The European Union - Case Study Example

The European Union What does it mean to say that the European Community has (i) a 'significance presence' in the world (ii) a structural impact (iii) stronger -or weaker- policies' Introduction The European Community has become one of the more important blocs of states which are shaping the globe today. Instead of focusing on the American bloc and the Asia Pacific region, analysts and thinkers have another point of reference which is the European point of view. In these terms, Europe has a significant presence and the regional bodies of Europe have a structural impact on Europe as well as those who wish to trade with Europe. Finally, there are a few policies of the EU which can be considered stronger or weaker in comparison to other countries of the world. The Significant Presence As a market on its own, the EU becomes significant because of the large population, the availability of resources and the production opportunities which are present in the region. Of course the EU may not have the lucrative advantages that could be offered by China or other Asian countries but it does have the infrastructure in many places to support business at a level which countries such as India or even China may not be able to provide. Additionally, as a democratic force and as an international body, the European Union is unique amongst its peers since it has a very complex and highly evolved system of creating and establishing its democracy. Since the treaties of Paris and Rome, the body has been creating, expanding and explaining the democratic principles that have led to its inception. Even though the system designed by the stalwarts of the EU is held in high regard by many critics, there are those who say that the system produced by the organisation is cumbersome, a hindrance to the economy, non-transparent and does not take into account the sprit of democracy. Therefore, on issues such as the Iraq war and other points which can lead nations to be divided, the EU loses some of its bite because different countries within the union may have different opinions on how the matter should be dealt with. Additionally, the larger powers within the EU often have more weight in international matters than smaller powers. For example, political support for a war which comes from France and Germany has a lot more value than opposition with comes from Romania or Italy. Even the EU itself realises that the balance of power between countries as it had been maintained by the treaties needs to reflect in the ways it deals with the world if it has to have a significant global impact. The current distribution gives too much power to smaller members and it has been pointed out that when the EU increases its number to 25 members, the group of seven smallest countries would represent only 1.25% of the total EU GDP while they will have more voting rights than the six largest member countries that contribute more than 80% of the total GDP (Hain, 2003). Such inequalities will certainly create and increase democratic issues and may be a threat to the stability of the union as a whole. On the other hand, the economic value of a country adds to the political clout that country has within the European Union even if the application of the one country, one vote rule remains firm. With that idea, the wishes of the majority of the countries are represented and turned into laws while the majority of individual Europeans living in those countries may be against the creation of that very same law (Beetham & Lord, 1998). In a way it represents the same issues which the American presidential election system faces where a majority of votes from the general public may be defeated by a majority of votes in the Electoral College. This democratic deficit weakens the position of the EU as a law making body and a force for the unification of the continent. For example, the European draft constitution, when it was presented, was given very diverse views from the member nations. The UK opinion was to look at it as mere procedure since numerous years of law creation would now be united into a single document. However, the German contingent saw it and was extremely let down while the chairperson of the European Commission could not find any vision or aspirations in the document (Hain, 2003). In terms of impact on the world, the European experiment may well be the way future groups of countries go about forming their own alliances but they will keep in mind the differences shown by member countries. In present times, while these differences could be overcome with negotiations, they represent the prejudices which countries still have against each other. Hain (2003) has further said that the documents produced by the union are far too complex since the union seeks to administer abstract topics such as human rights, the political institutions of the Union and social policies without expounding the actual nature of the EU democracy or understanding its significance in the world. The case of Iran going nuclear is one such example since the negotiations conducted by members of the union have been more successful than the strong words spoken by the Americans (Jackson, 2006). The global reality which faces us today is a result of the developments of world affairs which