European Union is the largest economic bloc in the globe. It is established based on shared values like liberty, democracy, human rights, and belief in the rule of law. EU is instrumental in the promotion of peace, stability and democracy in the universe. There are four institutions of the EU. The first is the European Commission which is made up of 27 commissioners and each commissioner is assigned a particular policy area. It is this institution that has the power to negotiate any deal on behalf of the Union.
The second institution is the executive organ of the organization; the executive organ is the decision-making body of the EU, and it is composed of ministers with each minister representing a state. It is this arm of the EU that can decide on foreign policy matters. The council presidency of EU is based on a rotational basis; the third institution of EU is the EU parliament which is considered as the voice of the citizens.
It has the responsibility of passing laws and adopting budgets. The EU parliament also approves the commissioners seconded to the EU Commission. Last, there is the EU court of justice which is the highest judicial organ, and it is bestowed with the responsibility of interpreting the laws. The court is an independent decision-maker.
The European Union is an international organization which is an association of democratic countries from the European continent. These countries are committed to the promotion of peace and pursuit of prosperity. The EU is more than an international organization due to its uniqueness.
EU as a Global Player
The EU is a global player. It achieves its ends by use of soft power, which can help promote stability, human rights, and democracy. EU has managed to deliver congregate results in the areas of eradication of poverty and realization of sustainable development. The EU has managed to address global challenges like peace, humanitarian aid, promotion of peace and democracy in the world, and security and counter-terrorism.
The EU is an international actor but this position has been clouded by several questions. The European Union has enjoyed a considerable success in its influence on international politics. The EU, in particular, carries a lot of weight with regard to environmental, monetary, and financial policies. The EU power as an international organization is so considerable even when compared to the US but still the expectations of the EU as a global power and actor in international stage is low.
The success of the EU as an international organization has been evidenced in the economic fields but its success in military and economic spheres is still questioned. From the late 20th century, the role of the EU in global affairs took a different direction since the policymakers shifted its capacity to enhance its participation in international activities and in multilateral negotiations.
EU Foreign Policy
Since its inception, the EU has been active in its member states as well as in addressing other international issues through the Common Foreign and Security policy. This led to its international involvement and increased capabilities.
It is, however, difficult to understand the kind of power that the EU assumes in the international system because it is not state or nonstate actor, neither is it a conventional international organization nor international regime, but it makes a significant contribution on international matters from economic to humanitarian and conflict.
The ever-growing emergence and the ascendance of the EU have been largely linked to its influential principles and aims, which guide its policies and other policies that articulate its international identity. The adoption of the European Security Strategy in 2003 was a key indication of the effectiveness of the EU as an international organization.
This European Security Strategy was instrumental in identifying what the EU member states considered as their main security threat and the ways to overcome such a threat multilaterally in cooperation with other international organizations.
The European Union is a perfect example of a political organization that is successful beyond the nation-state. There are still some assumptions that the European Union as an international organization is still limited but this assumption has been canceled by three main facts. These facts are: it is an acknowledgeable fact that there are international organizations that operate outside the boundaries of UN and European Union is one of them.
It is also necessary to take into account the fact that there are other means of the participation of EU as an international organization in international forums, which minimizes the differences between the members and the non-members states and lastly, despite the EU lacking membership in international organizations, it plays a principal role in various multinational bodies, which are established by conventions.
The various developments that justify that the EU is powerful as an international organization are:
The EU participates in discussions with the U.S.: in the international forum, the EU is a powerful tool, especially in areas of policy, which are exclusive to European Community. The EU facilitates policy coordination and can effectively articulate the interests of the member states.
Consequently, the EU is used by the member states as an instrument to provide both economic and political support to other states or other international organizations. European Union exists in two faces; the first face is the one that exists to serve and fulfill the aspirations of its people and member states, and it consists of the Council of Ministers and European Council of the Heads of States and Government; it seeks to serve the interest of their member states, particularly those that cannot be realized by the states individually.
The second face is the one that looks at the European Union in its entirety: European Union as an actor in international politics is represented by the EU Commission. This face brings out the picture of the EU as a matrix of transnational and international organizations and not just as an international organization.
Multilateralism
The EU has embraced effective multilateralism which has been central to its interactions with other actors in international community. This has added a new perspective into the debate regarding the EU’s presence and orientation in the international community. This principle of effective literalism posits a particular modality for going international by the EU and this has shifted the focus on policy objectives of EU in the international arena.
As an international organization, the EU can be a principle-based as well as interest-based. With regard to a principle-based, the EU participation in international community can be genuine and sincere and considered a genuine pursuit and furtherance of the principles of multiculturalism.
The interest approach of EU as an international organization is an indication of its multidimensionality in international interactions. This principle of multiculturalism attributes the role of international organizations to the proper functioning of the entire international system.
Powerful international organizations like the EU can teach states what they need as well they have the ability to influence and to define the national interests of the member states. The EU has been a dominant player in the international arena; it acts as both the contributor to international activities of other regional-based international organizations as well as a benefactor of the contributions made by other international organizations towards the multilateral obligations.
The EU’s role as an international organization can take different perspectives. It may take the form of monetary or material contributions or personnel. The success of the EU as an international union can be analyzed based on its cumulative contribution to other international organizations like the United Nations and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) among others.
Just like other organizations after the World War II, the EU included matters of good governance, human rights and democracy to govern its cooperation with external players. This is well captured in the European Neighborhood Policy. The EU, for example, has devised various strategies that will help to ameliorate the economic and political systems of fragile or poor countries and the entire third world.
Weakening Power of USA
The weakened role of the U.S. in the perspective of military, civilian, and normative capabilities has led to a paradigm shift in how the politics of international community is transacted. The world is turning to Europe to seek the direction of the affairs of the international community.
There is no single power, be it China, Russia or India that can match the power and the influence of the European Union. It is argued that the European Union is a latent superpower. The EU has its presence in diplomacy, peacekeeping missions, international law, commerce and environmental matters. Based on statistics on commerce and trade, the EU has demonstrated itself as a global economic powerhouse with regards to multinational cooperation, finance, trade and investments.
Economic and trade wise, the EU has emerged as a dynamic economy. It is estimated that a combination of EU and US makes up for approximately 40 percent of all global trade while EU accounts for almost two third of the global investment in the world. EU is a member of the UN but its member countries are independent members of the UN.
For the influence of EU’s foreign policy to be felt it should be supported by its members. The strong influence of EU in international community is supported by the fact that its member states should support and enforce the influence of the organization.
This has helped to enhance the influence of the power of the organization in international matters. The EU first has to agree at a situation and position before its stand is known. The EU maintains a joint position when it comes to voting taking in security and general assembly of UN. The EU is also considered to be the largest contributor financially to the UN which makes it one of the most successful international organizations.
Conclusion
When viewed from the lens of civilian, military, and normative power, the increasing role of the EU as an international organization will be clearly captured. The EU has been a successful international organization due to its participation in International fora, its power and success are also manifested in its economic mighty and the strength of its foreign policy.
Bibliography
Archer, C. International organizations. New York: Routledge, 2007.
Blavoukos, S., and Bourantonis, D. The EU presence in international organizations. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2010.
Cuperus, R., Duffek K., and Froschl E. The EU – A Global Player?. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Hoffmeister, F. “Outsider or front Runner? Recent developments under International and European law on the status in international organizations and treaty bodies.” Common Market Review 44, no. 1 (2007): 41-48.
Krohn, F. “What kind of power? The EU as an International Actor.” Atlantic Community. Web.
Staab A. The European Union explained: institutions, actors, and global impact. Indiana University, IN: Indiana University Press. 2008.
“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 to be super power again. The concept of unifying economical and social forces became very appealing. Therefore three countries came up with a great idea which to be a union in the 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. There were England, Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Luxemburg, Austria and Belgium (European Commission).
The Union has been growing in the 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 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. It is the unification of these countries to create a “political and economic community throughout Europe.” 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, 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.”
Positive Effects of the 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. The single market benefits companies by making it easier and cheaper to do business in other EU countries. No customs tax is charged on goods that are sold or transported between member states. The EU also tries to make each market as similar as possible to ensure fair competition across national borders. Other countries have to compete with price difference between countries to countries. The single market system provides to control to internal market by the treat of European Union. It protects all consumers and producers to trade within European Union without concerning tax rate and quotes for goods and services. It is all under signed by 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)
Single market guarantees that freedom of internal market for its members’ export and import goods. This advantage is not owned by many countries such as The USA, China, India, Turkey so on… when they have a trade with the European Union, they have to go for limitations, these limitations are good for 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 rights to receive the best service and goods with minimum prize. It is double sided advantage for consumers and producers of the European Union.
Free movement of citizens is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. It is perhaps the most important right under Community law for individuals, and an essential element of European citizenship which is key point to make being the European Union Citizen pleasant. Every citizen has basic rights which were under guaranteed by the Founder of 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 state. The citizen can also stay in other member state without visa and reside for any purposes such as holiday, working, or visiting. Moreover the citizen must be treated equal 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 of who faces these struggles the most. Whenever I want to travel to the European countries or the USA, I have to go for visa process such as proving with documents that I will come back 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 the Europe. It is almost 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 environment is very important issue for every society in the world nowadays. All water, air and soil population of all around the world are increasing day by day. Every country has an own way to protect their environment, but is it enough to work alone to protect for the environment? This question’s answer would be simple “No”, because many countries cooperate with each other to protect the environment such as 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 the Europe. The overall direction of EU environment policy is laid out in the latest action program–“Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice.”
