Pros and Cons of Countries Integration on the Example of the EU

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Positive Effects of EU
Negative Effects of EU
Conclusion
References

“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ~ Lord Acton

Introduction

As its name signifies, the European Union is a union of 27 European countries. After World War II the European countries became very poor. They realized that fighting with each other will never make any European countries be a superpower again. The concept of unifying economical and social forces became very appealing. Therefore three countries came up with a great idea which was to be a union in Europe.

France, Luxemburg, and Holland decided to get together to establish a small union, it was the first root of the European Union. After a few years in 1957, the Council of Europe was decided to advance political and social union in Europe. So on January 01, 1991, eleven countries signed an agreement to establish the European Union. These were England, Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Luxemburg, Austria and Belgium (European Commission).

The Union has been growing in Europe day by day. This union has brought many advantages to its members such as the introduction of a single trade market, free movement of citizens, protection of the environment, great equality and social inclusion, more jobs, a single currency system, a louder international voice, and great protection for worker, and equal tariff rates. Through the Union citizens from member countries are now trading freely within a single trade market.

The union has also facilitated efforts of its member countries in environmental protection and there has been an increase in the available job opportunities. It is the unification of these countries to create a “political and economic community throughout Europe” (Briney, 2008). The leaders wanted to join their countries to achieve political, economic, and social stability. They also wanted to promote the idea of a “free trade economy,” which became the area of attention during the 1990s.

Recently, the EU and its member countries have introduced numerous other programs and agendas to go beyond their initial targets and create a much better “European World” for generations to come. Apart from free trade, the EU has decided to work on “free travel, single European Currency, safer food, greener environment, joint actions on crime and terror, academic opportunities, and improving standards of living” (EUROPA, 2009).

Positive Effects of EU

The Single Market of the EU has meant that companies going about their business in EU member states have been forced to lower the prices of their products to become more competitive. Companies derive benefits from the single market since it makes it cheaper and thus easier for most companies to transact business in other EU member countries. Goods transported or traded between member countries are not charged customs tax. To ensure as well as assure fair competition among member countries the EU works at obtaining similarity in all its markets. Other countries have to compete with the price difference between countries to countries.

The single market system provides control to the internal market by the treat of the European Union. It protects all consumers and producers to trade within European Union without concerning tax rates and quotas for goods and services. It is all undersigned by the European Council to establish every company where they want to go for business in the European Union borders. The main principle is freedom of movement which provides equal rights in the single market (European Commission).

A single market guarantees the freedom of the internal market for its members’ export and import goods. This advantage is not owned by many countries such as The USA, China, India, Turkey and so on… when they have a trade with the European Union, they have to go for limitations, these limitations are good for their own European Union producers because their importance comes first in the single market. Their products must be sold in the internal market first if their products are not enough for customers, and then the union allows import for those products from non-European Union countries.

The producers are more secure than other countries. It is not like the European Union producers can produce how they want. The rules protect the consumers as well. They have the right to receive the best service and goods at a minimum price. It is a double-sided advantage for consumers and producers of the European Union.

The free movement of citizens is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Community law. Every citizen has basic rights which were guaranteed by the Founder of the European Community. It is laid down in article 39 of the EC Treaty and it entails: a European Union citizen has the right of looking for a job and working in other member states. The citizen can also stay in another member state without a visa and reside for any purposes such as holiday, working, or visiting.

Moreover, the citizen must be treated equally in respect of access to employment and working conditions for all other member state citizens. (European Commission) Their life has no barriers like non-European Union citizens. For instance; I am from Turkey who is the one who faces these struggles the most. Whenever I want to travel to the European countries or the USA, I have to go for a visa process such as proving with documents that I will come back to my country for sure.

Sometimes being rich is not enough to get a visa from The European countries or the USA. I do not even mention how hard to get a work permit to work in Europe. It is almost a miracle for non-European Union citizens. If you are out of this circle, you would not obtain these advantages. The European Union citizens are lucky to be in a great union, so they have all great opportunities for themselves.

