The European Union (EU) has undergone a great deal of renegotiations over the past several decades, indeed changing its own titles and formats until finally it resembled the EU of today; a European-wide economic organization focused on the homogenisation of the European economic state. The purpose of this supranationalism has been simply to increase trade throughout Europe and to facilitate this goal it has been the duty of EU government officials to closely monitor agricultural policies in member states. In 2004, the European enlargement agreement was drafted so that the organisation might have some framework from which to actually govern the growing EU, with member states reaching from Great Britain right into eastern Europe as ex-Soviet states bid for entry1. In terms of the established Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU, the enlargement has directly affected original EU members in that CAP subsidies arranged prior to the expansion were immediately lessened and a new level of standardisation was created as new countries gained access to EU funding and official economic policies. Because of the enlargement, EU nations are currently facing reforms in terms of trade prices, environmental agendas, animal welfare and the further industrialisation and eventual commercialisation of member states. How the EU deals with modernised agricultural policies will directly affect the stability of the EU in general and the position of its influence in world affairs. In terms of the CAP today, it seems that this nearly 60 year old agreement is failing when it comes to the best economic options for EU members.Negotiations have been happening for years to organise a European-wide marketplace, and so far the EU is the only large-scale organisation of this sort in the world. To enhance failing economies within the continent and ultimately to create a strong market that was viable on the world stage, European nations thought it in their best interests to band together and develop trade laws that would benefit each nation in the long run. This organisation meant the standardisation of various levels of economy so that prices could be stabilised and producers might receive the government aid needed to keep working.
Jonsson and Elgstrom explain how the term 'multi-level governance' is used in terms of the EU to encompass the awkward arrangement of government officials and local policy2. Essentially, this multi-level government is exactly what the EU legislation is based upon and it's the largest economic organisation of its kind in the entire world. EU officiates must tend to supranational matters while still leaving an allowable measure of sovereignty to each member state in terms of national law and municipal issues. In terms of agriculture and human rights, however, ultimately the EU holds precedent over national level government if a committee or individual does approach it. It is the wish of the EU organisation that each of its member countries adhere strictly to trade and practical agreements in such a way that promotes equality between citizens and fair standards of living and economics for individuals and businesses throughout the realm. If a state is found to be acting in a manner not in keeping with these principles of human rights, animal rights and safe practices then it faces sanctions by EU legislature.
Before 2002, the EU had a stable 15 members and it wanted more. In terms of membership, there was no shortage of interested nations, particularly in the eastern half of the continent, but officials realised that if they were to suddenly expand their numbers it would become necessary to share their current supranational income with poorer countries. Cowles and Smith explain that at the turn of the new millennium, it was expected of EU officiates to work towards two basic goals; monetary