It focuses for 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 environment. These protocols are important to save the environment of European Union. For example, building of the nuclear power station in Germany was denied by European Union council, because it is a serious risk for the natural environment of the Europe, so the company could not build the power station in Germany. The restrict rules for environment are to protect nature in the 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 laws of European is nearly great comparable to every citizen of its members that interest him most because it makes him to feel to be unsure. On the other hand it is so very desirable – it would, of course, be a fine thing if we all had the same opportunities in all around the world. However it is just a dream for us as French author Jerome Lambert has published a number of 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 the Europe, but European Union citizens have greater equality than other nations in the world. European Union is still working to provide a great equality. Every basic human right is protected by European Union council which gives 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 to facilitate 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 USA, we can see capitalism which causes a huge gap between poor and rich people. Europe has a welfare system which eliminates most of inequalities between poor and rich people. According to article “Is the Europe welfare system a model for the 21st century?” Katrin Bennhold, journalist of International Herald Tribune, she talks about president Obama how he has been studying for European welfare system to adapt this system to the States. She also compares the USA, the European Union countries and China. The 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 welfare system to integrate to the States. Dutch and Swiss healthcare system is under observed by president Obama’s economists to understand to this system well to adapt it to in the States. One of President Obama’s speeches he called new healthcare system “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 to welfare system in the European Union. The 21st century just needs the European Union’s system which is welfare system to bring greater equality to the States. The European Union has had this system since they established. The citizens of 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 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 government which we call tariff. Tariff is any tax or fee collected by 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 tariff rate, because it is an additional charge from the governments.
The European Union decided to apply tariff rates for non European Union countries’ products and services to protect their own producers. For instance, the Europe Union and USA are the biggest producers of tomatoes in the world. The Union’s tomatoes producers produce 9.3 million ton tomatoes for per a 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 the Europe, so customers prefer to buy cheaper domestic tomatoes. Californian farmers’ union request a lower tariff rate for tomatoes but it was denied by European Union commission because they have to protect 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 non tariff rate for tomatoes. Tariff is a one way of defending union’s member states which has been protecting its producers since European Union established.
The Euro is a single currency which is used by more than 300 millions people in the Europe. The members of the European Union devote 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 system. For example, the euro has eliminated the trouble with money exchange when traveling to another country for Europeans in the 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 hotel and spending money for museums and attractions are always cost a lot for tourists. Especially, when a person travels a foreign country, there is a huge unification the transparency of the price on hotels, renting cars. Because the exchange rates of money are not certain, they are changeable for daily basis, 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 of 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. There is no risk in single currency system; while paying money to the travel agency or store the value of the money could change, so the agency would have to charge customers more. So customers have to give more money to 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 increase of profits and encouragement of new investments and expansion plans in the business and industry. The European Union citizens also take advantage of spending less money for goods and services, so it causes increasing consumer standards of living in the Europe, and businesses benefits by increasing their profits. The single euro gives advantages both consumers and producers in the Europe.
The numbers can speak louder than word, so there are some statistics from European commission and IMF (international monetary funds) that I wanted to highlight; GDP for European Union is 11.9 trillions euros but USA’s GDP is 11.2 trillions euros, and Japan’s GDP is 3.5 trillions 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 economical powerhouse in the World.
As I mentioned before, the European Union is the biggest Union 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 international stage to guarantee their own 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 enlargement of the European Union. This is more like combination of United States and Japan. As a voice of Turkey in international stage is weak, it is just about almost 80 million people. Is it enough to be heard and taken more serious 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 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 for “energise the transatlantic relationship” with the European Union, she called the EU as a crucial and necessary a partner for the USA in solving the global problems such as 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 serious the observations and requests about those areas by the European Union. it just indicates every global decision consists of a big part of EU’s surveillance and demand. This strong international power comes from representing of 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 in the global stage.
The USA needs a strong partner like the European Union in the international stage to happen its own commands to 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 in 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 others with The USA. (EuropeanVoice.com) to be a strong in current world, all countries have to be somehow to be united with themselves to be strong as much as the European Union. if the EU did not exist, Can Germany or France to be have a 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 the Europe, so they still seek the EU’s own benefits. Their effectiveness does not come from their own supremacy; their supremacy is a 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 in international stage.
Negative Effects of the 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 peace and uniformed 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 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 the Regulations Article 1: “official languages and the working languages of the institutions of the Community shall be Dutch, French, German and Italian.” 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 there arguments upon the “cost of translation and interpretation,” which they consider as a “waste of EU resources.” 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. The social aspect of the member state was not the main reason of 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.” The leaders of the European Union need to understand that cultural and linguistic differences can cause much more trouble due to hampering of the platform of communication.
The above mentioned problem gives rise to what Vankin referred to as “nationalists vs. Europeans,” or in another words nationalism vs. regionalism. At the time of crisis, the citizens of a nation, be it leaders of civilians, will automatically start pursuing the path which leads to the betterment of their own nation. Naturally, the members of EU fail to “share common interests” and due to this “logic of diversity” the EU is unable to develop “making of common foreign policies.” 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 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 economical crisis. The first problem is a one-time cost as after the implementation of the “common currency” the firms of financial and non-financial sector will have to adjust all of their business related data according to Euro. 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 Euro will not end at this, a loss over the ‘sovereignty’ of developing an “economic policy” and “fiscal policy” are yet another threats or 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 “growth and stability pact,” each nation will “borrow 3% of GDP” which will force the members to follow the economic growth of others.
The ending of national boundaries, introduction of common currency and 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 a migration by workers who can find high paying jobs, better educational institutes, and enhanced development environment in other member nations. This might increase the unemployment rate and population of the nation that is being migrated to, where as both of the figures will drop from the immigrant’s country of origin. The firms would need to develop new packages and plans to hold onto their employees, and governments might be challenges to place quotas on the number of immigrants.
The trade in 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 off 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.” Due to the increase in globalization of business, every nation is facing threat 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 European Union because they face three forms of competition, local, international and the threat by 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 this 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.” 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 increasing population for funds will inevitably create a situation of borrowing less and paying more.
A research was conducted by Zaidi and Zolyomi 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. 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 unavailability of schools or teachers? If a country fails to educate its younger generations, a resentment or rivalry will emerge between the member states. The EU would require representatives who possess high educational backgrounds. Therefore, the representation of more educated nation would increase, hence, the resentment will also continue through generations.
Another challenge faced by the members of 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 to 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 which 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 in 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 free trade market, common currency, trade laws, and even restriction of GDP growth. Finally, the allocation of national budgets also requires to be approved by the commission.
Another loss is in form of the loss of individual nation’s culture as it has been mixed with the cultural norms and values of other nations and state. 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 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.”
The loss of the process of decision making and the transparency of the process has already been mentioned. The primary concern now becomes the “abusing of absolute power,” which has been witnessed throughout the 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 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.
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 of the 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, 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 its 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 results of its “unification.”
Summary
In conclusion, The European Union has been a big benefit for its members for many years. There is a no country complains about any advantages of the European Union such as, single market, protection of 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. There are some others countries are dying to join the EU, such Turkey, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and Iceland. As a short everyone’s eye on the Union to became part of it.
References
Anonymous, “Multilingualism in EU,” Interview with Neil Kinnock, John Benjamin’s Publishing Company, 2004.
Bozoki, Andras. “Cultural Policy and Politics in European Union,” Speech by Andras Bozoki, Minister of Culture Hungary, 2005-06.
Briney, Amanda. “The European Union: A History and Overview.” About.com: Geography, (2008).
Bruno, “Food and Capitalism,” Us Europeans. Web.
Charlemagne. “Beware of breaking the single market.” The Economist Newspaper. 2009.
EUROPA, “Panorama of EU,” EU at a glance, Web.
Johnston, Philip. “EU membership to cost us £837 each next year.” Home Affairs, 2006.
Pszczolka, Ireneusz. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Introducing the Euro.” The Dilemmas of Regional Economic Integrations, 215-222.
Pettinger, Tejvan R. “Cost of Joining the Euro,” Cherwell College Oxford: Economics Help, 2009. 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. “Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantages in EU Member States.” European Center: Policy Brief, (2007), 1-16.
Gabriel, J Matthew. “Interest and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion, and European Union. Michigan: the University of Michigan 1999.
Bradley J. Rickard, 2006. Web.
Ripple.Barbara, 1999. “The Banana Battle Consumers. Research Magazine.12:2 cl 1999.
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.
European Union (EU) is one of the integration bloc found in France. EU is a profitable and political union with many states in Europe. EU has developed a single market with rules and regulations that govern all the member states.
According to Gibb and Michalak (2000), the EU in France has developed a single market that allows free movement of goods, services, people, and capital, where it maintains common policies on trade. Traders and firms are able to move to other countries for trade. EU is also represented by the United Nations – other countries in the EU in Europe include Italy and Belgium.
In France, the regional integration between the country and others has benefited the traders, especially in agriculture sector because there is increase in production and high quality of life for farmers. They have provided stable markets and affordable prices because of price controls for consumers.
Trade between France and other countries in Europe that are in the regional trade agreement has improved education. EU has supported programmes such as the Erasmus programme, a university syllabus which started in 1980’s. This programme has supported many university students. They encourage knowledge and learning in education in other countries while offering equal degrees with the same standards.