Protection of the environment is a very important issue for every society in the world nowadays. The water, air, and soil population all around the world are increasing day by day. The said pollution has been posing a grave danger to the citizens of nations. Various diseases have come up as a result of this pollution and it has taken the campaigns of both government and non-governmental organizations to ensure that pollution declines considerably.

Every country has its own way to protect its environment, but is it enough to work alone to protect the environment? This question’s answer would be simple “No”, because many countries cooperate to protect the environment such as the Kyoto protocol, Greenpeace. However, they are not enough organized or have no strict laws to protect the environment, unlike the European Union. The EU has really authoritarian laws to protect the environment in Europe.

The overall direction of EU environment policy is laid out in the latest action program–“Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice.” It focuses on important issues which are climate change, environment, health, and natural resources and waste. It concentrates on 4 priority areas: climate change; nature and biodiversity; environment and health; and natural resources and waste. Also, an Environment and Health Action Plan for 2004-2010 promotes a close relationship between health, environment and research policy. (Europe) The European Union with this program became a great leader in global efforts to protect the environment.

These protocols are important to save the environment of the European Union. For example, the building of the nuclear power station in Germany was denied by the European Union council, because it is a serious risk for the natural environment of Europe, so the company could not build the power station in Germany. The restricted rules for the environment are to protect nature in Europe.

Everyone has a dream of great equality like this young European Union citizens, like one of the five authors of “Europe no borders no inequality? “ he thinks every social law of Europe is nearly great comparable to every citizen of its members that interest him most because it makes him feel to be unsure. However, it is just a dream for us as French author Jerome Lambert has published some books for children and young people. His latest novel – “Finn Prescott” – came out earlier this year. He mentions: “People who talk about great equality in Europe are liars. People who talk about equality in the world are dreamers.” (young.Euro.connect.com).

Even there is no great equality in Europe, but European Union citizens have greater equality than other nations in the world. European Union is still working to provide great equality. Every basic human right is protected by the European Union council which gives a secure environment for European Union citizens to live with equal human rights with other citizens as well. The members of the European council have been decided to pass the act of fighting against social exclusion and the eradication of poverty on October 17 2000 in Lisbon. The laws were about to protect citizens from facilitating participation in employment equally and access by all to the resources, rights, goods, and services and to prevent the risks of exclusion (Europa).

If we look at the USA, we can see capitalism which causes a huge gap between poor and rich people. Europe has a welfare system that eliminates most of the inequalities between poor and rich people.

According to the article “Is the Europe welfare system a model for the 21st century?” Katrin Bennhold, a journalist of the International Herald Tribune, talks about President Obama how he has been studying for the European welfare system to adapt this system to the States. She also compares the USA, the European Union countries and China. Capitalism and communism are having serious struggles in this Century.

They both can’t satisfy citizens of those countries who are under either communism or capitalism. President Obama is taking the model of the welfare system to integrate into the States. Dutch and Swiss healthcare system is under observed by president Obama’s economists to understand this system well to adapt it to in the States. In one of President Obama’s speeches, he called the new healthcare system a “watchful eye” to make health care to every American citizen.

Nearly 850 billion dollars were assured by the government to give free healthcare for American citizens. It is one way to resemble the welfare system in the European Union. The 21st century just needs the European Union’s system which is the welfare system to bring greater equality to the States. The European Union has had this system since they established. The citizens of the European Union have been using this advantage for many years.

A Trade is the exchange of goods and services among the countries. It has also a significant part of GDP (gross domestic product). Trading has existed for centuries. It became more advanced than it was before. New rules, regulations have changed the way of trading. It has been limited and taxed by a government which we call tariff. A tariff is any tax or fee collected by the government. Some tariff rates are sometimes very high and very low.

A tariff rate is based on government, quality of goods, and its kind. The European Union has the largest internal market in the world where all domestic goods and services are exchanged through European Union countries without tariff rates. Tariff is an extra cost for producers and traders. They are most likely to avoid paying the tariff rate because it is an additional charge from the government.

