounter numerous trade barriers and eventually reconsider its decision.
Works Cited
Lieshout, Robert, Mathieu Segers and Anna van der Vleuten. “De Gaulle, Moravcsik and the Choice for Europe: Soft Sources, Weak Evidence.” Journal of Cold War Studies 6.4 (2004): 89-139. Print.
Moravcsik, Andrew. “De Gaulle Between Grain and Grandeur: The Political Economy of French EC Policy, 1958-1970.” Journal of Cold War Studies 2.2 (2000): 3-43. Print.
—. “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmental Approach.” Journal of Common Market Studies 31.1 (1993): 473-524. Print.
—. “The Great Brexit Kabuki – A Master Class in Political Theatre.” Financial Times. 2016. Web.
—. The Choice for Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. Print.
Weiler, Joseph. The Constitution of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ~ Lord Acton
Introduction
As its name signifies, the European Union is a union of 27 European countries. After World War II the European countries became very poor. They realized that fighting with each other will never make any European countries be a superpower again. The concept of unifying economical and social forces became very appealing. Therefore three countries came up with a great idea which was to be a union in Europe.
France, Luxemburg, and Holland decided to get together to establish a small union, it was the first root of the European Union. After a few years in 1957, the Council of Europe was decided to advance political and social union in Europe. So on January 01, 1991, eleven countries signed an agreement to establish the European Union. These were England, Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Luxemburg, Austria and Belgium (European Commission).
The Union has been growing in Europe day by day. This union has brought many advantages to its members such as the introduction of a single trade market, free movement of citizens, protection of the environment, great equality and social inclusion, more jobs, a single currency system, a louder international voice, and great protection for worker, and equal tariff rates. Through the Union citizens from member countries are now trading freely within a single trade market.
The union has also facilitated efforts of its member countries in environmental protection and there has been an increase in the available job opportunities. It is the unification of these countries to create a “political and economic community throughout Europe” (Briney, 2008). The leaders wanted to join their countries to achieve political, economic, and social stability. They also wanted to promote the idea of a “free trade economy,” which became the area of attention during the 1990s.
Recently, the EU and its member countries have introduced numerous other programs and agendas to go beyond their initial targets and create a much better “European World” for generations to come. Apart from free trade, the EU has decided to work on “free travel, single European Currency, safer food, greener environment, joint actions on crime and terror, academic opportunities, and improving standards of living” (EUROPA, 2009).
Positive Effects of EU
The Single Market of the EU has meant that companies going about their business in EU member states have been forced to lower the prices of their products to become more competitive. Companies derive benefits from the single market since it makes it cheaper and thus easier for most companies to transact business in other EU member countries. Goods transported or traded between member countries are not charged customs tax. To ensure as well as assure fair competition among member countries the EU works at obtaining similarity in all its markets. Other countries have to compete with the price difference between countries to countries.
The single market system provides control to the internal market by the treat of the European Union. It protects all consumers and producers to trade within European Union without concerning tax rates and quotas for goods and services. It is all undersigned by the European Council to establish every company where they want to go for business in the European Union borders. The main principle is freedom of movement which provides equal rights in the single market (European Commission).
A single market guarantees the freedom of the internal market for its members’ export and import goods. This advantage is not owned by many countries such as The USA, China, India, Turkey and so on… when they have a trade with the European Union, they have to go for limitations, these limitations are good for their own European Union producers because their importance comes first in the single market. Their products must be sold in the internal market first if their products are not enough for customers, and then the union allows import for those products from non-European Union countries.
The producers are more secure than other countries. It is not like the European Union producers can produce how they want. The rules protect the consumers as well. They have the right to receive the best service and goods at a minimum price. It is a double-sided advantage for consumers and producers of the European Union.
The free movement of citizens is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. Every citizen has basic rights which were guaranteed by the Founder of the European Community. It is laid down in article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails: a European Union citizen has the right of looking for a job and working in other member states. The citizen can also stay in another member state without a visa and reside for any purposes such as holiday, working, or visiting.
Moreover, the citizen must be treated equally in respect of access to employment and working conditions for all other member state citizens. (European Commission) Their life has no barriers like non-European Union citizens. For instance; I am from Turkey who is the one who faces these struggles the most. Whenever I want to travel to the European countries or the USA, I have to go for a visa process such as proving with documents that I will come back to my country for sure.
Sometimes being rich is not enough to get a visa from The European countries or the USA. I do not even mention how hard to get a work permit to work in Europe. It is almost a miracle for non-European Union citizens. If you are out of this circle, you would not obtain these advantages. The European Union citizens are lucky to be in a great union, so they have all great opportunities for themselves.
Protection of the environment is a very important issue for every society in the world nowadays. The water, air, and soil population all around the world are increasing day by day. The said pollution has been posing a grave danger to the citizens of nations. Various diseases have come up as a result of this pollution and it has taken the campaigns of both government and non-governmental organizations to ensure that pollution declines considerably.
Every country has its own way to protect its environment, but is it enough to work alone to protect the environment? This question’s answer would be simple “No”, because many countries cooperate to protect the environment such as the Kyoto protocol, Greenpeace. However, they are not enough organized or have no strict laws to protect the environment, unlike the European Union. The EU has really authoritarian laws to protect the environment in Europe.