The EU in Europe has promoted use and knowledge of many languages. When France citizens trade in other countries, they are able to engage in other languages other than their mother tongue. Different cultures have been integrated that allows movement of workers within these European countries which are members of the European Union.
Therefore, as a member of EU, France has a wider selection of goods and services from different nations at lower tariffs. According to Bliss (2004), integrations allow small economies to collect their resources and enables local firms to get into larger markets. This has increased the economic growth in France and has brought additional trade, improved quality of goods, and more imports and exports. Integration has also made good international relations because of the integrated market while also promoting good channels of communication.
The Negative Aspects of Regional Integration
Although regional integration’s aim is to improve the economic status of the countries in the EU union, not all the participants achieve the same benefits. Problems arise especially when determining whether participants have equal say according to the set policies. Some of the states appear to be more powerful than others.
Barnard (2007) argues that economic disruptions in some of the countries cause unequal distribution of resources with some states becoming the net recipients and others becoming the net lenders. Some of the countries may not benefit because more focus is on the affected countries. France and other big states often complain about the smaller states claiming that they do not give same share of the European Union. Also smaller states have complained that they are ignored because of their economic status.
Additionally, workers within the integration bloc face lower pays from their employers who threaten to export jobs. Companies in those integrated regions can loose their competitive advantage, especially when companies build better factories in lower-rated countries, making them as productive as those at their home country. When political crises arise, it is hard for the managing board to resolve those conflicts and this also includes immigration management and crossing of the borders.
Furthermore, regional integration is deemed to weaken the sovereignty of a country. This is because when countries like France entered the EU, they agreed to abide by the rules and procedures governing the body, but some EU rules are in opposition to some member countries’ policies.
The stiff polices restrict member countries from engaging in substantial economic development without consulting other countries in the system. Additionally, France and Germany are the most powerful members are the most powerful members in the EU with regards to security. This implies that the powerful nations have greater geo-political authority than small countries; therefore, the national integration is biased.
References
Bliss, C.J. (2004). Economic Theory and Policy for Trading Blocks and Integration. Manchester: Manchester University press.
Barnard, C. (2007). The Substantive Law of the EU. The Four Freedoms (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibb, R. & Michalak, W. (2000). Continental Trading Blocs: The Growth of Regionalism in the World Economy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
The essay is a position paper concerning the role of Malta in the European Union. Malta is located at the center of Mediterranean Sea it boasts of the following beautiful scenery, frenetic nightlife, rich history and citizen who are described as being unusually friendly.
It is worth to note that the country has a population of 0.4 million being one of the countries with the smallest population but with the highest population density of about 1300 per km2. The country has two official languages English and Maltese. It is an independent republic that joined EU back in the year 2004 (Andreatta 2005).
In terms of governance, the country is a representative parliamentary republic where the president is the Head of State serving a term of five years having ceremonial duties. The president is assisted by the Prime Minister who is the head of the government. The country has two party systems center-right Nationalist Party. Its relationship with European Union has grown since the year 2004.
When it joined EU it nominated one commissioner as well as electing 5 MEPS to the European parliament. It was in the year 2007 that the country was allowed to enable passport to travel free across nations (Barber 2010).
Through the ministry of foreign affairs the country’s foreign policy on EU, bilateral, global and regional issues are fostered, maintained as well as enhance the country’s relation with other countries and organization, taking part in EU issues on security policies among others (Bretherton & Vogler 2006).
It is worth noting that when countries join hands like in EU the issues concerning borders, politics, economy and environment pose great challenges. These challenges cannot be met by single countries (Smith, Crowe & Peterson 2006). It has been argued that when member states act in unison, then they can deliver the desired outcomes as well as successfully address issues raised by the public.
There is need for Europe to modernize the recent expansion to 27 members up from 15 calls for more efficient and effective tools that are coherent to help the member states to tackle changes that are apparent in this world (Nugent & Saurugger 2002). It is also important to note that the contribution of member states are key in ensuring that external issues are handled in the best way.
To accomplish this, member states opt to rethink on the ways to come up with common ground rules that will enhance them to work in unity. In this case, the paper will analyze the concept of World Center for New Thinking is deemed to be the major Malta’s contribution to EU as well as the entire world.
World Center for New Thinking
The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place. This is a famous quote by Einstein Albert. It is a fact that Malta has shown a continuous interest in addressing international conflicts throughout the world.
Since it attained her independence from Britain, Malta has become a force to reckon for brokering peace not only in Mediterranean regions but also in North Africa and Europe. Public officials as well as scholars of Malta origins have found themselves playing a very significant role in brokering peace as well as negotiating international agreements on law of the sea as well as environmental policies.
In addition to this, the country has also invited Israel as well as Islamic countries to embrace each other. More importantly, Malta has played a significant role in trying to address problems facing those in the Mediterranean region by convening conferences (Øhrgaard 2004).
Since the country joined EU one of the milestones in her history concerns establishment of World Center for New Thinking which is the work of Dr de Bono. The center is though to be an arena where new ideas on global issues will emerge (Smith Crowe & Peterson 2006).
There is no doubt that this concept is of its own kind. According to the founder, he asserted that the current issues being faced in EU member states and the entire world calls for a set of new ideas.
The main purpose of the center is to act as an avenue where new ideas will be generated. It is with the contention that human usually think on the basis of analysis and judgment, however there are situations where people will need to come up with ways to successfully handle the issues at hand. Examples of such issues include conflicts, environmental policies among others (Smith 2006).
Based on the assertions of the founder of the center, the ideas generated will benefits all and a sundry. To him fields such as economics, environmental studies, international and local politics, education among others will need new ideas.
It is with no doubt that these ideas once generated they will contribute to rational decision making as well as developing ways in which necessary actions are to be taken. All these can be seen in the environmental policy proposed by Malta (Marsh & Mackenstein 2005).
It is worth to note that Malta as a country has embarked on serious steps geared towards making the economy green, safeguarding environmental health, using resources particularly natural resources in an efficient and sustainable manner, making the country pleasant through improving local environment, greening Gozo enhancing long term sustainability issues.
One area that Malta has contributed to EU is with regards to greening the economy not only of its country but the entire EU zone (Smith 2008). The country understands that a green economy is one which will lead to an improved in human wellbeing and social equity and at the same time reducing risks associated with the environment.
Malta recognized that going green has the potential of creating expansive growth as well offer employment (Spence 2006). Additionally there is recognition that there is a strong correlation between the quality of the environment and economic growth. Based on all these factors, Malta embarked on an effort to persuade EU members to support going green in terms of economy (Hayes-Renshaw & Wallace 2006).
The main building blocks used by Malta include expansion of how environmental products and services are shared in the economy and trying to cut down the environmental impact of the entire economy.
Guided by the principles of United Nations on Environmental Protection that would enable for a green economy to be realized, Malta has proposed a number of enabling conditions that would help to expand the sharing of environmental products and services as well as curbing the impact to the environment (Edwards 2005).
Among the strategies include; to link considerations of the environment to the economic development planning, soliciting money to finance the initiative, giving incentives to green job sectors, allowing the private sectors to be associated or adopt opportunities linked with green economy and having in place as well as using market based policy instruments to help internalize environmental cost (Smith 2001).
The country has managed to develop a policy that will help steer up the entire EU members to step out of environmentally polluting and resource intensive economics sectors. This is proposed to be attained by reducing negative environmental impacts and at the same time enhancing those business opportunities that are deemed environmentally friendly (Nuttall 2005).
There will be in place a framework to ensure that those economic activities that are environmentally sustainable are rewarded.
Other strategies that were proposed entails continual approach to environmental taxation, ensuring that a favorable environment for the mobilization of money to help successful transaction to green economy, facilitating private sectors to take an active role in managing the environment and lastly encouraging innovations that are friendly to the environment (Vanhoonacker 2005).
Conclusion
From the review of role of Malta in European Union, it is evident that although the country joined the commission in 2004, its contribution has been enormous particularly in solving conflicts among others. However, through the World Center for New Thinking, the country has played an important role in ensuring that new ideas are developed to help members address issues at hand.
Through this initiative, the country has been a force in advocating and negotiating for a safer environment. The efforts put forth by the country entail policies that encourage greening the economy of all member states.
Among the policies that the country has supported and advocated for include providing incentives to innovations that are friendlier to the environment, continuous engage in environmental taxation among others. I believe that although the countries have come up together, it is important for every member state to take initiatives that will help better the environment, politics, environment and social aspects of the member states.
References
Andreatta F. 2005. ‘Theory and the European Union’s International Relations’ in Hill, C. and Smith, M. (Eds): International Relations and the European Union: Oxford University Press Oxford University Press. P. 56-71.
Barber T. 2010. The Appointments of Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton Journal of Common Market Studies, 48: 55-67.
Bretherton C. & Vogler, J. 2006. The European Union as a Global Actor. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. P. 56-62
Edwards G. 2005. The Pattern of the EU’s Global Activity’ in Hill, C. and Smith, M. (Eds): International Relations and the European Union. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. P. 23-45.
Hayes-Renshaw F. & Wallace, H. 2006. The Council of Ministers (2nd edition) (Palgrave Macmillan), Chapters: ‘General Affairs and External Relations (GAERC)’. P.36-41.