The European Union decided to apply tariff rates for non-European Union countries’ products and services to protect their producers. For instance, the European Union and the USA are the biggest producers of tomatoes in the world. The Union’s tomatoes producers produce 9.3 million ton tomatoes per year. However, European countries need more tomatoes from outside the Union. A tomato costs nearly 27 cents in Euro which is produced by European Union farmers, but one American tomato costs 13 cents when it imports to the European Union, its price becomes 35 cents with tariff rate, which is more than a produced tomato in Europe, so customers prefer to buy cheaper domestic tomatoes.

Californian farmers’ union request a lower tariff rate for tomatoes but it was denied by the European Union commission because they have to protect the rights of domestic producers. (Agricultural Issues Center, University of California.) If the United States were in the European Union, Californian farmers would take advantage of the non-tariff rate for tomatoes. Tariff is one way of defending the union’s member states which has been protecting its producers since the European Union was established.

The Euro is a single currency that is used by more than 300 million people in Europe. The members of the European Union devoted to exchange common money called the “Euro.” The Euro currency was approved as currency in participating nations. European Union (EU) countries that participate in the use of the Euro are Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, and the Netherlands. (European Commission) The Euro has been changed the economical face of the states. One-dollar bill used to be equivalent to 1.56 Marks (German ex-currency). Germany is using the single monetary system which is Euro as well, so if we look at the exchange rates between the Euro and dollar, we would see one Euro is equivalent to 1.26 dollars (economagic.com).

The Euro is making everything much easier than different old currency systems. For example, the euro has eliminated the trouble with money exchange when traveling to another country for Europeans in Europe which is appreciated by European Union citizens as well.

There are four countries that I know which are most visited such as, Italy, France, Spain and Austria. Renting a car, staying at a hotel, and spending money on museums and attractions are always cost a lot for tourists. Especially, when a person travels a foreign country, there is a huge unification of the transparency of the price on hotels, renting cars. Because the exchange rates of money are not certain, they are changeable daily, since these rates always go up and down in the financial market.

A traveler would lose a big amount of money while exchanging currencies. However, European Union citizens have no problem losing money, because they are using a single currency system in 16 countries. It is a plus for Europeans; they do not worry about the exchange rates when they are traveling. For instance, when a German buys an item from Italy, he would use the euro for his transaction, and he would not lose money for exchanging money. Payment through the single currency system does not pose any risk although money value keeps changing and thus customers have to give more money to the same things that they enjoyed before less. The euro makes pay less and enjoy more whatever u do in the European Union borders.

The euro is also likely to lead to lower interest rates for European Union states. Before the union, there was an additional interest was charged to cover the danger of exchange rate vacillation. When the Euro was started to use, the risk of interest rate fluctuation was gone. It also brought reductions in interest rates. A lower interest rate would cause paying less interest on any loans and debts in the business. It brought an increase in profits and encouragement of new investments and expansion plans in the business and industry. The single euro gives advantages to both consumers and producers in the larger Europe.

The numbers can speak louder than a word, so there are some statistics from the European Commission and IMF (international monetary funds) that I wanted to highlight; GDP for European Union is 11.9 trillion euros but the USA’s GDP is 11.2 trillion euros, and Japan’s GDP is 3.5 trillion euros. The share of World GDP is 21 percent by European Union which indicates the European Union is the leader of purchasing power parity. The USA comes second with 19.7 GDP. The statistics show that a single currency system leads the European Union as a leader of an economic powerhouse in the World.

As I mentioned before, the European Union is the biggest in the World, so they have a big role in the United Nations and NATO. All the EU member states work together as one nation on an international stage to guarantee their concern are heard and taken more significantly. The EU represents more than 300 million people and it will be more than 500 million people after the enlargement of the European Union. This is more like a combination of the United States and Japan.