The overall direction of EU environment policy is laid out in the latest action program–“Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice.” It focuses on important issues which are climate change, environment, health, and natural resources and waste. It concentrates on 4 priority areas: climate change; nature and biodiversity; environment and health; and natural resources and waste. Also, an Environment and Health Action Plan for 2004-2010 promotes a close relationship between health, environment and research policy. (Europe) The European Union with this program became a great leader in global efforts to protect the environment.
These protocols are important to save the environment of the European Union. For example, the building of the nuclear power station in Germany was denied by the European Union council, because it is a serious risk for the natural environment of Europe, so the company could not build the power station in Germany. The restricted rules for the environment are to protect nature in Europe.
Everyone has a dream of great equality like this young European Union citizens, like one of the five authors of “Europe no borders no inequality? “ he thinks every social law of Europe is nearly great comparable to every citizen of its members that interest him most because it makes him feel to be unsure. However, it is just a dream for us as French author Jerome Lambert has published some books for children and young people. His latest novel – “Finn Prescott” – came out earlier this year. He mentions: “People who talk about great equality in Europe are liars. People who talk about equality in the world are dreamers.” (young.Euro.connect.com).
Even there is no great equality in Europe, but European Union citizens have greater equality than other nations in the world. European Union is still working to provide great equality. Every basic human right is protected by the European Union council which gives a secure environment for European Union citizens to live with equal human rights with other citizens as well. The members of the European council have been decided to pass the act of fighting against social exclusion and the eradication of poverty on October 17 2000 in Lisbon. The laws were about to protect citizens from facilitating participation in employment equally and access by all to the resources, rights, goods, and services and to prevent the risks of exclusion (Europa).
If we look at the USA, we can see capitalism which causes a huge gap between poor and rich people. Europe has a welfare system that eliminates most of the inequalities between poor and rich people.
According to the article “Is the Europe welfare system a model for the 21st century?” Katrin Bennhold, a journalist of the International Herald Tribune, talks about President Obama how he has been studying for the European welfare system to adapt this system to the States. She also compares the USA, the European Union countries and China. Capitalism and communism are having serious struggles in this Century.
They both can’t satisfy citizens of those countries who are under either communism or capitalism. President Obama is taking the model of the welfare system to integrate into the States. Dutch and Swiss healthcare system is under observed by president Obama’s economists to understand this system well to adapt it to in the States. In one of President Obama’s speeches, he called the new healthcare system a “watchful eye” to make health care to every American citizen.
Nearly 850 billion dollars were assured by the government to give free healthcare for American citizens. It is one way to resemble the welfare system in the European Union. The 21st century just needs the European Union’s system which is the welfare system to bring greater equality to the States. The European Union has had this system since they established. The citizens of the European Union have been using this advantage for many years.
A Trade is the exchange of goods and services among the countries. It has also a significant part of GDP (gross domestic product). Trading has existed for centuries. It became more advanced than it was before. New rules, regulations have changed the way of trading. It has been limited and taxed by a government which we call tariff. A tariff is any tax or fee collected by the government. Some tariff rates are sometimes very high and very low.
A tariff rate is based on government, quality of goods, and its kind. The European Union has the largest internal market in the world where all domestic goods and services are exchanged through European Union countries without tariff rates. Tariff is an extra cost for producers and traders. They are most likely to avoid paying the tariff rate because it is an additional charge from the government.
The European Union decided to apply tariff rates for non-European Union countries’ products and services to protect their producers. For instance, the European Union and the USA are the biggest producers of tomatoes in the world. The Union’s tomatoes producers produce 9.3 million ton tomatoes per year. However, European countries need more tomatoes from outside the Union. A tomato costs nearly 27 cents in Euro which is produced by European Union farmers, but one American tomato costs 13 cents when it imports to the European Union, its price becomes 35 cents with tariff rate, which is more than a produced tomato in Europe, so customers prefer to buy cheaper domestic tomatoes.
Californian farmers’ union request a lower tariff rate for tomatoes but it was denied by the European Union commission because they have to protect the rights of domestic producers. (Agricultural Issues Center, University of California.) If the United States were in the European Union, Californian farmers would take advantage of the non-tariff rate for tomatoes. Tariff is one way of defending the union’s member states which has been protecting its producers since the European Union was established.
The Euro is a single currency that is used by more than 300 million people in Europe. The members of the European Union devoted to exchange common money called the “Euro.” The Euro currency was approved as currency in participating nations. European Union (EU) countries that participate in the use of the Euro are Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, and the Netherlands. (European Commission) The Euro has been changed the economical face of the states. One-dollar bill used to be equivalent to 1.56 Marks (German ex-currency). Germany is using the single monetary system which is Euro as well, so if we look at the exchange rates between the Euro and dollar, we would see one Euro is equivalent to 1.26 dollars (economagic.com).
The Euro is making everything much easier than different old currency systems. For example, the euro has eliminated the trouble with money exchange when traveling to another country for Europeans in Europe which is appreciated by European Union citizens as well.
There are four countries that I know which are most visited such as, Italy, France, Spain and Austria. Renting a car, staying at a hotel, and spending money on museums and attractions are always cost a lot for tourists. Especially, when a person travels a foreign country, there is a huge unification of the transparency of the price on hotels, renting cars. Because the exchange rates of money are not certain, they are changeable daily, since these rates always go up and down in the financial market.