Marsh S. & Mackenstein M. 2005. The International Relations of the European Union. New York: Pearson Longman. P. 51-74
Nugent N. & Saurugger S. 2002. Organizational structuring: The case of the European Commission and its external policy responsibilities’ in Journal of European Public Policy, 9 (3): 345-364
Nuttall S. 2005. ‘Coherence and Consistency’ in Hill, Christopher and Smith, Michael (Eds): International Relations and the European Union. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. P. 91-112
Øhrgaard J.2004. ‘International relations or European integration: is the CFSP sui generic?’ in Tonra, Ben and Christiansen, Thomas (Eds): Rethinking European Union foreign policy. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. P.23-32.
Smith K. 2008. European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World. London: Polity Press. P. 56.
Smith M. 2001. ‘The Quest for Coherence: Institutional Dilemmas of External Action from Maastricht to Amsterdam’ in Stone Sweet, Alec; Sandholtz, Wayne and Fligstein, Neil (Eds): The Institutionalization of Europe (Oxford University Press), pp. 171-193
Smith M. 2006. ‘The Commission and External Relations’ in Spence D. and Edwards, G. (eds): The European Commission. London: John Harper. P. 313-340
Smith, M. Crowe B. & Peterson J. 2006. ‘International Interests – The Common Foreign and Security Policy’ in Peterson J. and Shackleton M. (Eds): The Institutions of the European Union. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. P. 252-271.
Spence, D. 2006. ‘The Commission and the Common Foreign and Security Policy’ in Spence, David and Edwards, Geoffrey (Eds): The European Commission (3rd edition) (John Harper), pp. 356-395
Vanhoonacker S. 2005. ‘The Institutional Framework’ in Hill, C. and Smith, M. (Eds): International Relations and the European Union. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. P.123-134.
Accountability is one of the main processes which help any organization or state agency to control its financial resources and expenditures in order to avoid fraudulent actions and misconduct. The European Union (EU) is a large institution responsible for financial funds and the EU’s budget. In this case, political and managerial accountability is the only possible way to control distribution of resources and prevent misconduct. The core services that the EU is supposed to provide, such as legal and judicial protection for citizens, are the most affected by institutional weaknesses, although most of the public debate focuses on market institutions.
Main Text
Following Harlow: “The significant semantic transition from “responsibility” to accountability” reflects a change of practice in the English political system 8 which has not occurred or is incomplete in other European systems” (Harlow 2002). For EU, it is important to keep independence in the accounting that it may be regarded as a cornerstone upon which much of the ethics peculiar to the institution is built. Note the radical change in focus when the accounting profession speaks of independence. Independence in fact is one of the most elusive aspects of ethics. The EU is ready to assert that for the most part independence in fact is the norm in daily professional life. The main body responsible for accountability in EU is the Court of Auditors (Anderson 33).
The advent of a new legal culture cannot be prompted unless a more comprehensive strategy is forged aimed at building institutional social capital. This will require bringing in line various organizations capable of acting as horizontal accountability agents, either formal or informal, and empowering them to act as partners, ombudsmen and audit agents for governmental agencies within the framework of large coalitions granting transparency and accountability on the part of governments and the public sector in general (Legitimacy, accountability and Democracy 2002). Corruption and accountability issues have been given little space on the agenda of European accession negotiations so far, the reason being that they are informal phenomena, while negotiations are extremely formal in their nature. Informal realities therefore, regardless of their importance, become the main casualties of the negotiation process. Since the reform of the East European public administration systems is Brussels-driven, the EU needs to further strengthen its position regarding accountability and best administrative practices, and use its leverage to support domestic ‘mani pulita’ (‘clean hands’) coalitions, not governments alone. If the EU wants the negotiations to succeed in countries where informal institutions are at least as strong as formal ones, there is little choice but to develop a strategy that will address informal problems, backed by part of the resources earmarked for formal ones (Anderson 39).
The main principle of political and managerial accountability in EU is transparency. It means that the EU announces all its decision and policy making processes which have a great impact on the EU and its community. Thus, Harlow criticizes recent policies of the EU stating that “it follows an unorthodox idea of accountability, focused on the policy-making process. It pays minimal attention to the more traditional obligation of government to render an account of its doings. And there is almost no reference in the White Paper to classical definitions of responsibility and accountability as recognised within the democratic systems of government of the Member States” (Harlow (b) 2002). The EU needs to build accountable governments and public agencies.
The dramatic public discontent with politicians and political organizations comes from a generalized feeling that governments are not accountable. More often than not this perception is rooted in reality since institutions of horizontal accountability are extremely weak or non-existent. In developed democracies, vertical accountability is ensured by constituencies, and by competition for resources between various levels of government. Legislative bodies and the judiciary provide formal horizontal accountability, but NGOs, interest groups and strong, impartial media also bring an essential contribution to informal horizontal accountability.”The principles of openness, transparency and accountability…. are at the heart of democracy and are the very instruments allowing it to function properly. Openness and transparency imply that the decision-making process, at all levels, is as accessible and accountable as possible to the general public” (cited Harlow (b) 2002).
The main problem of political accountability is that: “the European Union, the elemental notion of democratic accountability in the sense of a process by which a government has to present itself at regular intervals for election, and can be ousted by the electorate 15, can be quickly passed over. At EU level, governments are not elected” (Harlow 2002). Both subjective and objective estimates of corruption and accountability show the EU is falling into the bottom half of the scale. The ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’ has shown an extraordinary build-up of structures and activities as a reaction to perceived transnational threats to internal security; the outcome was the proposed common structures and measures at the European level, of which there have been quite a few over the past ten years (Democracy and Accountability 82).
The Treaty on European Union is a complex document characterized more by pragmatism and compromise than idealism and coherence. It gives to the Union important responsibilities but divides responsibilities for making policies between the institutions of the EC and the member states acting together in political cooperation. It implies that integration is a dynamic process but does not provide a direction for the process. It also introduces subsidiarity as a principle of restraint in integration. It addresses the democratic deficit by giving more power to Parliament but obscures democratic accountability by creating a policy-making morass. It provides for flexibility in the integration process through the addition of protocols, but the resulting two-speed Europe may not be feasible when it is superimposed on a single market. In short, it is a flawed instrument but one which can serve to provide the amount of integration possible in the current situation in Europe. The European Parliament would not have any power of decision except through its budgetary powers. “Yet for the accountability gap to be closed, it is essential for national parliaments to take matters into their own hands; they need toensure that relationships between national parliaments are strong and in good repair” (Harlow (b) 2002).
Title II provides for more democratic policy making in the EC by increasing the power of Parliament and by limiting the number of cases in which a single member government can block action by the Council. Subsidiarity is the operational principle for determining the locus for policy making but is not an easy principle to apply. The treaty and its protocols provide an intricate map to the locations of the various responsible actors and the routes which they must take according to the circumstance or policy involved. The treaty provides for multilayered politics. Citizens, regions, political parties, national governments, and EC institutions have roles to play in the Union. One may easily criticize the treaty as a bundle of compromises (Harlow (a) 68).
One may even speculate that the EC might have been better if it had not been drafted. Once it was drafted, however, implementing it became essential to the future of the EC. The tenuous public support for integration would have plummeted in the face of a defeat in the ratification process. It could still plummet if implementation flounders on the complexities and ambiguities in the treaty; on the other hand, the treaty could encourage closer relations between the EC and citizens in the member states and lead to EU. The cost of the increased power, however, is high. The treaty provides for so many procedures that it fails to create the transparency or openness which is essential for democratic accountability. Interested citizens will have difficulty understanding the responsibilities of the various institutions. The provisions of the treaty also increase opportunities for disputes over the appropriate policy-making procedure. Such disputes have already occurred under the SEA over, for example, environmental policies. Given the greater complexity of the new treaty, one can foresee a vast increase in the number of disputes which will require a ruling by the European Court (Harlow (a) 65).
Conclusion
In sum, accountability is a complex issue based on democratic principles and social values. Accountability allows the EU to control its political and financial power, budgets and social policies. National parliaments play a key role in the accountability of the agents of cooperation, and this is a role that they have not yet exercised effectively. These highly complex and sophisticated instruments are to be adopted almost at the same time, and many of them either prior to accession or on day one of the accession by applicant countries. Given the current stage of institutional development of the EU, in many instances such adoption can only be formal.
Works Cited
Anderson, M. Policing the European Union. Clarendon Press, 1996.
Democracy and Accountability in the EU and the Role of National Parliaments: Report and Proceedings of the Committee v. 1. European security Committee. Stationery Office Books, 2002.
Harlow, C. (a). Accountability in the European Union.
Harlow, C. (b) Problems of Accountability in the European Union. 2002. Web.
Legitimacy, accountability and Democracy in the European Union. 2002. Web.
Maritime piracy has increased in the recent past especially on the African coasts. Maritime piracy not only leads to the loss of innocent lives but also leads to losses of valuable goods and huge amounts of money spent either on the ransom demanded by the pirates or on the rescue mission by multi-international parties. The case brief under analysis in this paper entails five Somali fishermen who were arrested with the intent of seizing a Netherlands ship and demanding a ransom. In short, they were imprisoned for maritime piracy.
Arguments for the case
Attacking the problem directly using private organizations
One of the suggestions made on tackling the maritime piracy problem is making use of the private sector rather than the developing countries’ governments. Due to the corrupt nature of developing countries’ governments, it would be more effective to use private and non-governmental organizations to assist in combating the problem. One of the benefits of this measure is that many such organizations have highly trained personnel who are capable and well-equipped to deal with the problem. The experience of such organizations in similar matters is also vast thus making it an effective measure of tackling the problem.