As the voice of Turkey on an international stage is weak, it is just about almost 80 million people. Is it enough to be heard and taken more seriously in the global World? Unfortunately, it is not enough, economically and socially Turkey is not enough to have a stronger international voice than the EU. It is not just about Turkey, it also applies to some countries such as Serbia, Bosnia, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

The European Union has always been recognized by other countries, and its orders and requests have been accepted by non-European countries. For example, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of states, stated that the USA is proposed to “energize the transatlantic relationship” with the European Union, she called the EU a crucial and necessary partner for the USA in solving global problems such as the danger of climate change, security of nations and energy security in the Middle East and East Asia (Europeanvoice.com). It shows that The USA can not decide anything about the Middle East or East Asian countries by themselves.

The US needs to take seriously the observations and requests about those areas by the European Union. it just indicates every global decision consists of a big part of the EU’s surveillance and demand. This strong international power comes from representing more than 15 percent of the world’s national gross product. A single European country is never able to reach this power to be a strong voice on the global stage. The USA needs a strong partner like the European Union on the international stage to happen its own commands to the Middle East and Afghanistan. As President Obama said The EU is an essential partner to promote The USA foreign policy to be real and strong and effective on the international stage.

As he describes the European Union as “the EU is a union of friend’s allies” even he knows a strong union with well-built connections causes a powerful role in the global world.

The European Union countries derive strength from each other with The USA. (EuropeanVoice.com) to be strong in the current world, all countries have to be somehow to be united with themselves to be strong as the European Union. if the EU did not exist, Can Germany or France have the same strong position in the global area? it would be a big no because those countries gain their power by the union, they sometimes act on a behalf of the union, so it does not mean they just trust their own economical power, they represent the union of 300 million people in Europe, so they still seek the EU’s benefits. Their effectiveness does not come from their supremacy; their supremacy is being representative of the EU, so they trust the union as like other members states. Every member feels secure because they know that they have a strong voice on the international stage.

Negative Effects of EU

It is rather true that the European Union focuses on the betterment of the nations of Europe. The leaders and the bodies of the Union have successfully devised policies and rules to achieve a peaceful environment throughout Europe. The concern comes out to be the effects of the unity on the members as well as the non-members of the Union. How good is it? Is the voice of every member country heard? What about the minorities? Do non-members suffer from the Union’s policy? Is European Union turning into a big giant that is going to administer complete and absolute power over the continent of Europe?

The issue which is of the highest importance is the merging of different and unique cultures and languages. How do people who communicate in varying language forms communicate in a single language? Does every nation have to adopt the language of the “European Union?” What is the language of the Union, if any? Do the leaders spell out the cultural norms and values for the members? What about the traditional values?

The European Union, as mentioned above, consists of 27 members and surprisingly 22 different languages. However, on April 15, 1958, the Council adopted a regulation which spelled out the languages that could be used by the “European Economic Community. According to Regulations Article 1: “official languages and the working languages of the institutions of the Community shall be Dutch, French, German and Italian” (Wilson, 2003).

The regulation only supported the use of 4 languages, the rest of the 18 were denied or ‘not included’ as the official languages. However, with the expansion of the members of the European Union, it has become imperative to include various other languages to enable a healthy way of communication. According to Kinnock, this increase in members and diversity has led to the importance of determining the “cost” of translation of every document, speech, policy, agreement or conference.

A few leaders, economists, and critics have based their arguments upon the “cost of translation and interpretation,” which they consider as a “waste of EU resources” (2004). At times, the disadvantages posed by the diversity in language and culture, become a barrier to “free movement within EU,” as the citizens of the member nations are hesitant to work, live, study, or spend time in other states whose language and cultural norms and values are not similar to their mother country” (Wilson, 2003).

The social aspect of the member state was not the main reason for forming the European Union; instead, it was political and social stability and integration which made the nations come together. According to Bozoki, the cultural norms and values were never considered as the “core of European integration,” and at the time of its foundation “Europe seems to have forgotten about the culture” (Bozoki, 2005-06).