A traveler would lose a big amount of money while exchanging currencies. However, European Union citizens have no problem losing money, because they are using a single currency system in 16 countries. It is a plus for Europeans; they do not worry about the exchange rates when they are traveling. For instance, when a German buys an item from Italy, he would use the euro for his transaction, and he would not lose money for exchanging money. Payment through the single currency system does not pose any risk although money value keeps changing and thus customers have to give more money to the same things that they enjoyed before less. The euro makes pay less and enjoy more whatever u do in the European Union borders.
The euro is also likely to lead to lower interest rates for European Union states. Before the union, there was an additional interest was charged to cover the danger of exchange rate vacillation. When the Euro was started to use, the risk of interest rate fluctuation was gone. It also brought reductions in interest rates. A lower interest rate would cause paying less interest on any loans and debts in the business. It brought an increase in profits and encouragement of new investments and expansion plans in the business and industry. The single euro gives advantages to both consumers and producers in the larger Europe.
The numbers can speak louder than a word, so there are some statistics from the European Commission and IMF (international monetary funds) that I wanted to highlight; GDP for European Union is 11.9 trillion euros but the USA’s GDP is 11.2 trillion euros, and Japan’s GDP is 3.5 trillion euros. The share of World GDP is 21 percent by European Union which indicates the European Union is the leader of purchasing power parity. The USA comes second with 19.7 GDP. The statistics show that a single currency system leads the European Union as a leader of an economic powerhouse in the World.
As I mentioned before, the European Union is the biggest in the World, so they have a big role in the United Nations and NATO. All the EU member states work together as one nation on an international stage to guarantee their concern are heard and taken more significantly. The EU represents more than 300 million people and it will be more than 500 million people after the enlargement of the European Union. This is more like a combination of the United States and Japan.
As the voice of Turkey on an international stage is weak, it is just about almost 80 million people. Is it enough to be heard and taken more seriously in the global World? Unfortunately, it is not enough, economically and socially Turkey is not enough to have a stronger international voice than the EU. It is not just about Turkey, it also applies to some countries such as Serbia, Bosnia, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.
The European Union has always been recognized by other countries, and its orders and requests have been accepted by non-European countries. For example, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of states, stated that the USA is proposed to “energize the transatlantic relationship” with the European Union, she called the EU a crucial and necessary partner for the USA in solving global problems such as the danger of climate change, security of nations and energy security in the Middle East and East Asia (Europeanvoice.com). It shows that The USA can not decide anything about the Middle East or East Asian countries by themselves.
The US needs to take seriously the observations and requests about those areas by the European Union. it just indicates every global decision consists of a big part of the EU’s surveillance and demand. This strong international power comes from representing more than 15 percent of the world’s national gross product. A single European country is never able to reach this power to be a strong voice on the global stage. The USA needs a strong partner like the European Union on the international stage to happen its own commands to the Middle East and Afghanistan. As President Obama said The EU is an essential partner to promote The USA foreign policy to be real and strong and effective on the international stage.
As he describes the European Union as “the EU is a union of friend’s allies” even he knows a strong union with well-built connections causes a powerful role in the global world.
The European Union countries derive strength from each other with The USA. (EuropeanVoice.com) to be strong in the current world, all countries have to be somehow to be united with themselves to be strong as the European Union. if the EU did not exist, Can Germany or France have the same strong position in the global area? it would be a big no because those countries gain their power by the union, they sometimes act on a behalf of the union, so it does not mean they just trust their own economical power, they represent the union of 300 million people in Europe, so they still seek the EU’s benefits. Their effectiveness does not come from their supremacy; their supremacy is being representative of the EU, so they trust the union as like other members states. Every member feels secure because they know that they have a strong voice on the international stage.
Negative Effects of EU
It is rather true that the European Union focuses on the betterment of the nations of Europe. The leaders and the bodies of the Union have successfully devised policies and rules to achieve a peaceful environment throughout Europe. The concern comes out to be the effects of the unity on the members as well as the non-members of the Union. How good is it? Is the voice of every member country heard? What about the minorities? Do non-members suffer from the Union’s policy? Is European Union turning into a big giant that is going to administer complete and absolute power over the continent of Europe?
The issue which is of the highest importance is the merging of different and unique cultures and languages. How do people who communicate in varying language forms communicate in a single language? Does every nation have to adopt the language of the “European Union?” What is the language of the Union, if any? Do the leaders spell out the cultural norms and values for the members? What about the traditional values?
The European Union, as mentioned above, consists of 27 members and surprisingly 22 different languages. However, on April 15, 1958, the Council adopted a regulation which spelled out the languages that could be used by the “European Economic Community. According to Regulations Article 1: “official languages and the working languages of the institutions of the Community shall be Dutch, French, German and Italian” (Wilson, 2003).
The regulation only supported the use of 4 languages, the rest of the 18 were denied or ‘not included’ as the official languages. However, with the expansion of the members of the European Union, it has become imperative to include various other languages to enable a healthy way of communication. According to Kinnock, this increase in members and diversity has led to the importance of determining the “cost” of translation of every document, speech, policy, agreement or conference.