Second, the organizations may have employees who are well familiar with the language and culture of the affected people and this makes it easier to deal with the problem. The third important benefit is that this measure would create more jobs for Americans rather than waste American resources (the United States Foreign Affairs, 2009).
Increasing patrol in the troubled waters
One of the efforts being currently undertaken is the deployment of patrol ships such as ships from the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard to the high-risk seas such as off the coast of Somalia. The United States has also entered into agreements with other countries from the developed world to do the same and as a result, the troubled seas are currently being patrolled by more than 40 well-armed ships.
In addition, maritime security protective regions have been created on troubled waters. These regions are well guarded and enable ships to transit without any risks. The United States has also entered into an agreement with the affected African countries such as Kenya to prosecute the pirates who are arrested. These efforts have bore fruits in the fight against maritime piracy. For instance, in the period between January and April of 2009, 15 pirate vessels were interdicted as compared to only 8 during the entire year of 2008 (United States Foreign Affairs, 2009).
Arguments against the case
Waste of taxpayers’ money on corrupt governments
One of the suggestions made on tackling the maritime piracy problem is providing military training to the developing countries on whose coast the piracy takes place. The subcommittee however opposes this suggestion terming it as a waste of taxpayers’ money. The argument made is that military training of the affected developing country would not be an effective measure of dealing with the problem since the problem is complex. Moreover, it was argued that the majority, if not all of these developing countries have corrupt governments. It is therefore possible that the equipment supplies sent by the developed countries for the training may be used for other selfish motives besides the military training of personnel (Ong-Webb, 2006).
Lack of cooperation from other countries
As discussed earlier, one of the measures being taken to combat maritime piracy is the deployment of patrol ships to the troubled waters and prosecuting the apprehended pirates in developing countries. So far, the United States has only managed to enter into agreement with the Kenyan government to prosecute the pirates who are arrested. Efforts to make similar agreements with other African countries have proven futile. The lack of cooperation from these countries is a big challenge to the war on maritime piracy (Eggleston, 1994). However, this unwillingness on the part of the African countries is understandable to some extent.
First and foremost, Somalia is a highly volatile country with links to deadly terrorist groups. The country’s involvement in piracy is only a tip of the iceberg and is a proof of a much deeper problem. Thus, interfering with the country’s piracy activities is viewed as a risk not only to the security and peace of the African continent but also the international community as a whole. To avoid this, the United States should dig deep into the root cause of the problem and try to address it first using more diplomatic means before tackling the maritime piracy issue.
Unfortunately, success in dealing with the political, social and economic challenges facing the Somalis lies with the Somalis themselves rather than with the international community. Any positive change in the country can only come about if it is initiated and implemented by the Somalis and not by any outsiders. As a result, a lot of resources are needed to sensitize and educate the Somali people and this adds to the challenge of fighting maritime piracy (United States Foreign Affairs, 2009).
Freezing and tracking of pirates’ concessions
Another anti-maritime piracy effort being made by the Unites States and its allies is the tracking and freezing of the ransoms paid by the victim countries to the pirates. This effort is yet to yield any dividend given that the ransoms are usually paid in the form of bags of $100 or Euros dropped by helicopters to the pirates’ vessels. Tracking this money as well as the assets of the pirates is thus a big challenge to the United States that remains to be realized.
Additionally, the US argues that the increase in the number of pirates’ attacks is as a result of the willingness of victim countries to pay the ransom demanded by the pirates. The suggestion made is that the victim countries should not give in to the pirates’ ransom demands. However, others argue that the ransom is a worthy price to pay for the release of the hijacked ships. Moreover, pirates nowadays do not think twice about killing their hostages if the ransom demanded is not paid. Therefore, the risk of losing innocent lives adds to the challenge of fighting maritime piracy (Forest, 2007).
Conclusion
Maritime piracy has become a big problem to the shipping community. Not only does piracy lead to the loss of billions of dollars worth of goods but there is also the risk of loss of lives. Numerous efforts have been made by the United States and its allies to combat maritime piracy. Although some degree of success has been achieved in the form of increase in the number of interdictions, the number of pirates’ attacks continues to grow.
This shows that loopholes exist in the fight against maritime piracy (Chalk, 2008). It is important to note that this fight can only be successful if the underlying political, economic and social problems facing the Somali people are addressed. Without this, non-troubled seas would remain just an illusion to the shipping community. Based on the arguments presented in this paper, the five Somali fishermen should not be imprisoned.
Reference List
Chalk, P. (2008). The maritime dimension of international security: terrorism, piracy and challenges for the United States. Arlington: RAND Corporation.
Eggleston, B. (1994). Maritime piracy: a historical threat in modern times. New York: Joint Military Intelligence College.
Forest, J. (2007). Countering terrorism and insurgency in the 21st century. Arlington: RAND Corporation.
Ong-Webb, G. (2006). Piracy, maritime terrorism and securing the Malacca Straits. Singapore: ISEAS.
United States Foreign Affairs. (2009). International efforts to combat maritime piracy: Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight of the Committee on Foreign Affairs House of Representatives 111th Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
The European Union’s single market is based on four primary freedoms of movement – that of capital, goods, services, and people. Frequently, when someone talks about the freedom of movement of people, their main focus is the borderless nature of the Union whereby its citizens can travel freely from one state to another. Increasingly, however, the EU citizens participate in the labor markets of countries other than their country of origin.
Thus, even though the EU does not have control over its member states’ labor markets, the phenomenon of cross-cultural labor prompted it to address the working conditions and standards across the member states. One such measure is the Working Time Directive (WTD) that aims to ensure the health and safety of workers by guaranteeing certain rights to them with respect to their work schedule. While the policy has been largely beneficial in terms of enhancing integration of the EU’s labor markets, its opt-out provisions create undesirable opportunities for social dumping.
The Working Time Directive was passed in 2003, amending and replacing the Council Directive 93/104/EC that outlined the basic working time requirements with the aim of protecting workers’ health, hygiene, and safety. This piece of legislation relies on Article 137 of the Treaty establishing the European Community that calls for the EU to complement the legislation passed by the member states in the field of workers’ health and safety protection.
Relying on the research carried out by the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee, the legislators aim to provide adequate resting time to employees and address the issue of night work which is believed to be potentially more harmful to the human body (European Parliament & Council of the European Union 2003). Thus, the primary objective of the WTD is to implement EU-wide working time and schedule standards so as to protect the workers’ health and safety and further the integration of the single labor market.
Given that the market actors frequently tend to be self-interested and guided by economic rather than social considerations, the Working Time Directive is a necessary and useful measure to uphold the rights of the EU workers. The Directive imposes specific limitations on the amount and pattern of the working hours that employees are subject to. Thus, Chapter 2 of the Directive lays out the minimum rest period requirements: working hours, including overtime, are not to exceed 48 hours each week, and employees are to receive at least 11-hour long breaks in any 24-hour period. Moreover, a 24-hour consecutive rest period is to be included in every 7-day period.
Should workers be on duty for over 6 hours, they are entitled to a break during their working hours. Finally, every worker has a right to a 4-week long paid leave each year (European Parliament & Council of the European Union 2003).
Chapter 3 of the Directive outlines the extra protection measures concerning night workers: their average working hours are not to exceed 8 hours in any 24-hour period, especially if the job involves heavy or dangerous work. Employers are required to provide free health assessments to night workers, and, in some cases, have to transfer them to daytime work. Chapter 5, on the other hand, lists certain derogations and exceptions that may apply to the Directive’s main provisions. They are meant to apply to those workers whose occupation has some specific characteristics, such as executive managers and family workers.
The Directive also sets several exceptions for employees in certain sectors, such as sea fishing or city transportation. Apart from that, Article 22 of the Directive allows the national governments to opt-out from the 48-hour workweek limit, as long as individual employees agree to work longer hours (European Parliament & Council of the European Union 2003). The last provision became the issue of heated debate in the UK, as the country chose to opt-out from the limit.
The provisions included in the Directive have been designed in such a way so as to protect the workers, and they are based on extensive research. Thus, an increased workload – meaning one exceeding 48 hours a week – has been linked to stress, mental health illnesses, heart diseases, and diabetes, to name a few. Employees working longer hours are also more likely to make unhealthy lifestyle choices such as excessive alcohol consumption, smoking, and poor eating habits. Moreover, exposure to dangerous working environments, such as those with the increased levels of noise or use of chemicals, presents an issue for long-hour workers, as safe exposure limits are typically calculated given a 40-hour workweek (Trades Union Congress 2005).
Apart from addressing health and safety issues, the Directive can also help solve other problems associated with long-hour workplaces. For instance, such jobs tend to have considerably fewer female workers – only one-fifth of the total number of employees – and, therefore, they frequently limit career opportunities for women. Working patterns based on long hours are also far more likely to have a detrimental effect on parenting, as well as on the individual’s work-life balance.
Long-hour jobs also adversely affect lifelong learning, as individuals working them typically have little to no time to participate in further education and training. As their skills are not getting developed, these individuals are likely to remain in long-hour jobs for extended periods of time which reduces their overall quality of life. Opinion polls and surveys also reveal that workers, on average, prefer if their working week was limited to no more than 48 hours (Trades Union Congress 2005).