The leaders of the European Union need to understand that cultural and linguistic differences can cause much more trouble due to hampering the platform of communication. The issue of supporting only four languages is no doubt a great disadvantage to most of the member countries. All the European Union member states are countries that use different languages as their mode of communication. It can thus be hard for some countries to drop their languages and adopt the union’s accepted languages.

This may also act as a barrier in communication a trend that may even hinder smooth business activities among member states. It may also be a very expensive venture if the government of the member countries decides to teach their citizens the unions’ accepted languages. These governments may be forced to channel a lot of money on education thus a great disadvantage.

The above-mentioned problem gives rise to what Vankin referred to as “nationalists vs. Europeans,” (Vaknin, 2003) or in other words nationalism vs. regionalism. At the time of crisis, the citizens of a nation, be it leaders or civilians, will automatically start pursuing the path which leads to the betterment of their nation. Naturally, the members of the EU fail to “share common interests” and due to this “logic of diversity,” the EU is unable to develop “making of common foreign policies” (Smith, 2003).

It is a common human response to feel obligated towards people who share their way of life and thinking. Hence, the real reason to join forces and integrate the cultural and linguistic platforms is to avoid the division of member states during the time of need. Also, the voices of even members of minority should be heard; their interests and views should be regarded as vital for the healthy development of the Union.

As mentioned earlier, the basis of forming the European Union was to achieve an integrated platform for the economies of member states. To achieve this, a common currency ‘Euro’ was introduced and was meant to be adopted by all member nations. This led to the birth of two major economical disadvantages: firstly the “cost of adjustment” and secondly the unavailability of “national monetary policy” to enable the members to regulate their economies at the time of financial or economic crisis (Pszczolka).

The first problem is a one-time cost as after the implementation of the “common currency” the firms of the financial and non-financial sector will have to adjust all of their business-related data according to Euro. This will be a very costly undertaking considering that it will touch every sector of a nation’s economy. The second disadvantage is also referred to as “asymmetric shock,” which is a varying degree of effect on different nations due to economic slowdown.

In simple words, country B’s economy or financial position can (or may) stay stable even if country A’s economy collapses or slows down. The negative effects of the Euro will not end at this, a loss over the ‘sovereignty of developing an “economic policy” and “fiscal policy” is yet another threat to Euro. All members will apply the same interest rate, which will be determined by the European economic commission. Every nation will be at a different stage of its “business cycle”, hence hindering the control of inflation rates. Finally, as per the requirements of the “growth and stability pact,” each nation will “borrow 3% of GDP” which will force the members to follow the economic growth of others (Pettinger).

The ending of national boundaries, the introduction of a common currency, and the free trade market come at a cost. Citizens of one-member nation will be able to freely study, work, and live in other member states. This might lead to migration by workers who can find high-paying jobs, better educational institutes, and enhanced development environment in other member nations (Pettinger). This might increase the unemployment rate and population of the nation that is being migrated to, whereas both of the figures will drop from the immigrant’s country of origin.

This will also lead to brain drain and a country may suffer an acute shortage of workers as a result of its citizens moving freely to other member countries in a bid to seek greener pastures. The firms would need to develop new packages and plans to hold onto their employees, and governments might be challenged to place quotas on the number of immigrants. Governments from member states might also be forced to pay their workers huge salaries in an effort of controlling the mass exodus of their populace from migrating to other countries. This will no doubt strain the government’s budget thus resulting in a not stable economy.

Trade in a free market was once considered an advantage, but now every member nation has to deal with increased competition by others. Due to similarity in currency and the ending of national borders, it has become impossible to avoid local as well as competition forced by the imports. The businesses of one-member state face competition from the businesses of other member nations. The EU’s main purpose was to promote a free-trade economy throughout Europe, however, it has become impossible to let go of the threat it poses to individual nations.