A few leaders, economists, and critics have based their arguments upon the “cost of translation and interpretation,” which they consider as a “waste of EU resources” (2004). At times, the disadvantages posed by the diversity in language and culture, become a barrier to “free movement within EU,” as the citizens of the member nations are hesitant to work, live, study, or spend time in other states whose language and cultural norms and values are not similar to their mother country” (Wilson, 2003).
The social aspect of the member state was not the main reason for forming the European Union; instead, it was political and social stability and integration which made the nations come together. According to Bozoki, the cultural norms and values were never considered as the “core of European integration,” and at the time of its foundation “Europe seems to have forgotten about the culture” (Bozoki, 2005-06).
The leaders of the European Union need to understand that cultural and linguistic differences can cause much more trouble due to hampering the platform of communication. The issue of supporting only four languages is no doubt a great disadvantage to most of the member countries. All the European Union member states are countries that use different languages as their mode of communication. It can thus be hard for some countries to drop their languages and adopt the union’s accepted languages.
This may also act as a barrier in communication a trend that may even hinder smooth business activities among member states. It may also be a very expensive venture if the government of the member countries decides to teach their citizens the unions’ accepted languages. These governments may be forced to channel a lot of money on education thus a great disadvantage.
The above-mentioned problem gives rise to what Vankin referred to as “nationalists vs. Europeans,” (Vaknin, 2003) or in other words nationalism vs. regionalism. At the time of crisis, the citizens of a nation, be it leaders or civilians, will automatically start pursuing the path which leads to the betterment of their nation. Naturally, the members of the EU fail to “share common interests” and due to this “logic of diversity,” the EU is unable to develop “making of common foreign policies” (Smith, 2003).
It is a common human response to feel obligated towards people who share their way of life and thinking. Hence, the real reason to join forces and integrate the cultural and linguistic platforms is to avoid the division of member states during the time of need. Also, the voices of even members of minority should be heard; their interests and views should be regarded as vital for the healthy development of the Union.
As mentioned earlier, the basis of forming the European Union was to achieve an integrated platform for the economies of member states. To achieve this, a common currency ‘Euro’ was introduced and was meant to be adopted by all member nations. This led to the birth of two major economical disadvantages: firstly the “cost of adjustment” and secondly the unavailability of “national monetary policy” to enable the members to regulate their economies at the time of financial or economic crisis (Pszczolka).
The first problem is a one-time cost as after the implementation of the “common currency” the firms of the financial and non-financial sector will have to adjust all of their business-related data according to Euro. This will be a very costly undertaking considering that it will touch every sector of a nation’s economy. The second disadvantage is also referred to as “asymmetric shock,” which is a varying degree of effect on different nations due to economic slowdown.
In simple words, country B’s economy or financial position can (or may) stay stable even if country A’s economy collapses or slows down. The negative effects of the Euro will not end at this, a loss over the ‘sovereignty of developing an “economic policy” and “fiscal policy” is yet another threat to Euro. All members will apply the same interest rate, which will be determined by the European economic commission. Every nation will be at a different stage of its “business cycle”, hence hindering the control of inflation rates. Finally, as per the requirements of the “growth and stability pact,” each nation will “borrow 3% of GDP” which will force the members to follow the economic growth of others (Pettinger).
The ending of national boundaries, the introduction of a common currency, and the free trade market come at a cost. Citizens of one-member nation will be able to freely study, work, and live in other member states. This might lead to migration by workers who can find high-paying jobs, better educational institutes, and enhanced development environment in other member nations (Pettinger). This might increase the unemployment rate and population of the nation that is being migrated to, whereas both of the figures will drop from the immigrant’s country of origin.
This will also lead to brain drain and a country may suffer an acute shortage of workers as a result of its citizens moving freely to other member countries in a bid to seek greener pastures. The firms would need to develop new packages and plans to hold onto their employees, and governments might be challenged to place quotas on the number of immigrants. Governments from member states might also be forced to pay their workers huge salaries in an effort of controlling the mass exodus of their populace from migrating to other countries. This will no doubt strain the government’s budget thus resulting in a not stable economy.
Trade in a free market was once considered an advantage, but now every member nation has to deal with increased competition by others. Due to similarity in currency and the ending of national borders, it has become impossible to avoid local as well as competition forced by the imports. The businesses of one-member state face competition from the businesses of other member nations. The EU’s main purpose was to promote a free-trade economy throughout Europe, however, it has become impossible to let go of the threat it poses to individual nations.
The leaders and representatives of members have developed a view about the free trade regulation of the EU. They believe the economic commission is “too zealous about enforcing Euro-rules on free competition” (Charlemagne, 2009). Due to the increase in globalization of business, every nation is facing threats from international competitors. Globalization enables producers and manufacturers to take advantage of low-cost production and timely deliveries. It is harder for member states of the European Union because they face three forms of competition, local, international, and the threat by the free-trade economy. Thus, the economic experts and leaders are trying to mischievously overcome the threat by the free trade economy promoted by the EU economic commission.
Yet another form of disadvantage is the cost of being a member of the European Union. The membership of the EU will cost members countries a varying amount. It can be said that the membership is according to the population of the state, and it charges “every man, woman, and child”. The countries are facing the challenge of determining whether or not being a member of the EU is worth it. They need to decide not only if they can “afford to leave” but if they can “afford to stay in” (Johnston, 2006). The amount of money borrowing has been limited according to the GDP of a country, but the membership cost is determined by the population. Restricting GDP growth while taking account of the increasing population for funds will inevitably create a situation of borrowing less and paying more.