Even though the national governments largely retain control over the employment policy, there is a significant Europeanization trend in the domain of social policy. In this field, the EU adopted a governance approach, whereby it aims to coordinate and encourage cooperation among the member states instead of directly regulating the market. To a significant extent, the EU considers both social and economic dimensions of the employment policy, especially emphasizing equal pay, non-discrimination, and other issues pertaining to workers’ rights (Gold 2009).
Thus, the development of the single labor market can be compared to the conception of the single market for goods that were also initiated through more incremental measures and were gradually brought under the Union’s control. Such measures as the Working Time Directive help enhance the integration of the European single labor market.
Initially, cooperation in the fields of employment and social inclusion was based on the Open Method of Cooperation that relied on the voluntary cooperation of the national governments (Gold 2009). As such, the method is primarily based on the soft law principle whereby the European Commission has little power to enforce the national governments’ compliance with these provisions. Increasingly, however, one can observe the prevailing trend of harmonization of national laws and convergence of standards across the Union.
The change can be noted, first of all, in the kind of legislative acts that are being passed in the employment policy domain: instead of the non-binding recommendations, the EU now primarily adopts directives. Such an approach helps harmonize the widely different working conditions standards across the EU member states, helping create more uniform laws and allowing for better worker protection. Harmonization, in turn, guarantees that the single market is not distorted by the differing employment provisions, unjustly shifting supply or demand from one country to another. At this stage, one can say that the EU has truly achieved the free movement of workers, as their migration patterns are not influenced by the somewhat arbitrary factors such as the different national employment provisions.
While in theory, the Working Time Directive has the potential to bridge the gap between the member states, the reality of its implementation, in fact, undermines the formation of a single European labor market. The implementation issues allow for a certain degree of social dumping as some member states chose to opt-out from the policy, and others fail to fully implement the Directive’s provisions (Parliament gives Working Time opt-outs the red card 2008).
The term “social dumping” refers to the phenomenon whereby some business actors attempt to take advantage of cheap labor by moving their operations to a country with lower working standards and wages or employing migrant workers. In the EU context, social dumping occurs, first of all, when companies manage to get an advantage by using the loopholes – including the derogations – in the EU employment legislation (European Trade Union Confederation 2015).
Essentially, derogations and opt-outs provide exactly what is needed for social dumping – gaps or loopholes in legislation that certain employers use to their advantage. Thus, derogations effectively distort the free labor market, just like different product labeling and packaging laws have the potential to distort the free market for goods. Apart from creating unfair competition, social dumping produces several other undesirable consequences.
Typically, given the increased competition, it causes a decrease in wages, as well as a general deterioration of working conditions. Frequently, it also leads to a loss in the country’s tax revenue, depriving the state of the contributions necessary to fund its welfare program (European Trade Union Confederation 2015). For instance, in the case of the UK’s opt-out, whereby individuals are allowed to work more than 48 hours a week, many potential workers can be attracted to come to the country to work longer hours. Such a situation creates an artificial increase in the labor supply. At the same time, not only the opt-outs are responsible for creating opportunities for social dumping: several member states are still in the breach of certain Directive’s provisions, meaning that it is not fully and accurately implemented at the national level (BusinessEurope 2011).
Companies and corporations are, above all, profit-generating entities and, as such, they are primarily driven by financial interests and considerations. While it does not necessarily mean that they are constantly looking for ways to exploit their employees, they are, nevertheless, more likely to overlook their workers’ concerns in their attempt to maximize their business opportunities. Thus, they tend to consider this issue from a different angle.
For instance, they emphasize the increased flexibility that longer working hours give to the employers, who can effectively respond to fluctuations in demand, adjust their business hours to align them with their customers’ needs, as well as complete certain projects under a strict and short deadline. Consequently, they perceive the EU intervention as an unnecessary measure that hinders economic growth and development (BusinessEurope 2011). The European Commission needs to make sure to consider and evaluate these claims so as to reconcile the workers’ rights with the Union’s economic goals.
Overall, the Working Time Directive is a valuable piece of legislation that helps uphold the workers’ rights by protecting their health and safety and positively influencing their work-life balance and overall well-being. The provisions laid out in the Directive are based on extensive research and evidence supporting its underlying assumptions. By harmonizing the national employment standards, the Working Time Directive, together with other relevant laws, help foster integration in the area of the single European labor market. However, the Directive in its present form, given the reality of its implementation, can potentially create opportunities for unfair competition and social dumping. Thus, the EU needs to carefully balance economic interests and workers’ rights so as to guarantee fairness and growth.
European Parliament & Council of the European Union 2003, Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. Web.
European Trade Union Confederation 2015, Free movement, yes! Social dumping, no! Web.
Gold, M 2009, Employment policy in the European Union: Origins, themes and prospects, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Web.
The European Union Member States must incorporate the EU law into their legislative framework and principles in the spirit of a constitutional treaty. In other words, the individual laws of the member states must be interpreted in the context of EU law. This means that the EU law takes precedence over the legislations of individual member states. EU directives addressed to member states provide guidelines on how the member states should enact their respective national laws to give effect to the EU law within a specified timescale (Tridimas 1999, p.214). The EU law is binding at the EU level and subsequently at the EU member states level where it involves both the private and public sectors.
The Equal Pay Law in the UK derives its framework from the EU’s employment law. In particular, the inclusion of the equal pay provision in the EU treaty, the EU equal pay directive, the European Court of Justice case law, and more recently, the inclusion of social equality principles in the European Social Inclusion agenda and the European Employment Strategy has a significant influence on the UK’s Equal Pay law (Dickens 2007, p.464). The EU, through these strategies, advocates for the implementation of laws that promote equal pay for men and women.
Accordingly, the Equal Pay Act that was incorporated into the Equality Act 2010 provides for equal pay and employment conditions for both men and women doing similar roles. Additionally, the 2002 EU directive Fixed-TermTerm Work led to Fixed-Term Employees laws that aim at protecting fixed-term employees from unfavorable treatment relative to other employees. From this view, it is clear that UK law derives its principles from EU law. The principles of the UK Equal Pay law are heavily dependent on the EU Employment law.
The Implications of EU Law on UK Equal Pay Law
The EU equal pay law contains provisions on non-discrimination on various grounds such as gender or nationality (among the member states). Article 12 of the European Commission Treaty (TEC) forbids discrimination and provides that all nationals of the member states qualify for the Union’s citizenship (Dickens 2007, p.467). Additionally, the EU legislation (Directive 2000/78/EC) provides a framework for non-discrimination in employment and all occupations. It forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs, or disability and provides for equal treatment of workers in all occupations (Wells 2003, p.254). The equal treatment principle implies that no individual shall be subjected to unfavourable treatment, either directly or indirectly, on any of these grounds. Moreover, this principle provides to persons with disabilities. In this regard, employers are required to implement appropriate measures, such as training, to facilitate the participation of persons with disabilities in employment.
With regard to ethnic and racial discrimination, the general EU anti-discrimination principle is enshrined in the EU directive 2000/43/EC (Dickens 2007, p.466). This directive requires employers to implement the principle of equal treatment of persons regardless of their ethnic origin or racial background. The directive covers both private and public employment sectors in areas of healthcare, education, social security, and commerce. It forbids direct and indirect discrimination of persons working in these sectors. Indirect discrimination may involve a less favourable treatment of an individual or an act, though appearing neutral, results in an unfavourable outcome for an individual or a specified group. However, this directive does not include discrimination based on an individual’s nationality.
On the other hand, the UK law contains parts of the European Employment Directives. In particular, the Employment Equality Act of 2003 implements parts of directive 2000/78/EC in the UK. The Act protects persons from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and religion or beliefs (Dickens 2007, p.471). In 1995, the UK Parliament enacted the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) to protect persons with disabilities from employment discrimination. According to this Act, disability is defined as any impairment, often medical, which places a person in a disadvantaged position within the society. By contrast, the EU law takes a more social view with regard to disability, and thus, the UK domestic law may not adequately meet the demands of the EU law in this respect.
In 2006, the UK enacted another Employment Equality (Age) law to prevent discrimination based on age. The EU Directive 2000/78/EC provides for the protection of all age groups across Europe, especially older people, from discrimination. Another UK anti-discrimination law, which relates to the EU law, is the Race Relations Act of 1976 that was amended in 2003. This Act protects persons from employment discrimination based on their racial or ethnic origin.
The Legislative Framework of Equal Pay Law
The equal pay law regards equal treatment of both men and women in employment. Under the EU legislation, equality in the treatment of men and women in the same employment is covered by three distinct laws: The Equal Pay directive, the Equal Treatment directive, and the Equal Social Security directive (Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) 2002, p. 7). The Equal Pay directive (Directive 75/117EC) reflects the laws of the individual member states regarding the principle of equality of men and women in the workplace. It provides that any employer pays persons doing similar roles equally irrespective of their sex (EOC 2002, p. 4). Additionally, the directive specifies that the same criteria for job qualification be used for both men and women during hiring. In other words, the criteria for job recruitment should be not discriminate between the two sexes.
The second EU directive regarding Equal Pay is the Equal Treatment directive (Directive 76/207/EC). This directive regards equality between two sexes in terms of access to work conditions, vocational training, and employment growth opportunities (Fairhurst 2005, p. 106). The directive ensures that all persons have equal access to better work conditions and on-job training opportunities without discrimination based on gender. In particular, it forbids dismissals of women because of maternity issues or pregnancy. However, most notably, this directive does not cover occupations that exhibit bias towards one gender. These two EU directives (Equal Treatment and Equal Pay) demand that individual member states undertake necessary legislative measures to cushion employees from unfair dismissal after filing a legal suit over unfair treatment in their workplace.
