If the questoin is if there will be the United States of Europe someday the answer is definitely no. The French president Sarkozy said once that France will never be the California of Europe. But there is no doubt that the integration will continue. The legitimation deficit will be declined by institutional developments, e.g. more rights to the European and/or national parliament(s).
The main problems without reasonable solutions in sight are in the structulal area. How to create a European spirit? How to create a European Nation? Eric Hobsbawm (2005) said that history has shown that states make nations, not the other way around. As long as the state is not wanted the chances for a nation are very small, dispite ideas of deliberation and other direct democracy tools.
What economic unity? What political unity? Is this some new joke that we haven't heard about it yet? In Europe exists only the Law of the Powerful: constitutions are written in order to fulfil the interests of the most powerful nations, that's all. EU has entered a dichotomy process that will lead to its disintegration and not to its integration. Sorry, but Southern Countries have realized that the fary tale about EU had only a 'bad wolf' and much, too much 'debt'...(in order to import the products of the bad wolf!)
Demetris, obviously you refer to our countries. A political remark requires a political answer. If somebody even a state buys goods which are not needed or payable and borrows money to pay the bill who is more guilty the borrower or the creditor? When then the creditor tries to save the debtor and of course his money why should he be called a bad wolf?
Scientific we have the problem that the currency Euro was implemented in countries with very different stands of their economy and corresponding policies. So far no formular was found in order to adjust the different systems. And this again is a question of Integration.
Coming back to Mohamed´s question: yes we have a common market in the EU as a free trade area and with free movement of labour, capital and services which will be open as well for Bulgaria and Romania from the day after tomorrow. And yes the Integration will go on, not only for the benefit of the "powerfull".
By the way, since the Lisbon Treaty any state can leave the EU.
Rainer, "obviously" is a big word. If you recognized "your countries" in my remark, then this is the best proof of what I wrote. Thank you.
Demetris, our countries means yours and mine. Sorry for my poor English.
Mohamed, it seems so but in fact European integration is a process without a defined goal and with horizontal and vertical developments nearly at the same time. The 28 member states today can be 40 within the next 10 years and the basic treaty might be changes 2 or 3 times within the 10 years. Although the EU will not become a state the executive power will be so strong that the legitimation will be extended. This can be a new suffrage for the European Parliament or the creation of a third chamber besides the Council and the European Parliament in order to strengthen the influence of the national parliaments.
One of the biggest integration problems is the fact that member states not always follow the rules they have agreed before. This has a big negative Impact on the structural Integration. The solution could be either more power to the Commission or mor direct democracy. Other possibities are in discussion.
@Mohamed, people outside EU tend to believe that EU is a modern paradise of civilized countries that they have joined their powers for the same good and other fairy tales of modern political history. The true is awfull my Saudi Arabian colleague: Law is the Interest of the Powerful and nothing else (only after exhausting negotiations they will drop you a bone like to a pet-dog). Sorry if I dissapointed you. Probably you can testify this by a research of your own.
Another big lie is that Southern countries didn't perform what it has been agreed: When at the decade of 2000 the two main countries of EU didn't fulfil Maastricht's obligations nobody acted against them? Why, because as Orwell has already written: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", see here for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
So, think about yourself us a lucky man who lives in a country plenty of petroleum and which will never need the 'civilazation' of EU!
Happy New Year!
I read here a very ideological discussion which has, unfortunately, little to do with a scientific approach. Let me try and expose how I see some of the elements touched upon in this exchange (after all, I'm neither Greek nor German - just a French woman exiled in Denmark - so one foot in the South of Europe, the other in its North ;-).
The presence of Greece in the euro zone is a big mistake since it didn't meet the necessary criteria to join this currency. The Greek government tricked its way in by faking some official numbers, the other governments pretended not to see it. The major cause of the immense difficulties that the Greek state and societies face at the moment are probably the aftermath of this original big, big mistake. But this is how things are as of now, and we all have to make do with this situation. In this respect the responsibility lies within all sides. All sides should admit their responsibilities and make the efforts required to solve this problem not just shove the responsibility on the others - this is the best recipe for a status quo... Pretty much what is happening (status quo on several points, worsening on others...).
When it comes to the EU as an experience of integration, what if it were a mistake to imagine that a state is the only end point of an integration process? European states have a long common history, not always as friends, that's very true. But which ever way we see it, we share a common cultural background (indeed with regional variations). The current integration experiment started in 1950 has prevented wars within the borders of this political unit since then. This is a major achievement. The EU is a peace-keeping machine. This is its purpose, the reason why it has been created and, so far, this goal has been reached. Now, if we wish more, this is possible, but do people really want more? I personally do, but I do not think that this is shared by a majority of EU citizens. Fair enough. the history of the European continent has never led to full political integration anyhow. This is not the "way" of the Europeans, so to speak. Ours is a different way of being together than merging in a common state. We like living next to one another, exchanging economically, culturally and politically, but we do not need to merge in one big state. We never did.
But what if EU citizens suddenly and massively wanted more? What would this look like? At the moment, they wish for more democracy - which is a state attribute - and not want the EU to be a state at the same time? EU citizens have contradictory desires about the EU and they do not understand that these desires are contradictory... So I would say that until this type of contradiction is resolved, not much can happen.
Unfortunately, this is not the only decisive factor. Another point is that EU citizens do not decide alone about the future development of the EU (for the better from a certain point of view). So long as decision makers of the member states preach green in Brussels and blue in their home country and react as if Martians, not themselves, governed in Brussels, the EU will continue to dysfunction and, what's worse, of being accused of the failures which are not due to the EU itself but to decision makers of member state. That can't work either... This needs to be improved to. It will not happen in a near future, since decision makers prioritize their petty personal reelection (understandable) over the general interest of the people(s) of Europe...