A research was conducted by Zaidi and Zolyomi (2007) which determined the effect of academic and work-related backgrounds through the generations. They wanted to determine the “transmission” of the same backgrounds from parents to their children. The research was conducted in every member state. The conclusion was shocking and depressing, the educational level and the type of work were “inherited” by the children. This meant that the households belonging to the “low socio-economic” background will continue to belong to that social class through their generations. Parents with low educational levels have a higher probability of not educating their children.
Less educated people usually perform clerical or some skilled labor. Therefore, leaders of these countries need to determine the real cause of the low educational backgrounds. Is it due to the national budget allocation to educational fields, or mentality of parents, or the unavailability of schools or teachers? If a country fails to educate its younger generations, resentment or rivalry will emerge between the member states. The EU would require representatives who possess high educational backgrounds. Therefore, the representation of a more educated nation would increase, hence, the resentment will also continue through generations.
Another challenge faced by the members of the EU is regarding the interpretation of various codes spelled out by the commission. Each state has the authority to make the final decision of its choice but it does have to abide by the supreme law. In this case, the policies of the European Union as mentioned earlier, nationalism begins to play its role when situations arise. Therefore, the interpretation of all codes is, at times, assumed to be in favor of an individual state. The leaders or representatives of that nation take steps that are best in their interest. The countries are obligated to present their case at EU conferences to justify their actions. This leads to the leaking out of governmental secrets in front of other governments.
The inability to take decisions on individual levels leads to a loss of sovereignty, be it political, social, or economical nature. Political, because the EU is responsible to spell out the military, warfare, governmental, and all forms of political codes. Social, as the educational system, laws, and social classifications are also determined by the European Union. Economical loss of sovereignty occurs due to the emergence of the free trade market, common currency, trade laws, and even restriction of GDP growth.
Finally, the allocation of national budgets also requires to be approval by the commission. Another loss is in form of the loss of an individual nation’s culture as it has been mixed with the cultural norms and values of other nations and states. Globalization, as mentioned earlier, has already played its role in mixing individual nations. Therefore, the new generation already faces a cultural identity crisis, which is worsened by the presence of citizens of different countries.
An example of such loss is mentioned on the blog of Bruno, a proud Romanian. Romanians are grateful for the financial help provided by the EU, but an adaptation of the “European” culture has ruined the social and political life of its citizens. Particularly, resentment of two new concepts has disturbed the nation of Romania, namely capitalism and the changes in the department of “food” (Bruno, 2008).
The loss of the process of decision-making and the transparency of the process have already been mentioned. The primary concern now becomes the “abusing of absolute power,” which has been witnessed throughout world history.
All the disadvantages mentioned above support that the ‘EU has more power than the local governments or individual states.’ Who then determines the optimal level of the European Union’s power? World history, especially European history, provides us with numerous examples of abuse of power. History is there to understand and avoid the mistakes which ruined the generation of our forefathers. Individual states need to stay on their toes to prevent such circumstances to repeat themselves. European Union plays an imperative role in today’s world, however, maintaining and limiting its power is imperative to continue the freedoms achieved over the years.
Conclusion
Every union, local or international, plays its role by meeting the objectives for which it was created. At the time of origin, European Union’s leadership was needed by the countries of Europe. The basis of its foundation led to a better economical and political situation that Europe lacked after the Second Great War. Once the states were able to gain their financial and political standings the Union started to pose problems. The main one being diversity, as it was never considered an obstacle at the beginning of the “unification.”
Also, the interest of non-members to join led to the problem of expansion, increasing the levels of diversity further. Even though the members were able to gain financial standings, the economic conditions were not at the same level throughout the member nations. However, the economic commission “forced” its nations to restrict GPD growth and budget allocations, causing yet another disadvantage. The paper also points out other negatives such as a loss of sovereignty, the threat of “asymmetric shocks,” and new forms of competition.
It is rather childish to simply conclude that the European Union has nothing to offer to its members. European Union had, and will, continue to perform for the betterment of the continent of Europe. The responsibility is on the shoulders of the present and future leaders to limit their exercising power, devising policies to overcome the disadvantages and deal with obstacles when they appear. It is only then that Europe will continue to prosper and reap the results of its “unification.”
In conclusion, The European Union has been a big benefit for its members for many years. There are no country complaints about any advantages of the European Union such as single market, protection of the environment, great equality than non-European Union countries, social inclusion, more employments, the “Euro”, a stronger international voice, and equal tariff rate. The Union is enlarging with new members, recently Poland joined the union now, and polish people are enjoying the advantages that I mentioned above. Some other countries are dying to join the EU, such Turkey, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and Iceland. As a short everyone’s eye on the Union to become part of it.
References
Anonymous, 2004. “Multilingualism in EU,” Interview with Neil Kinnock, John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Bozoki, A. 2005-06. “Cultural Policy and Politics in European Union,” Speech by Andras Bozoki, Minister of Culture Hungary.
Briney, A. 2008. “The European Union: A History and Overview.” About.com: Geography.