took place towards the end of the cold war. Since world war two, there have been nearly sixty limited war conflicts which have required intervention from one or more of the global powers and several situations have been averted altogether with the use of diplomacy and economic measures as exemplified by the workings of the European Union. Even in peace keeping missions, the European Union figures importantly due to the culturally understanding view which the Europeans like to take to various situations. For example, the respect for human rights was clearly shown by the Italians who were part of the European contingent of the peacekeeping forces which were sent to Lebanon. More than 2000 Italians in the group were hard at work trying to understand the local viewpoint of the conflict as well as trying to form bonds with the Lebanese since they respected the idea of human rights for all concerned parties. They actively worked to prevent fights and did not use their guns as often as they used words. Soon after their arrival they were able to effectively allow uninterrupted humanitarian aid to flow to more than 600,000 people in the sector they were supposed to control (Duffey, 2000). Security concerns and the instability of the Middle East region have prompted the editor of the New Statesman to applaud the treatment given to the situation in the Korean peninsula by calling the result of the negotiations a ray of hope. The editor goes on to say that, "painstaking multilateral negotiations are invariably the best way to proceed (New Statesman, 2007, Pg. 4)". This is also the course recommended for handling the nuclear ambitions of Iran with the aid and negotiation skills of the European Union and this process should go on to become the standard procedure wherever such problems exist (Jackson, 2006). Structural Impact Even though Europe is likely to always remain important as an economic and cultural bloc, the political strength of Europe will remain weak until the union becomes more perfect. Democracy is commonly understood as a system based on the wishes of the people and these can change with time. Based on the opinions presented by Hain (2003) and Beetham & Lord (1998) it seems that the wishes of the people were mostly uncared for when the treaties were first shaped between the countries in the EU. Now, when those agreements are turning into law, the significance of the EU is threatened. For example, Article 10 of the EU constitution gives EU law precedence over the laws of individual states, while this has been on the minds of the members since the Treaty of Rome, accepting this as a fact is a big issue for some countries (Beetham & Lord, 1998). In Britain for example, only a small minority i.e. less than ten percent of the local population was ready to accept European Union laws over British law (Hain, 2003). The man in 10 Downing Street certainly knows that it is going to be a bit of an uphill battle to get the remaining 90% to accept the fact that laws from Brussels would soon have more authority than laws made by the English for the English. Despite that struggle, it is clear that eventually laws in England and across the European Union will eventually come directly from Brussels and that will make clear the real impact of how the EU will change the face of the globe with its structural impact. The structural impact of the EU results mostly from its regional bodies and authorities that dictate how trade and goods flowing into the EU have to meet certain regulations and standards. The best example of this comes from the recent changes in food legislation which have not only changed the way food related businesses operate in the EU but also in adjoining countries that trade with the European union. The 2006 Food Hygiene Legislation came into being after several years of developing food safety laws and many different amendments to the same laws. The common market and the formation of the EU meant that laws across different nations had to be consolidated with several aims in mind e.g. prevention of unfair competition, protection of consumers and ensuring complete uniformity of law (Jean, 2006). The 2006 Food Hygiene has become the most modern, consolidated and comprehensive food related legislation the world has seen since it controls and governs the production, distribution as well as the basic origins of all the food we eat. Essentially, the legislation is more related to health rather than food itself since it seeks to create a supply chain which is free from environmental, treatment or handling hazards (Ecologist, 2006). Perhaps the most important influence and the shift in the structure of the law is to make sure that the food business operators are made responsibility for the safety of the food being consumed (Food.gov, 2006). The structure of EU laws itself is quite complicated since there are three levels of law within the EU. This process is not simplified in any way by the three tiers of Union law i.e.: 1. Primary Laws: These are the treaties and agreements between various member countries of the EU. 2. Secondary Laws: These form the regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, etc. of the various bodies within the EU to come to terms with the primary laws. 3. Decisions and judgments given by