But I like to keep hope and think that this is an immensely long process, therefore, we will not witness big improvements before long, probably only the next generation will... Because, opposite to what may wish, I believe that the EU is here to stay.
Happy New Year to all of you!
Happy New Year to all of you too.
Thanks to all who cared to answer my question
As an Egyptian, I can not imagine that I could live happily without interaction with European civilization.
Upon your answers, I want to ask a new question,
As long as the political unity is not the goal, and the economic goal and cultural interaction goal are more important, is it possible to imagine that someday, Canada or the U.S.A, for example, may give up political unity in order to maintain the level of higher economic or cultural interaction better?
We have probably been naive and idealistic for too long. Including myself. The integration process has always faced a teleological vacuum. Right now it is even worse since there is an evident psychological gap between the North and the South. It seems that national strategies prevail and overlay what has been defined as our common destiny. In effect it is rather obvious that certain aspects of zero-sum games are re-emerging. The question is whether we can still move on when balancing dangerously between democracy and autocracy.
Europe will not go through it smootly but I beleive that the EU is there to stay and that in the next period it will become a more poitical union since the limit of economics have been reached. The big question is to me: will there be anyone proposing compromises and ideals that can trigger the right king of "dominant" consensus Europe needs to be La Maison Europe that builds the right kinds of institutions. This question is also the one that the NAFTA countries should ask but we are further back in that respect.
Dear Magali
I am afraid your answer is more ideological than the previous ones. In international relations theory one of the things we teach is that states express interests, that is national interests. States were created to serve a historic and organizational necessity. They were created to materialize specific goals. The EU is a bundle of politically autonomous states working through compromises.
Yet, the EMU was a step forward that could not be defended with political criteria. As a result, the euro was a rather strong federalist element in an inter-governmental environment. That is why so many of our colleagues in the US have always questioned its viability and sustainability. It is obvious that a common currency does not provide the desired spill-over [political] incentives for further integration. Eventually the inability to politically defend the euro has led to a parcelisation process and the overt or covert rejection of the European values. See what is happening with Romanians and Bulgarians and the effort of several EU states to impose quotas on immigrants. This is a clear violation of the European acquit and we should all speak up defending what has been agreed.
Cultural differences are a matter we can not refuse. Nor can we close our eyes to the attacks we Greeks have faced in the last few years. Politicians across Europe operate rather than exorcists rather than political interlocutors that have studied Aristotle and Plato. A political discourse has turned into a cultural if not racist aphorism. I am only mentioning this because you started your comment by referring to Greece. In another conversation on the Greek issue I could provide you with several statements of EU officials saying that they knew about the situation. Anyway, this is not our issue here.
If the EU is to succeed it has simply to support its fundamental values. At the core of them is democracy and several distinctive elements that have made it eufunctional and hospitable to European citizens (equality, welfare etc).
Although political unity is out of the question the European edifice provides many incentives to all those involved to institutionally deal with their differences. The EU has not eradicated nationalism and national interests but provided the mechanisms (institutions, processes, common values) to deal with them. It absorbed them in an institutional way. Maybe it is the victim of its success and an idealism unfamiliar to our colleagues who support Political Realism. The current crisis gives them credit.
George Voskopoulos, Associate Professor of European Studies
Head of the Department of International and European Studies, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece
Conference Paper "The EU as an agent of social and institutional changes: the...
Sorry, but the EU is more than Greece and the currency. The basic question was about the future development in the polity area. The way of integration (that means in a European way the peacefull and voluntary co-operation of sovereign states) can only be understood if you go back to the foundation of the EU. Main founder was the French politician Robert Schumann. The Goals were (1) to avoid the mistahes of the Versailles Treaty by isolating Germany and so to avert another war in Europe, (2) to bring back Germany into the community of countries with the same intention and (3) to build counterparts to the SU and to the USA to make Europe fit to survive. Only 5 countries followed France. The first action was to have a fair system to distribute coal and steel to the member countries so they were able to rebuild houses and industry.
Nobody could foresee what kind of development took place. That means that the polity of the EU came always late. One can say that construction of the EU was and is nearly impossible to be handled. But the lack of a final goal gives flexibility and the need of new ideas. It is the strong will and the commitment of the member countries which gives always new impulses.
It is often said that a lot of countries are only members bedause they look for their own benefits only. This may be but it does not matter as long the above mentioned compomise is found. If you look at the future method of voting in the Council - latest 2017 - with one country one vote and the majotity needs 55% of the members and 65% of the population you can see a lot of confidence into the system.
The EU is a unique construction and has passed the intergouvernemental status althoug there is no government and no violent monopoly, legislation and executive are devided and the legimacy of some of the institutions is doubtful. All in all the EU is extrem successful and nobody knows really why.
European Parliament, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy ( Catherine Ashton), aren't that a step to political unity?
And I will surprise you. Someday there will be united nations/countries of Europe. Why? Because this is the outcome of a work of all people engaged in the EU: politicians, civil servants and officials from Member States, all stakeholders who benefit from the EU integration. I do remember as I read some articles about the EU in 1992 and the majority of journalists and experts used to say that there will not be any Minister of Foreign Affairs in the EU. And we have her. I do remember as France used to say that the EU should not be opened towards the CEEC. And those countries joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. And the most important issue: we need all kinds of economic and (sometimes) political integration to maintain our economic position in the World – otherwise: FR and DE can try… but they will lose in competition with BRIC.
Dear Colleagues
My question then is if we can have a democratic and politically accountable European system of governance without a European government. We would have to look back in the fundamental texts of political science and politics to look for answers. Many American political scientists have already answered this. In my opinion, just like theories of integration, we should look for descriptive rather prescriptive answers to avoid missing reality.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication