Since the end of World War II, foreigners and Europeans
alike have believed that an integrated Europe
is essential to ensure economic, social, and political progress in the region.
The 1951 Treaty of Paris created the European Coal and Steel Community
(“ECSC”), and was a significant step toward European integration. The creation
of ECSC institutions allowed for debate and discussion on issues of economic
concern on a supranational level amongst its earliest six members. Such
dialogue was seen as a path to solving the complex issues facing states, and
their union served to mark the starting point for the slow and steady decay of
the sovereignty of the national governments involved. These governments were
now placed in a position where they had to work for the common good rather than
for their individual needs.
At each
step since its earliest inception, the European Union (“EU”) and its associated
incarnations have served to unite Europe; but
many of its member states have felt that such integration has been at the
expense of their autonomy. Maximum authority over their people and territory
were no longer held at the national level, but instead, power had been shifted
to the larger integrated community. This loss of control has not always been
perceived as positive, and disagreement and conflict have often reigned over
harmony and concordance. This discord has, in many respects, impeded the EU’s
decision-making process, making it difficult to achieve its initial goals.
Many recent occurrences have
exemplified the conflict surrounding the loss of sovereignty of the individual
countries of the European Union to the supranational level. One such issue
corresponds to the ten-member accession of 2004, in which many of the less
industrialized, poorer countries in Eastern Europe
became full-fledged members of the common market. Of concern to the wealthier,
more developed Western European countries was the perceived notion that if
barriers to labor were removed, an influx of Eastern Europeans into the job
markets of Western European countries would result. The redistribution of
wealth from Western Europe to Eastern Europe
would have the potential to harm Western European economies. As a concession to
Western European concerns, when the ten members acceded in 2004, the previously
existing fifteen members were given the option to delay the free movement of
labor by up to seven years. (1 Laitner)
While most EU countries have postponed the
free movement of labor to newly acceded states, Britain,
Ireland, and Sweden have
chosen to open their borders ahead of the required date. This has placed
extreme pressure on the remaining Western European countries from a variety of
trade organizations and businesses to open their doors to eastern workers.
While the arguments made by Western European countries were once seen as valid
concerns, recent studies regarding the change in economic performance in Britain, Ireland,
and Sweden
have demonstrated the contrary. They have suggested that the vast movement of
people looking for jobs has been extremely limited, and furthermore, find that
many of these migrants have “fill[ed] gaps” in local job markets, in which they
take the jobs that local citizens would not want (1 Financial Times). Despite
this evidence, the remaining Western European countries are hesitant to open
their job markets to international penetration. These recent attempts to
influence Western European governments are aimed at speeding up the integration
process. The fact remains that the
European Union has final jurisdiction over the free movement of labor, and
national governments will be forced to allow eastern laborers into their
workforces at some point within the time limits set by the EU. Therefore,
whether or not the introduction of eastern laborers is harmful or not to local
economies, this decision has been made and is out of the hands of national
governments, thus demonstrating their loss of sovereign power in relation to
the free movement of labor.
Issues surrounding driving
regulations tend to be of concern to the European Union as they are tied to the
notion of the free movement of capital, labor, and services across the Union. A variety of changes have been proposed in
relation to driving regulations within the European Union. An interesting
suggestion made by the transport ministers of the Council of the European Union
is to begin to integrate the driving regulations of the twenty-five member
states by issuing a “European Union” drivers license. (1 Minder B) Such a
change would strongly impede upon the sovereignty of member states, as national
governments would be forced to alter their driving regulations to adhere to the
supranational standards set by the European Union. In addition, the European
Union is planning to crack down upon drivers who violate traffic regulations,
as recent studies have shown an increase in traffic related fatalities, a
decrease in traffic law compliance, and a lack of enforcement by national
governments against international drivers. (1 Minder C) As a response, the EU
transport commissioner has recently written a proposal aimed at curtailing driving
problems within the EU, to ensure that national governments properly fine
violators. Not only will the member states have to uphold the EU imposed
regulations, but will also have to punish their own people accordingly for
violating them. This prospect impedes upon the sovereignty of member states, as
the European Union would be acting within its supranational capacity to force
member states to enforce traffic laws as the larger EU deems fit.