On the other hand, three directives protect women and men from unequal treatment in social security schemes. The Equal Social Security directive (Directive 86/378/EEC) provides for equal treatment of both sexes with regard to social security schemes (Fairhurst 2005, p. 109). The directive applies to both the employed and self-employed individuals of both genders. It also covers mothers under maternity leave, persons temporarily out work due to accidents or illnesses and retired workers. However, this directive does not cover contracts at individual levels or schemes comprising of one member. The major purpose of this directive is to prevent employer gender discrimination with regard to the benefits or regulations of their employee pension schemes. In other words, the directive ensures equal treatment of all persons with respect to their pension schemes.
In contrast, the Statutory Social Security directive (directive 79/7/EC) has an expanded scope; it includes the unemployed, disabled workers and individuals incapacitated by industrial accidents or sickness (Tridimas 1999, p.218). Additionally, it specifies that employers should not discriminate employees based on their sex, marital or family status besides the conditions outlined above. The other directive, directive 98/49/EC, concerns the labour mobility between two member states. Its purpose is to protect the pension schemes of workers moving within the Union member states. This EU directive covers the worker’s pension rights in both compulsory and voluntary pension schemes. It applies to persons having pension rights in pension schemes, in any EU member state. Another regulation (EEC/1408/71) covers the pension schemes of the workers moving with their families within the EU (Fairhurst 2005, p. 111). The regulation also applies to social security branches within the EU with regard to old age benefits, maternity benefits and illness benefits. However, medical benefits or social pension schemes of war a victim is not covered by this regulation.
Under the UK law, various acts and laws have been enacted to implement the Equal Pay directive. In contrast, the Equal Pay Act of 1993 (amended to Equality Act 2010) provides for similar terms of employment (pay and work conditions) between men and women. It specifies three conditions regarding this requirement; men and women employees with similar roles, different jobs rated as equivalents through job evaluation and work that requires opposite but similar level of skills (Dashwood, & O’leary 1997, p. 79). Additionally, the implementation of the Equal Treatment directive (directive 76/207/EEC) involved the Sex Discrimination Act of 1986. The legislation protects persons from employment discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
The directive on equal treatment of women and men with regard to social security (98/49/EC) has been implemented in the UK through the Personal and Occupational Pension Schemes Act of 1996, later amended to the Occupational and Personal Pensions Schemes legislations 2005. Additionally, the implementation of the EU’s Statutory Social Security directive in the UK has been done through the Social Security Act of 1991 (c. 42) (Dashwood, & O’leary 1997, p. 83). On the other hand, the EU’s Social Security directive (86/378/EC) has been adopted into the Social Security Act (c. 24) of UK law.
The Equality Act 2010
Various sections of the Equality Act 2010 cover different aspects of workplace discrimination of employees. In particular, issues of training opportunities, recruitment, evaluations, and promotions are covered under this Act. It forbids discrimination in employment based on nine personal characteristics: disability, sex, age, pregnancy, race, religion, marital status, and sexual orientation (Neathey, Dench, & Thomson 2003, p. 19). However, the Act offers some exceptions on employer practices regarding civil marriages and younger employees. Another aspect of the Equality Act relates to the EU directive regarding fixed-term employees. The resultant UK legislations encompass the prevention of unfavourable treatment to contract-based employment relative to similar staff with indefinite contractual terms. Specifically, this UK regulation covers the pay for employees working currently under fixed-term basis as well as new employees under contractual terms.
For part-time workers, the EU directive 97/81/EC of 1997 provides the framework for part-time contractual agreement. It specifies the employment terms and conditions for part-time employment. The directive requires employers to consider worker requests to convert full-time employment to part-time employment and vice versa. Additionally, the directive specifies that employers avail information regarding part-time and full-time employment opportunities to various departments within the organization. The resultant Equality Act, (the Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment legislations 2000), provides for favourable treatment be accorded to part-timers just like full-timers (Davies, & Kilpatrick 2004, p. 124). This implies the employment conditions of employees working part-time must be comparable to that of full-time employees. This includes favourable work conditions and wages. However, this regulation offers exceptions such as childbirth and pregnancy.
Challenges facing the Implementation of the EU Law in the UK
Across the EU member states, a gender pay gap exists, which varies from one state to another. In the UK, the gender pay gap is most pronounced with the pay gap in 2002 being 81% (as a percentage of men’s earning) for full-timers (Davies, & Kilpatrick 2004, p. 121). In comparison, the pay gap was 63% in 1970 but rose to 72% by 1980. This implies that the implementation of the Equal Pay Act produced positive results during this decade (Neathey, Dench, & Thomson 2003, p. 16). However, in 2002 the gender pay gap dropped to 81% in the UK, which means that gender parity in terms of pay is far from becoming a reality. Additionally, part-time employees often have lower pay rates than their full-time counterparts.
Additionally, the requirement for an employer to provide equal pay for equal work often faces difficulties in the current legal structures. In particular, the “equal work” done by employees irrespective of gender is difficult to quantify. In this regard, employers nowadays consider both the nature of the work and the level of quality (value) of the worker’s performance in designing pay structures for their employees (Deakin, & Hobbs 2007, p. 69). The EU employment law caters for the analysis of the work content while most employers in the UK emphasize on performance and competencies of the worker. In today’s market environment, the competencies of a worker increasingly influence the employer pay and reward schemes. The modern pay schemes, unlike the traditional pay systems, seek to reward competency and efficiency. Thus, current pay systems are dependent on the level of performance or competency, which has implications on the pay gap between men and women or age groups.
The performance-based or competency-based pay affect the implementation of the Equal Pay law, as they are often not gender sensitive. The European Court of Justice has issued guidelines in this regard. However, the market forces affect the principles of equal pay in capitalist economies. The current UK equal pay legislation revolves around equal pay for work of the same value, equal pay for similar work and equal pay for unrelated but equivalent work. However, the current pay systems rely not only on the analysis of work done, but also on the analysis of the work performance or standards (Deakin, & Hobbs 2007, p. 71). This calls for a review of the equal pay legislative framework to include these developments and ensure pay parity across the population.
Conclusion
The EU directives require the EU member states to implement regulations in line with the European integration treaty. The provisions of the EU employment law largely inform UK’s Equal Pay law, the Anti-discrimination law and the Equality Act 2010. The UK Equal Pay law aims to establish pay parity between men and women and across all age groups. However, recent trends indicate that most pay structures are competency and performance-based. In light of this, a review of the current equal pay legislations is necessary in order to achieve gender pay parity.
References
Dashwood, A., & O’leary, S., 1997. The Principles of Equal Treatment in Ec Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Davies, P., & Kilpatrick, C., 2004. UK Worker Representation after Single Channel. Industrial Law Journal, 33, pp. 121-151.
Deakin, S., & Hobbs R., 2007. False Dawn for Csr? Shifts In Regulatory Policy and the Response of the Corporate and Financial Sectors in Britain Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, pp. 68-76.
Dickens, L., 2007. The Road Is Long: Thirty Years Of Equality Legislation In Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(6), pp. 463-494.
The European Union was established in 1993. Over time, it grew to have 27 countries as members. Established primarily as an economic and political force, the European Union has, over time, evolved to encompass many other functions. These functions now range from the primary focuses to security, ethics and so on. This section covers some of the most significant changes in the European Union.
The European Union produces about 30% of the world’s gross product. For such a giant economic block, security is a significant problem. In January 2007, the member countries of the European Union took distinctive steps towards curbing the security menace. The law enforcement departments in the member states agreed to share their databases containing such information as fingerprints, DNA, license plate information, and so on. This was an expansion of a seven-state database that was already in existence (Workpermit, 2007). The implication would be that all criminal records in the European Union would be contained in one common database.
Still, in January 2007, rules on immigration and expansion of the European Union were made tighter. From then on, the Union would operate under the common base of patriotism. A group of deputies formed and became the primary drivers of this task force. This group called itself “Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty” (Workpermit, 2007). The rules on immigration were stipulated to control the number of foreigners seeking employment within the member states of the European Union. They were also supposed to maintain the European Union’s long tradition of Christian values and fair resource sharing amongst the member states.
Europe’s latest expansion occurred when Bulgaria and Romania joined it. This brought the total number of member states to 27. The Union is now sometimes called Euro-27. Both of these new members were former communist states, and it will be some time before they are fully integrated into the general functions of the Union (Neil, 2007). But just as Slovenia, another post-communist country, managed to integrate Euros into their national circulation, it is but a matter of time before these latest additions to the European Union become fully active in the Union’s economy. As with all previous entrants into the European Union, these new members had to pass the Copenhagen Criteria, which checks a state’s readiness to compete within the Union and to follow all European Union rules. There are now several other potential candidates for the Union, including Croatia, Turkey, and the Republic of Macedonia.
Some countries within the European Union have worked towards being a non-smoking policy. Although this has not occurred across the entire Union, the influence of the Union is still evident in how this policy has spread. The first countries to ban public smoking within the Union were Ireland, Italy, Malta, and Sweden, in that order (Neil, 2007). Belgium and Lithuania instituted the ban at the beginning of 2007. Other countries like France and Finland pledged to toughen up their regulations concerning smoking.