Bruno, 2008. “Food and Capitalism,” Us Europeans at blogactiv. Web.
Charlemagne. 2009. “Beware of breaking the single market.” The Economist Newspaper.
EUROPA, “Panorama of EU,” EU at a glance. Web.
Johnston, Philip. 2006. “EU membership to cost us £837 each next year.” Home Affairs.
Pszczolka, Ireneusz. (n.d). “Advantages and Disadvantages of Introducing the Euro.” The Dilemmas of Regional Economic Integrations, 215-222.
Pettinger, Tejvan R. (n.d). “Cost of Joining the Euro,” Cherwell College Oxford: Economics Help. Web.
Pettinger, Tejvan R. “Disadvantages of EU membership for Eastern European Countries,” Cherwell College Oxford: Economics Help. Web.
Smith, Karen E. “The European Union: A Distinctive Actor in International Relationship.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume IX, Issue 2 (2003), 103-113.
Wilson, Barry. Crossing Barriers and Bridging Cultures. Edited by Aruturo Tosi, Great Britain: Cormwell Press Limited, 2003.
Vaknin, Sam (2003). The Belgium Curtain: Europe after Communism. Edited by Lidija Rangelovska, Narcissus Publications Imprint, Skopje.
Zaidi, Asghar and Ester Zolyomi. 2007. “Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantages in EU Member States.” European Center: Policy Brief, 1-16.
Gabriel, J Matthew. 1999. “Interest and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion, and European Union. Michigan: the University of Michigan.
Bradley J. Rickard, 2006.
Ripple Barbara, 1999. “The Banana Battle Consumers. Research Magazine.12:2 cl.
Toby Vogel, march-2009, Clinton calls EU an ‘essential partner’ . Web.
“The European Union overview”, The European Union Commission. Web.
“The Freedom, Security and Justice” “The Europa. Web.
Luxembourg is a small state bordered by Belgium, France and Germany. It covers an area of 2586 square kilometres and it has a population of about half a million, making it one of the smallest European states. The territory has been under the influence of several states but has enjoyed autonomy for 11 centuries and it is now a hereditary Grand Duchy –or Constitutional Monarchy. The official languages are French, German and Luxembourgish. The parliamentary system is unicameral. Luxembourg is a founding member of the European Union. Its capital city, also called Luxembourg, is house of many EU institutions. (European Countries, n.d.).
Politics
Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, is a member of the ruling conservative Christian Social Party. He ascended into power in 1995, taking on the position of Jacques Santer, who moved on to become the European Commission president. The government structure in Luxembourg is one of a coalition between Jean-Claude Juncker’s party, and the Socialist Workers Party. At the moment, he is also the finance minister for Luxembourg, a role that he assumed 20 years ago. Juncker has also been the European Council’s President for a six-month term twice, first in 1997, and then later in 2005 (BBC News, 2009).
When Juncker was elected to the parliament for the second time, he saw himself gaining an immense recognition within the EU. He was at one time the chairman of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council –ECOFIN–, a position that placed him in good stead to become the principle architect of the Treaty of Maastricht. Luxembourg Prime Minister’s party, the Christian Social, also happens to be the main political party in Luxembourg, along with the Democratic Party. The Democratics have managed to maintain a consistent lead in the country’s politics, with the result that for the last 69 years (BBC News, 2009), this party has produced a prime minister for Luxembourg for all but 5 of those years.
Economy
In Luxembourg, the economic structure is based on banking, the steel industry and insurance besides agriculture and production of wine. The economic situation in Luxembourg may at best be said to be both stable and open. A 2009 interim focus by the European Commission, the country’s GDP growth is believed to have fallen to 1 percent, down from 5 percent in 2008. However, the end of 2010 expects a full economic stability. The country’s rate of inflation was estimated to have approximated 3.4 percent in 2008, as per the EIU –Economic Intelligence Unit– projections. The inflation rate for 2009 has been pegged at 0.5 percent, but 2010 is expected to realize an improvement, to an average of 1.2 percent (BBC News, 2009). The rate of unemployment has also been projected to stagnate at an average of between 5 and 6 percent up to the end of 2010. At the moment, the Euro is the adopted currency in Luxembourg. Luxembourg’s economy may have overcome the prevailing global financial crisis in a more commendable manner than may have been expected, yet the manufacturing industry in the country is at the moment faced with a downturn. In addition, the developments that are happening abroad also seem to have taken a toll on the country’s financial sector.
Public Opinion on the EU and the Issue of Turkey
A majority of the citizens in Luxembourg have a lot of trust in both the European and national institutions. At the moment, close to two thirds of the members of the population in Luxembourg strongly support the position that their country occupies within the European Union. Nevertheless, there is about one third of the population who still harbor the opinion that their country has not significantly benefited as a result of being a member state of the European Union. Moreover, a large part of the population is strongly in support for the adoption of the Euro as a common currency (EurActiv, 2004). Furthermore, Public opinion in Luxembourg indicates that the European Union should be let free to operate in an efficient, transparent and democratic manner. This, citizens reckon, is bound to accord Europe’s strength in as far as global economic development issues are concerned. With regards to the issue of having the European Union enlarged, Luxembourg, along with Austria and Germany, are strongly opposed to this idea. However, citizens of this country contend that Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are some of the countries that need to be assessed on the possibility of having them join the European Union. On the other hand, the same citizens are opposed to the idea of having Turkey join the European Union, along with Albania.
It is important to notice that the possibility of admitting more members in the EU –such as Turkey– is an activity that might be quite beneficial to Luxembourg. Thus far, the country has managed to support the common retirement fund, and it can be expected that because of the country’s relatively strong financial status, it would be very likely to further increase its benefits if such an enlargement takes place (Nationsencyclopedia 2008).
The issue of Turkey
Ever since it was founded in 1923, Turkey has managed to enjoy a robust European orientation and has also enjoyed trade agreements as well as associations with the European Community –the predecessor of the European Union, a relationship that goes as far back as the 1960s. Following the bold decision by Turkey to apply for EU membership twice, the EU finally reached a unanimous decision in December 2005, to start negotiations for admitting Turkey as a member. Even then, there is a lot that has not yet been accomplished, but we cannot fail to point out that Turkey has been transformed tremendously (Wood & Wolfgang, 2005) as consequence of the reform processes the government has sought to pursue in recent years.
Turkey’s history is rich, in addition to the fact that the country occupies a vital position with regard to security policy. Moreover, the economy of Turkey is growing rapidly, since it has a population that is both hardworking and educated. More importantly, Turkey has been seen to assume the role of a bridge builder at two levels. First, the country connects the Muslim world to Europe. Secondly, it has sought to link the “West and the Orient”. This rare recipe, when incorporated into the European Union, would help bolster Europe to greater heights. However, Turkey has been plagued by what the European Parliament has described as “continuous slowdown of the reform process” (Kubosova, 2007). The process of ascending to the EU’s membership entails a number of formal steps. Prior to a country’s membership application, it is often required to append an association agreement signature, in readiness for its candidacy preparation and ultimately, becoming a full member. Following a formal application by a country, the Commission is requested by the Council to process an opinion concerning how willing the applicant is to commence negotiations. Once the Council agrees with the negotiations to start, a screening process follows (European Commission, n.d). This is whereby both the candidate and the Commission assess the laws of the EU and also those of an applicant, for purposes of evaluating existing differences.
Then, the commission may propose the start of negotiations on the basis of law chapters that a council is convinced are ideal for the advancement of constructive negotiations. When both the applicant and the council reach an agreement on an area, then a chapter has sufficiently been implemented (European Commission, n.d). The European Council receives annual progress reports from the European Commission regarding the plight of a country that wishes to ascend to EU’s membership. The signing of accession treaty marks the completion of negotiation, but it has to receive an approval from all the union’s member states. Upon ratification, the applicant country is then deemed to have joined the European Union on that date which the treaty has been specified.
In regards to steps taken by Turkey for the process towards EU’s membership, it first forwarded an application on the April 14, 1987. Ever since 1963, Turkey has acted as an associate member to the European Union, as well as to its various predecessors. In 1995, Turkey entered into an agreement with Customs Union of the EU, with the result that the country became recognized, officially as a potential candidate to be awarded full EU’s membership come the December 12, 1999. The signing of this agreement took place at the European Council summit held in Helsinki (Wood & Wolfgang, 2005). On the October 3, 2005 negotiations towards the realization of this initiative commenced. However, it has been indicated that this process may very well take more than a decade to complete. The most important point to note here is that the bid by Turkey to join the European Union has been dogged with controversy, with some of the member states today opposed to the idea of having the union enlarged.
These problems appear to emanate from both domestic as well as external quarters. Countries such as Austria and France have considered calling for a referendum to vote on Turkey’s accession. One of the major issues that seem to have complicated the ongoing negotiations about Turkey’s accession to European Union membership is that of Cyprus. Officials from the European Union have pointed out that Turkey has been quite slow to initiate reforms. This, coupled with the problem of Cyprus, resulted in Olii Rehn, the Enlargement Commissioner for the European Union, to issue a warning of “an impending train crash” in March 2007; in as far as the ongoing negotiations are concerned (McCormick, 2007). On the basis of these setbacks, the ongoing negotiations had to be halted again in December 2006. It is anticipated that Turkey may not join the European Union as a full member until 2013. This is also the date when the European Union’s next financial perspectives are projected to be implemented. At the moment, Ankara has shown every effort to be compliant with the laws by the European Union. However, Brussels will not commit itself to supporting the 2013 deadline, furthering speculation claims that the process of accession shall at least be achieved in 2021.
Another European Union member who is opposed to the accession of Turkey into the Union membership is Greece, and the reason why this country is opposed to such a move is because Turkey has been quite slow on the implementation of the Copenhagen criteria. The Copenhagen criteria of 1993 spells out that a member country should show respect for the rule of law and human rights, as well as minorities’ protection. From an economic point of view, an applicant to join the European Union is required to have in place a market economy that is up and running, in addition to a capacity to handle the market competition that would emanate from the creation of a single union (Kubosova, 2007). Finally, it is required that an applicant be in a position to assume economic and political aims of the EU.