Another interesting concern came to
light when the French government was denied its application to lower its
value-added tax rate on restaurant bills. (1 Parker C) An argument has been put
forth against EU involvement in certain tax related issues, as such issues do
not properly comply with the “principle of subsidiary” when decided at the EU
level. As enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, the principle of subsidiary
states that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level, and closest
to those directly effected by them. France has claimed that tax policy
in relation to value added taxes should be legislated at the national rather
than at the supranational level, as states have strong differences of opinion
amongst each other, and value added taxes should be tailored to the specific
needs of individual countries. While such an alteration would require a
revision to the existing treaties, this request by France shows how the
conflict between sovereignty and supranationalism is extremely intense and that
issues of relinquishing the powers of the EU back to that of national
governments continue to surface.
European Union leaders recently met
to discuss the heated issue of protectionism, in which national governments
attempt to curtail the ability of foreign countries to take over major domestic
companies. In one case, France
attempted to merge two of its powerful energy suppliers to prevent the Italian
takeover of one of them. (1 Parker E) This issue has been the cause of great
concern, and some ministers feel that the disagreements similar to the
situation in France and Italy regarding
protectionism serve to decrease the credibility of the European Union when
brokering deals based on the opening of markets with the international
community. The discouragement of protectionism by the European Union is based
on the argument that its enforcement acts as a barrier to the free movement of
capital within the EU. According to Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany,
protectionism “make[s] nonsense of the EU’s single market” (1 Parker B).
In a related story, EU
Commissioners are vowing to propose legislation that would create a single
market for the regulation of electricity and gas by 2007. (1 Bounds)
Commissioners, who represent the interests of the greater Europe, believe that Europe’s common market would function more fluidly and
with widespread economic growth if its member states did not adhere to
protectionist measures in relation to energy. While this issue remains highly
contested between those affected, the EU has done what it can to harness the
spread of protectionism, thus eroding the decision-making capacity or
sovereignty of the member states in relation to their “monopoly” on the
ownership of major companies. Despite the reluctance of national governments to
relinquish their controls of business, they must adhere to the agreements set
forth by the European Union regarding the operations of the common market, and
therefore, no longer have supreme authority to restrict the flow of capital
outside of their territory.
Concerns exist amongst the member
states regarding the operation of the European Union, where the inability of
the EU to enact policy in a timely manner has created apprehension. This is
exemplified by the situation in which birds infected with Avian Influenza were
found in multiple European countries. In order to curb the spread of the
disease, EU members have discussed a variety of protective measures that could
be enforced. Unfortunately, each member state of the European Union has come
forth with an original plan for curtailing the bird flu, resulting in a
deadlock and slowing down the decision making process. One concern surrounds
the distribution of Avian Influenza vaccines to member states if a human
outbreak were to occur. Some EU leaders believe that vaccines should be
distributed to countries in relation to the rates of seasonal flu vaccination
requests. (1 Braithwaite) While this proposal had been brought up in Brussels as long as ago
as two years, little progress has been made to date in deciding upon a
resolution. In addition, the EU has been faulted for failing to set consistent
standards and methods of containing the disease and preventing its spread
across the Union. Some have called for the
creation of a new agency to increase the level of cooperation between member
states in relation to issues regarding health.
(1 Minder A) Health related disasters often require urgent attention and
decisions, and the preliminary stages of the Avian Influenza outbreak have
demonstrated an inability of the European Union to come to decisions and
cooperate with its member states within a timely fashion, thus furthering their
discontent and desire to maintain sovereignty.
While many national governments
might otherwise feel a need to restrict the trade of poultry from countries in
which bird flu has been identified, they are prevented from doing so. In
keeping with the “spirit of the treaties,” free trade must be maintained within
all EU member states. Therefore, the European Union has supranational authority
and the final say when it comes to the restriction of free trade. Although
Avian Influenza is a major health concern within Europe,
the national governments are limited in how they can go about tackling the
issue, thus exemplifying a loss of sovereign power.
A plethora of ideas have come forth
over the past few months to restructure the controversial Constitutional Treaty
that failed during its ratification process in 2005. Many of the concerns
surround issues of enlargement, as each time new states accede to the Union; it becomes more difficult to reach compromise on
matters of importance. In order to decrease the time required for the EU to
come to decisions, EU leaders have proposed an increase in the usage of
Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of the European Union within the areas
of foreign policy and the budget. (1 Parker A) This would serve to further
erode the sovereignty of member states, as these new policy areas would no
longer require unanimous decisions to be approved by the Council. Therefore, if
this version of the Constitutional Treaty were to be passed, national
governments would no longer have the supreme authority to override the
decisions of other member states in the context of foreign policy and EU
budgetary issues. Some EU leaders have even criticized the very title of the
treaty, as they see the word “constitutional” to be associated with the United
States system of governance, the French connection to their strong
constitution, as well as the British “symbolism” associated with its
non-existent constitution, all of which make a “constitution” for Europe seem
out of place (1 Parker D). This controversy demonstrates EU member states
unwillingness to integrate to the level of the United States federal system, and
also exemplifies their desire to maintain their own national identities, separate
from that of the EU. “The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe” and its associated proposals surely illustrate
how the tension between supranationalism and sovereignty remains rampant within
the context of the European Union.