The leaders and representatives of members have developed a view about the free trade regulation of the EU. They believe the economic commission is “too zealous about enforcing Euro-rules on free competition” (Charlemagne, 2009). Due to the increase in globalization of business, every nation is facing threats from international competitors. Globalization enables producers and manufacturers to take advantage of low-cost production and timely deliveries. It is harder for member states of the European Union because they face three forms of competition, local, international, and the threat by the free-trade economy. Thus, the economic experts and leaders are trying to mischievously overcome the threat by the free trade economy promoted by the EU economic commission.

Yet another form of disadvantage is the cost of being a member of the European Union. The membership of the EU will cost members countries a varying amount. It can be said that the membership is according to the population of the state, and it charges “every man, woman, and child”. The countries are facing the challenge of determining whether or not being a member of the EU is worth it. They need to decide not only if they can “afford to leave” but if they can “afford to stay in” (Johnston, 2006). The amount of money borrowing has been limited according to the GDP of a country, but the membership cost is determined by the population. Restricting GDP growth while taking account of the increasing population for funds will inevitably create a situation of borrowing less and paying more.

A research was conducted by Zaidi and Zolyomi (2007) which determined the effect of academic and work-related backgrounds through the generations. They wanted to determine the “transmission” of the same backgrounds from parents to their children. The research was conducted in every member state. The conclusion was shocking and depressing, the educational level and the type of work were “inherited” by the children. This meant that the households belonging to the “low socio-economic” background will continue to belong to that social class through their generations. Parents with low educational levels have a higher probability of not educating their children.

Less educated people usually perform clerical or some skilled labor. Therefore, leaders of these countries need to determine the real cause of the low educational backgrounds. Is it due to the national budget allocation to educational fields, or mentality of parents, or the unavailability of schools or teachers? If a country fails to educate its younger generations, resentment or rivalry will emerge between the member states. The EU would require representatives who possess high educational backgrounds. Therefore, the representation of a more educated nation would increase, hence, the resentment will also continue through generations.

Another challenge faced by the members of the EU is regarding the interpretation of various codes spelled out by the commission. Each state has the authority to make the final decision of its choice but it does have to abide by the supreme law. In this case, the policies of the European Union as mentioned earlier, nationalism begins to play its role when situations arise. Therefore, the interpretation of all codes is, at times, assumed to be in favor of an individual state. The leaders or representatives of that nation take steps that are best in their interest. The countries are obligated to present their case at EU conferences to justify their actions. This leads to the leaking out of governmental secrets in front of other governments.

The inability to take decisions on individual levels leads to a loss of sovereignty, be it political, social, or economical nature. Political, because the EU is responsible to spell out the military, warfare, governmental, and all forms of political codes. Social, as the educational system, laws, and social classifications are also determined by the European Union. Economical loss of sovereignty occurs due to the emergence of the free trade market, common currency, trade laws, and even restriction of GDP growth.

Finally, the allocation of national budgets also requires to be approval by the commission. Another loss is in form of the loss of an individual nation’s culture as it has been mixed with the cultural norms and values of other nations and states. Globalization, as mentioned earlier, has already played its role in mixing individual nations. Therefore, the new generation already faces a cultural identity crisis, which is worsened by the presence of citizens of different countries.

An example of such loss is mentioned on the blog of Bruno, a proud Romanian. Romanians are grateful for the financial help provided by the EU, but an adaptation of the “European” culture has ruined the social and political life of its citizens. Particularly, resentment of two new concepts has disturbed the nation of Romania, namely capitalism and the changes in the department of “food” (Bruno, 2008).

The loss of the process of decision-making and the transparency of the process have already been mentioned. The primary concern now becomes the “abusing of absolute power,” which has been witnessed throughout world history.

All the disadvantages mentioned above support that the ‘EU has more power than the local governments or individual states.’ Who then determines the optimal level of the European Union’s power? World history, especially European history, provides us with numerous examples of abuse of power. History is there to understand and avoid the mistakes which ruined the generation of our forefathers. Individual states need to stay on their toes to prevent such circumstances to repeat themselves. European Union plays an imperative role in today’s world, however, maintaining and limiting its power is imperative to continue the freedoms achieved over the years.