Points to be discussed
Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, is a member of the ruling conservative Christian Social Party. The government structure in Luxembourg is one of a coalition between Jean-Claude Juncker’s party, and the Socialist Workers Party. In Luxembourg, the economic structure is mainly based on banking, the steel industry and insurance. The Euro is the adopted currency in Luxembourg. Surveys show that a majority of citizens in Luxembourg trust and support both European and national institutions (Eurobarometer, 2008). This is clearly illustrated in the fact that a large portion of the population views adoption of the Euro as a beneficial factor for European integration. In regards to the issue of having the European Union enlarged and admitting Turkey as a new member state, citizens of Luxembourg are strongly opposed to this idea. However, citizens of this country contend that Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are some of the countries that need to be assessed on the possibility of having them join the European Union (Eurobarometer 2008).
Despite these squabbles within the European Union member countries, Turkey has been keen on joining the European Union. Turkey has been seen to assume the role of a bridge builder between the Muslim world to Europe as well as the “West and the Orient” (Kubosova 2007). Yet, the European Parliament contends that Turkey has been slow to initiate a reform process towards the completion of the 35 chapters required for its consideration as a full member of the EU. This, coupled with the problem of Cyprus, has decelerated the process and postponed Turkey’s ambitions to become a full member even further. Greece also emphasizes its opposition to the accession of Turkey to the EU for its failure to honour the Copenhagen treaty of 1993. We can therefore conclude that it is imperative for Turkey to put its house in order if it wishes to turn the dream of becoming a full member of the EU into a tangible reality.
Works Cited
EurActiv (2004). “EU-Turkey relations”. European information on Enlargement and neighbours. 2009. Web.
Eurobarometer (2008) “Eurobarometer 69”. Public Opinion in the European Union. Web.
European Commission (n.d). Conditions for Enlargement. 2009, Web.
European Countries: Luxembourg (n.d). 2009, Web.
BBC News. (2009). “Country profile: Luxembourg”. Web.
Kubosova, Lucia. (2007). “Turkey targets 2013 for EU legal compliance”. EUobserver, 2009, Web.
McCormick, John. The European Union: Politics and Policies. (4th Edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Robinson, David. An expat’s life, Luxembourg & the white rose. ISBN13: 9780595663231.
Wood, Steve, & Wolfgang Quaisser. (2005). “Turkey’s Road to the EU: Political Dynamics,
Strategic Context and Implications for Europe.” European Foreign Affairs Review 10(2): 147-173.
There are various economic benefits a country would gain by joining the European Union. First, it would benefit from advantages of single market being offered by EU. Currently, EU is the largest single market in the world with harmonization of regulations and standards that ensure free circulation of goods and services. This enhances the availability of market for a country’s goods and services and also creates room for competitive imports that would further improve efficiency in the home industries. Secondly, when a country joins EU, it would benefit from the use of common Euro currency. EU has a large number of members thereby increasing on the value of the currency. Consequently, traveling within and outside EU would be easy since Euro is an internationally recognized currency. In addition, a country within EU jurisdiction would be able to avoid fluctuation in exchange rate since it would be using the same currency as other EU members. This would create stability in importation and exportation of goods and services thereby eliminating the risk of a fluctuating currency that would have increased the cost of production. A case in point is the current credit crunch that has affected most economies whose currency fluctuated leading to instability in the economy. However, countries within the Union kept on enjoying the benefit of strong currency. Third, greater transparency in prices enhances healthy competition within the members’ States thus increasing efficiency that would further reduce on the prices of goods and services. In addition, borrowers and savers would benefit since they would have wider financial market to choose from within the EU. Rational investors would therefore invest in a financially liquid market to rip greater benefits (Center for Economic Policy Research).
Despite all the advantages of joining EU, some countries may choose not join for various reasons. First, a country that believes it is a sovereign State capable of formulating its own laws and policies would shy away from this Union. This is because, once a country joins the Union, it has to abide by the rules and regulation governing the Union thereby loosing its sovereignty. A case in point is the refusal by Britain that considers itself an independent and economically powerful nation to join EU for fear of loosing it sovereignty. Secondly, countries enjoying lower cost of trading with countries that are not members of EU would shy away from the Union for fear of trade diversion. When a country joins the Union, it would be force to trade with countries within the Union even if the cost is high. Consequently, a country enjoying low cost trade with other countries would opt not to join the Union to avoid unnecessary cost in trade. Third, a country may choose not join the Union due to the trade restriction that the Union imposes to the members (Marks).
European Union has a bright future especially with the incorporation of many countries there by increasing their market size and strengthening Euro against other major currencies. However, as countries continue to join without much restriction, cultural dilution would arise. EU allows free movement of labor and Capital from one county to another. Therefore, this implies that there would be cultural diversity in each country especially in countries that would be offering more friendly services and remunerations. As labor moves from one area to another, they carry with them their cultural practices thus influencing the natives’ culture. In the long run, there would be cultural confusion and conflict that would lead to an end to various cultural practices. Religion, is likely to be shared among all the members within the Union and the incorporation of Turkey, an Islamic nation, it is likely that the religion of Islam would be adopted through intermarriages and through other ways. Considering Muslim practice of Jihad, it is likely that terrorism would be practice in EU membership hence compromising the lives of many innocent Civilians.
Work Cited
Center for Economic Policy Research. The Costs and Benefits of EU. 2009. Web.
Future of European Union. 2009. Web.
Marks, Denton. ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AS BLESSING AND CURSE: ISSUES FOR THE TRANSITION ECONOMIES. University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. 2009. Web.