The existence of the European Union
has long been seen as a path toward greater cooperation within European
countries with its goal of achieving internal and external harmony, pushing for
economic growth, and attaining political and social stability for all involved.
The achievement of these objectives has required a remarkable level of
collaboration between national governments that very often have different ways
of performing governmental functions, as well as distinctive national
identities, values, and beliefs. During this process, national governments have
been forced to compromise with others, sometimes against their will, and have
had to give up some of their decision-making capacity to the supranational
European Union. Numerous recent occurrences exemplify the ongoing dispute
between national sovereignty and supranational subjugation, and this debate
will likely continue to be a prominent focal point of discussion within
European Union politics in the future.
Works Cited:
Bounds, Andrew, George Parker, and Chris Smyth. "EU
Promises a Single Energy Market by 2007." Financial Times 25 Mar.
2006: 3. LexisNexis Academic Universe. Hofstra
University, Hempstead, NY.
12 Apr. 2006. Keyword: European Union or EU.
Braithwaite, Tom, and Andrew Jack. "EU Urged to Agree
Flu Vaccines Strategy." Financial Times 7 Feb. 2006: 11. LexisNexis
Academic Universe. Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword:
European Union or EU.
Laitner, Sarah, and George Parker. "'Old' Europe Under Pressure to Open Its Doors." Financial
Times 3 Feb. 2006: 6. LexisNexis Academic Universe. Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword: European Union or
EU.
Minder, Raphael. "EU Divided on Response to Threat From
Avian Flu." Financial Times 14 Feb. 2006: 6. LexisNexis Academic
Universe. Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword:
European Union or EU. [Cited in text as “Minder A”]
Minder, Raphael. "EU Driving Licence to Replace 80
Others." Financial Times 4 Mar. 2006: 5. LexisNexis Academic
Universe. Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword:
European Union or EU. [Cited in text as “Minder B”]
Minder, Raphael. "EU to Tackle Transit Drivers Who
Flout Rules." Financial Times 4 Mar. 2006: 6. LexisNexis
Academic Universe. Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword:
European Union or EU. [Cited in text as “Minder C”]
Parker, George. "Bigger Not Really Better as the EU
Heads for Log Jam." Financial Times 7 Feb. 2006: 8. LexisNexis
Academic Universe. Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword:
European Union or EU. [Cited in text as “Parker A”]
Parker, George, and Gareth Smyth. "Chirac Walks Out on
EU Leaders as Tensions Mount." Financial Times 24 Mar. 2006: 8. LexisNexis
Academic Universe. Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword:
European Union or EU. [Cited in text as “Parker B”]
Parker, George. "France Wants EU to Hand Back Some
Tax Powers." Financial Times 27 Feb. 2006: 6. LexisNexis
Academic Universe. Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword: European
Union or EU. [Cited in text as “Parker C”]
Parker, George, and John Thornhill. "Germany Aims to
Rebrand Rejected Treaty." Financial Times 17 Mar. 2006: 6. LexisNexis
Academic Universe. Hofstra University, Hempstead,
NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword: European
Union or EU. [Cited in text as “Parker D”]
Parker, George, Wolfgang Proissl, and Gareth Smyth.
"Protectionism Fireworks to Dominate EU Leaders' Talks." Financial
Times 20 Mar. 2006: 9. LexisNexis Academic Universe. Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY. 12 Apr. 2006. Keyword: European Union or
EU. [Cited in text as “Parker E”]
"Time to Tear Down the EU's Eastern Barriers: Workers
From Accession Countries Bring Economic Benefits." Financial Times
6 Feb. 2006: 16. LexisNexis Academic Universe. Hofstra
University, Hempstead, NY.
12 Apr. 2006. Keyword: European Union or EU. [Cited in text as “Financial
Times”]
No comments:
Post a Comment