Conclusion

Every union, local or international, plays its role by meeting the objectives for which it was created. At the time of origin, European Union’s leadership was needed by the countries of Europe. The basis of its foundation led to a better economical and political situation that Europe lacked after the Second Great War. Once the states were able to gain their financial and political standings the Union started to pose problems. The main one being diversity, as it was never considered an obstacle at the beginning of the “unification.”

Also, the interest of non-members to join led to the problem of expansion, increasing the levels of diversity further. Even though the members were able to gain financial standings, the economic conditions were not at the same level throughout the member nations. However, the economic commission “forced” its nations to restrict GPD growth and budget allocations, causing yet another disadvantage. The paper also points out other negatives such as a loss of sovereignty, the threat of “asymmetric shocks,” and new forms of competition.

It is rather childish to simply conclude that the European Union has nothing to offer to its members. European Union had, and will, continue to perform for the betterment of the continent of Europe. The responsibility is on the shoulders of the present and future leaders to limit their exercising power, devising policies to overcome the disadvantages and deal with obstacles when they appear. It is only then that Europe will continue to prosper and reap the results of its “unification.”

In conclusion, The European Union has been a big benefit for its members for many years. There are no country complaints about any advantages of the European Union such as single market, protection of the environment, great equality than non-European Union countries, social inclusion, more employments, the “Euro”, a stronger international voice, and equal tariff rate. The Union is enlarging with new members, recently Poland joined the union now, and polish people are enjoying the advantages that I mentioned above. Some other countries are dying to join the EU, such Turkey, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and Iceland. As a short everyone’s eye on the Union to become part of it.

References

Anonymous, 2004. “Multilingualism in EU,” Interview with Neil Kinnock, John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.

Bozoki, A. 2005-06. “Cultural Policy and Politics in European Union,” Speech by Andras Bozoki, Minister of Culture Hungary.

Briney, A. 2008. “The European Union: A History and Overview.” About.com: Geography.

Bruno, 2008. “Food and Capitalism,” Us Europeans at blogactiv. Web.

Charlemagne. 2009. “Beware of breaking the single market.” The Economist Newspaper.

EUROPA, “Panorama of EU,” EU at a glance. Web.

Johnston, Philip. 2006. “EU membership to cost us £837 each next year.” Home Affairs.

Pszczolka, Ireneusz. (n.d). “Advantages and Disadvantages of Introducing the Euro.” The Dilemmas of Regional Economic Integrations, 215-222.

Pettinger, Tejvan R. (n.d). “Cost of Joining the Euro,” Cherwell College Oxford: Economics Help. Web.

Pettinger, Tejvan R. “Disadvantages of EU membership for Eastern European Countries,” Cherwell College Oxford: Economics Help. Web.

Smith, Karen E. “The European Union: A Distinctive Actor in International Relationship.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume IX, Issue 2 (2003), 103-113.

Wilson, Barry. Crossing Barriers and Bridging Cultures. Edited by Aruturo Tosi, Great Britain: Cormwell Press Limited, 2003.

Vaknin, Sam (2003). The Belgium Curtain: Europe after Communism. Edited by Lidija Rangelovska, Narcissus Publications Imprint, Skopje.

Zaidi, Asghar and Ester Zolyomi. 2007. “Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantages in EU Member States.” European Center: Policy Brief, 1-16.

Gabriel, J Matthew. 1999. “Interest and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion, and European Union. Michigan: the University of Michigan.

Bradley J. Rickard, 2006.

Ripple Barbara, 1999. “The Banana Battle Consumers. Research Magazine.12:2 cl.

Toby Vogel, march-2009, Clinton calls EU an ‘essential partner’ . Web.

“The European Union overview”, The European Union Commission. Web.

“The Freedom, Security and Justice” “The Europa. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!