the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance Undoubtedly, this creates a complex system where democracy is often a secondary concern over expediency and cooperation of the members. It must be noted that the European Union is not a federal body or an intergovernmental committee, in fact, it is a body created by the agreement of countries that are mutually bound to each other to follow its laws (FCO, 2006). It seems that the structural integration in Europe is dependent upon the cultural and economic integration of the member countries. The EU itself considers the structural integrity of the union to bring about European values that are supposed to produce better Europeans (EC, 2006). However, to say that economic cooperation would produce better cultural integration might be a little pessimistic since this statement also suggests that better cultural integration might not be as fast without having economic cooperation first (Erdogan, 2006). Secondly, it can also be said that the present natural level of cultural homogeneity might be good enough since if the Europeans totally integrate their cultures from Dusseldorf to Birmingham, the continent would certainly lose a lot of its charm even though it might gain a bit of structural impact value (Gordon, 2004). There are also examples of situations where economic integration does not help and actually has a negative impact on the political structures placed elsewhere. In severe cases, economic integration might be seen as a negative force of globalisation which causes a backlash against the European ideal (Gordon, 2004). In Turkey for example, economic integration and strong economic connections had been established for years, yet complete integration is still far off. The Economist (2005) reported that there were significant differences and opposition levels to Turkey in Europe and towards Europe in Turkey. The differences are based not only on legal terms, but also in cultural and economic policies which do not help the idea of structural integration. Admittedly, the culture of Turkey may be different from that of mainstream Europe but it must be realised that less than fifty years ago, the cultures of France and Germany were very different from what they are today. Not to mention, the current global conditions mean that Turkey would be more help to the EU from inside than out (Erdogan, 2006). Of course, one would hope that the countries of the world come together on their own to resolve their differences and remove the barriers that separate them, but the political realities make it clear that such steps might not be on the cards anytime soon in the near future. Therefore, if economics and Euro based diplomacy is required to make Europe a structurally sound country as well as a more cohesive unit then by all means these tools should be used to their maximum effect. If we examine the historical conduct of the European Council, we can see that population size as well as the economic and the legal factors often take precedence over how and when membership is permitted to various countries. The structural impact on the EU as well as the globe may even be ignored for the sake of expediency. Clearly, the EU understands that sooner or later, structural integration will come when the newly introduced member is able to see what benefits they can get from better economic integration with the rest of Europe (Barry, 2003). Stronger or Weaker Policies The idea of stronger or weaker policies can only be viewed through a comparative lens in which the policies of one bloc are compared with the policies of another (Getimis, 2003). For example, it may be said that the European policies against illegal drugs are more lenient as compared to other nations or that the European Union takes a lighter view on the social issue of sex workers (Bouwen and McCown, 2004). However, in both cases a comparison benchmark becomes necessary and it seems that the policies which are eventually followed by the union are not necessarily their own. Officially, there are around five thousand lobbyists working around the European Parliament but experts suggest that the actual number may be as high as thirty thousand. In fact, there could be as many lobbyists working in Brussels as there are bureaucrats and the vast majority (70%) of the lobbyists are working for corporations and business enterprises. Less than 10% of these are working for individual countries and the rest represent trade unions, health and environmental groups etc. (Gunnell, 2005). Gunnell (2005) is of the strong opinion that the lobbyists have an undue influence on the creation of policies for the European Union and gives examples of American companies working in Brussels with media and PR firms which suggest the creation and adjustment of laws to help their interests. American chemical manufacturers and at least four federal U.S. agencies were deeply involved in the lobbying process when the EU decided to create its own chemical transport related laws. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of State and Commerce all lobbied fervently for softer and easier chemical transport related laws in the EU to help American businesses in Europe (Loewenberg, 2006). The same lobbying efforts were seen in 2005 when the EU adopted a single position on the patenting of computer related inventions. American software manufacturers and technology companies were deeply involved in the process while the common people were more or less sidelined (Bodoni, 2005). Over the coming years, computer technology and its off-shoots will have thousands of applications for humanity and using the advice of those who stand to make money from these inventions may not be the best idea. It is also difficult to disagree with Gunnell (2005) who discusses the creation of policies in the EU and suggests that there is not a shortage of policy making or policy makers in the European Union but rather a shortage of individuals with vision. This shortage allows corporations and businesses to win arguments and policy debates with their technocratic skills. While Europe plans to become the American for the 21st century, it must not allow the democratic process to be defeated simply because those who are able to play with the system have better access to decision makers than those who depend on the system. The weakness within the policy making system can be overcome if the European Council understand its own weaknesses and does not try to handle the weakness using brute force alone. Despite some shortcomings in how events have taken place in the past or the dark patches we see now and then, the monumental task taken in the formation of the EU can not be lauded enough since it shows how a continent can become united as one country. Of course we can not claim that the union is perfect or that there have not been any disagreements, but it shows a model system which the rest of the world can duplicate to form more regional cooperative bodies which would leave us just a step away from having a unified globe. Using economics, policy making, laws, regional bodies and even threats to integrate countries with differing opinions might not be the most idealistic way to move the process along, but if this is what is required, it has to be accepted and appreciated. Conclusion I believe that the economic integration of the European Union will inevitably lead to better overall integration in terms of culture, policies and government system but such integration might take many decades in which members of individual European states come to rely and depend on each other more than what they are doing now. Acceptance and tolerance would need to be enhanced for all countries to see everyone who is a European citizen as a citizen of their own country. They can not go on seeing Europeans from outside their country as the 'other' or the outsider who is merely there to enjoy the benefits provided to the local population. At the same time, it may be easy to convince twenty or thirty highly educated ministers to accept this line of thought, but it would be far more difficult to make millions if not billions of future individuals accept the idea of one Europe. Word Count: 3,504 Works Cited Barry, F. 2003, 'Economic Integration and Convergence Processes in the EU Cohesion Countries', Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 897-912. Beetham, D. and Lord, C. 1998, Legitimacy and the European Union, Wesley and Longman, London. Bodoni, S. 2005. 'EU software patent law in the balance.' Managing Intellectual Property, vol. 148 no. 1 pp. 15-17. Bouwen, P. and McCown, M. 2004. 'Lobbying versus Litigation: Political and Legal Strategies of Interest Representation in the European Union.' Standing Group on EU Politics, no. 495. Duffey, T. 2000, 'Cultural Issues in Contemporary Peacekeeping', International Peacekeeping, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 142-169. EC. 2006, 'Cultural Cooperation in Europe', Europa.eu, [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/eac/sources_info/studies/cooperation_en.html Economist. 2005, 'Too soon for Turkish delight', Economist, vol. 377, no. 8446, pp. 45-46. Erdogan, T. 2006, 'Our European destiny', Global Agenda, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 30-32. FCO. 2006. 'How EU policy is made.' Foreign and Commonwealth Office U.K., [Online] Available at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front'pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029392232 Food.gov. 2006, 'Background to the 2006 food hygiene legislation', [Online] Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/europeleg/eufoodhygieneleg/ Getimis, P. 2003, 'Improving European Union Regional Policy by Learning from the Past in View of Enlargement', European Planning Studies, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 77-88. Gordon, P. 2004, 'Globalization: Europe's Wary Embrace', Yale University, [Online] Available at: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article'id=4790 Gunnell, B. 2005. 'In Brussels, the lobbyocracy rules.' New Statesman, vol. 135, no. 4726, pp. 27-28. Hain, P. 2003. 'Tidying up or tyranny'' Economist, vol. 367 no. 8326, pp. 51-52. Jackson, D. 2006, 'EU leaders lend U.S. support on Iran, N. Korea', USA Today, 23 Jun., p. 7a Jean, M. 2006, 'The food industry and health', Lancet, vol. 368, no. 9546, pp. 1490. Loewenberg, S. 2006. 'US chemical companies leave their mark on EU law.' Lancet, vol. 367 no. 9510, pp. 556-557. New Statesman. 2007, 'A ray of hope in North Korea amid fears of an attack on Iran', New Statesman, vol. 136, no. 4830, pp. 4-5. Read More