While most of the European Union’s resources are directed at mainstream, international businesses, a small part of these resources are now being diverted towards private entrepreneurs, the disadvantaged, and students. InMarch, 2009, 20 entrepreneurial projects will be showcased in Brussels. All these projects have received funding from the European Union. They cover anything from video games for children, to learning kits for adults, to exhibitions of traditional culinary art. This shows that the scope of the European Union is expanding to cover the social, cultural, and educational facets of member states. It is also becoming a significant force in social integration and development (Europa, 2009).
Works cited
Europa (2009) How the EU promotes creativity and innovation – 20 projects showcased in Brussels. Web.
Neil Woodburn (2007) Changes in the European Union, Web.
Workpermit (2007) European Union changes in security, police and immigration cooperative efforts. Web.
Britain’s exit from the European Union has become one of the most influential events in modern history. It causes various reactions and announces significant changes in international politics. Judging by external signs, the government planned a referendum on Britain’s exit from the EU for a long time, and it focused on a specific result – on the withdrawal from the European Union. The abandonment of one of the parties from the EU may affect political movements at the global level.
Constructivism, Realism, and Neoliberalism
To understand the phenomenon of Brexit and its impact on worldwide politics, researchers consider Britain’s exit from the European Union by implementing the use of several theories of international relations. However, methods of international relations may be applicable in various aspects. For example, different approaches may determine the impact of a phenomenon on global politics, or assess the influence of Brexit in the long run.
Brexit in Terms of Constructivism
The theory of constructivism usually criticizes realism and liberalism, since it believes that the most valuable thing for the country is not the market or national security, but the correct definition of the role in the political arena. Firstly, constructivists claim that the meaning that they attribute to the objects of interest determines the performance of states. These objects can be rated by the state as friendly, hostile, or neutral. Secondly, these politicians are sure that the international system operates based on rules and institutions that were jointly designed by the actors themselves.
From constructivism, it is essential to determine the identity of the state. Oliver (2017) claims that “for constructivists, any understanding of Brexit will require an explanation of how the UK and the remaining EU’s construct their identities and how these play out vis-à-vis each other” (para. 7). According to the constructivists, Britain, after leaving the European Union, will have to determine its new political role. The country can base its new policy on the phenomenon of parliamentary sovereignty, which exists in the UK historically. Moreover, the European Union will also have to self-identify its political role in the global arena; for example, the union can continue to encourage the establishment of open borders and mutual assistance of states.
Brexit in Terms of Realism
Realists believe that the significance and influence of the state are determined by the availability of the necessary financial or material resources, and the central participants in international relations are sovereign states with the amount of power required. At the same time, states are rationally acting entities representing a local union of citizens and adhering to the only official international course. In political realism, state rationality is higher than ethics, and political realists are not confused by the inconsistency of such a position with universal moral ideals. In their opinion, only through the efforts of the most significant and most potent participants in international relations, international stability, and world order can be preserved or violated.
According to political realism, international politics are conflicting and potentially confrontational. Oliver (2017) marks that “the power that Britain or the EU has in Brexit is therefore shaped by structural factors such as material capabilities, wealth or military power and how decision-makers use them” (para. 6). For example, after Brexit, Britain and the EU remain in unequal economic conditions. The EU economy is larger and more developed, as it is based on the participation of many states with an individual budget. Nevertheless, militaristic strength and connection with NATO give Britain a military advantage over the EU, whose army and mechanical power are at a lower level. However, states can avoid confrontation in all areas by defining the goals and development paths of states reasonably.
Brexit and Neoliberalism
Even though Brexit has positive sides as a political phenomenon, it is contradicting for many neoliberalism’s propositions. Neoliberals proceed from the requirement of maximum freedom of activity of an individual in the fields of politics, economics, and private life. Economic neoliberalism is based on preventing government interference in the economy and postulating open competition as the most effective financial mechanism that ensures, through free-market pricing, the regulation of economic processes, the growth of public welfare, and the achievement of social justice. Neoliberalists recognize the need for government intervention in the economic sphere, which includes budget and progressive taxation.
Although politicians preserve several neoliberalist positions, Brexit has contributed to the advancement of opponents of this political course. As a result of leaving the EU, some fundamental theses of liberalism and neoliberalism were violated. Firstly, pluralistic democracy was infringed, since when deciding to leave the EU, the preponderance of votes was insignificant, which indicates that the interests of all population groups in the political sphere were not taken into account. Openness in decision-making was outraged since politicians formed several settlements without citizens’ opinions. Secondly, the ideology of global economic openness was violated because, with Brexit, Britain loses its economic advantages in free trade.
Consequences of Brexit
Britain’s exit from the European Union cannot go without consequences since the country has been in this association for more than forty years and has acquired close economic, cultural, and social ties with EU countries. Brexit can lead to financial problems in the states with which it collaborated. Withdrawal of Britain may develop a distrust of the European Union as an organization in states that consider leaving the EU, and strengthen migration difficulties with economically underdeveloped countries.
The Effect of Brexit on the EU
The consequences of Britain’s exit from the European Union for the EU itself will be ambiguous. The long history of Brexit, of course, may play the role of a negative example. In other states, where there is a discussion of leaving the EU, governments will now examine risks and benefits several times before actually leaving the union. At the same time, Brexit hit the image of the European Union as an organization that is capable of effectively solving the problems of its member states. Moreover, Britain’s exit has inflicted rather severe damage to the European Union. It may be more significant for individual states of the European Union than for the organization as a whole since the economy of numerous EU states is tied to trade and financial cooperation with Britain.
The most apparent consequence of Brexit is the collapse of the ideology of the constant and steady development of integration. Instead of a continuous, irreversible, a priori beneficial integration all for all, the European Union becomes an organization that has no messianic purpose, which is forced to prove its usefulness. The EU systemic crisis will inevitably entail a profound transformation of the institutional and political structure of the EU (Jacobs, 2018). After Brexit, there will be only two options remain among the possible.
Firstly, it is possible that this will lead to a partial deconstruction of the European Union. This suggestion is based on the thesis that European integration has gone too far for all members. According to this logic, the central achievement of the European Union is a single market. A pragmatic approach to integration, which should replace attempts to repair the finally collapsed Eurozone or achieve an unattainable political union, is returning to the primary theses of the association. The likelihood of such a development is rather low.
The second way for states remained is a flexible EU integration. Over the past 20 years, flexibility has transformed from a transitional phenomenon into a permanent and formalized mechanism, and its elements are presented in several significant activity areas of the EU (Jacobs, 2018). The withdrawal of Great Britain can substantially accelerate the establishment of a coherent center of the European Union. First, the country, which has traditionally opposed the integration aspirations of the German-French tandem, is leaving. Secondly, Great Britain, which relied on unique relations with Washington, undermined Germany’s leadership by the very fact of its presence in the EU. Thirdly, in all economic and political parameters, the Eurozone is becoming the dominant group within the EU. Despite fragmentation on the one hand and accelerated integration on the other hand, neither unite the European Union into one state, nor a complete disintegration cycle is foreseen in the visible future.
The Balance of Power among the EU Members
Nowadays, the Eurozone has a high chance of transforming into a stable core, which will set the vector for the development of the European Union. The center states will make decisions regardless of the views of the remaining EU states. Of course, this core will not be homogeneous, and the nascent elements of control structures are already visible in it. The main control loop will remain within the German-French axis, which will either stay in its modern form or modify into the triangle of Germany – France – Italy. Today, the central split within the EU is a division between north and south. In the triangle of large EU countries, Germany expresses the interests of the north, Italy – the south, and France occupies an intermediate position. The second control loop is the founding countries of the EU that are the triangle plus Benelux. The colossal experience of cooperation, the symbolic aura of the founding countries, and a similar vision of the strategic direction of the European Union’s development are more than sufficient basis for in-depth cooperation. At the same time, the participation of Benelux countries will allow countering critical comments regarding the directory and conspiracy of large countries.
Furthermore, modern researchers believe that the cultural foundation of social integration is fundamental for a successful integration project. After the abandonment of Great Britain, the periphery of the European Union is most likely will transform into second-class countries, the province (Chryssogelos, 2016). EU surface countries run the risk of getting a second-class label. In the process of strengthening the core, their status will increasingly approach the situation of Norway or Switzerland. These countries are not EU members, and they have limited ability to influence decision-making. Still, they are forced to comply with numerous of the EU laws to maintain participation in the single domestic market and the Schengen area.
The Distribution of Power in the Current World Order
In conclusion, speaking about the role of the European Union and Britain in the international arena, it may be stated that there are several development scenarios. The UK will finally take its place between Europe and the USA, since Great Britain is an ally of the United States, but maintains ties with the EU. An intermediate position between these participants in international relations may be possible. The European Union, in turn, can temporarily increase its importance in international relations, while Britain goes through a crisis after leaving the EU (Toly, 2016). Thus, the most reasonable option is the separation of zones of influence between the United States, Britain, the European Union, and other countries on an equal level.
Jacobs, F. B. (2018). The EU after Brexit. Springer.
Leruth, B., Gänzle, S., & Trondal, J. (2019). Differentiated integration and disintegration in the EU after Brexit: Risks versus opportunities. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(6), 1383–1394.
Toly, N. (2016). Brexit, global cities, and the future of world order. Globalizations, 14(1), 142–149.