2003-10-15 - 2:14 a.m.
Been a real busy day today. I was working on integration all day after school, and didn't even start my homework until 10:00. I was only able to finish my history essay, and study for the test tomorrow, so Latin should be interesting tomorrow. Ughh, 2:00. I'm good though, no worries, just had to gripe about it. Also thought I might post my essay here, as I don't have much better add tonight. Well, I could add other things, but I'm just tired, y'know? People say you should write clear enough that people who don't know much about the topic can understand. I assume that the EU isn't a big topic among any of you reading, so I hope that I was successful in doing this.
A unified Europe is an idea that is as old as the Romans. Starting with Julius Caesar, and continue by Napoleon and Hitler, many have attempted this end through military force and expanding the power of a single nation. Looking back on centuries of war and imperialism, and having just experienced the horrors of Blitzkrieg in World War II, Jean Monnet sought out a new way to unite Europe along with other likeminded visionaries. Through cooperation and planning, they created the European Coal and Steel Community, the seed of the European Union (EU) that is now considered the strongest supranational body in the world. As early as the 1930s, French philosopher Teilhard de Chardin proclaimed that “the age of the nation-state is past.” Though this statement was clearly premature in light of the effects of the cold war in the 1940s, it does hold more merit when consideration is given to the growth of the EU over the last half-century. However, while the extent of the EU’s powers clearly shows that the nation-state is not the end result of political evolution, it is still far from ending the age of the nation-state, due to the strong opposition and many hurdles that it still has to overcome.
The EU is a very powerful force, and while it is not considered a state, it does exhibit several of the qualities that define a state. We can view its various groups in much the same way we have done for traditional states, such as England and France. There is the Commission as an executive branch, responsible for initiating new programs; a legislative branch consisting of the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament; finally the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as the judicial branch. The ECJ is significant to the EU’s power not only in that it can handle cases throughout the union, but also because it has consistently ruled that European laws hold precedence over national laws, similar to how Federal law overrides State law in the US.
Due to its origins revolving around economics, and the common need for better economic policies throughout Europe, the free market is one of the shining examples of EU power and success. Starting with the Single European Act, the EU moved towards an internal market with no tariffs or trade boundaries, and it eventually all but eliminated border checks as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam. One of the EU’s greatest achievements, though also long in coming, is the widespread adoption of a single European currency, the Euro. Giving up the national currencies meant ceding more power over to the EU, but has proved well worth it, providing many countries with a currency strong enough to compete with the dollar. The Euro also serves as a means of socialization (one of the few the EU has to show), and has at least urged on the small trend of people who have begun to consider themselves as “Europeans”.
Despite the many advances and strengths of the EU shown, nation-states are far from falling out of style. A way to explain this is that almost all the successes of the EU are really only half-successes, and for each advance there is a set back, each strength, a weakness. The structure of the EU government fails in its democratic deficit. Out of all the bodies, only Members of Parliament are elected directly; the rest of the positions being filled by state governments or internal appointment. Parliament also happens to be one of the weakest bodies in the EU. Though recently given more powers, it still has yet to make full use of them. Because the governments and not the people choose most officials in the EU, they are more likely to see their allegiance with the State and not with the Union. Furthermore, the lack of democratic elections distances the people from EU government, decreasing socialization and even creating apathy towards it.
As great as the EU’s accomplishments are in the market place, their failures with the Common Agricultural Policy stand out for matching criticism. The plan was created with the intention of modernizing farming techniques, thus reducing great inefficiencies in farming around Europe. Government subsidies were offered as part of the plan in order to make this change easier for the farmers. However, little to no modernization has occurred while the subsidies have been carried out in full, accomplishing little more than wasting the EU’s funding. With many eastern countries entering the EU, continuing such a policy would result in bankrupting the entire Union.
A common analogy that is made is between the EU and the United States under the Articles of Confederation. The EU’s former Unanimity Principle, and the Articles requirement of Unanimous agreement to amend the Articles caused similar deadlocks in both governments. The States faced and solved problems with multiple currencies and interstate trade practices, much like the EU. Given that the United States eventually became truly united as a single Nation State with a powerful Federal Government, this analogy seems to hold high hopes for the EU in the future. While there may be some truth to this assumption, there are many important differences between the countries of Europe, and the States of America. Centuries of fighting are not easily forgotten, old countries are not as suited to change as young states, and Europe does not have the luxury of a single prevalent language. All of these factors suggest that if the EU is to become sovereign, it will have many more issues to sort out than the US did.
The EU’s growth is of mixed virtue for its success. The EU’s powers have seen great leaps at times, such as the passing of the Maastricht Treaty, but this has only occurred when it was of common interest to the countries involved, for instance, as a response to an economic crisis. Even during such time of common interest, these growths meet opposition, and Great Britain and Denmark both insisted on provisions that would allow them to “opt out” of certain policies in the Maastrich Treaty. Looking at the recent slowing in the deepening of EU powers, it is logical to assume that this trend will continue. This means that increase in EU powers will not likely occur of its own accord, but does suggest that it is very likely to expand if the countries involved encounter a common need in the future, such as war or even environmental issues.
It is difficult to judge the success of the EU, as there are many ways of measuring it, and it is a phenomenon almost entirely new to history. Looking at what it has accomplished over the past 50 years compared to its goals suggests that it is has developed slowly, yet compared to the development of England’s government, it has come about overnight. The EU has certainly moved to a form of government beyond that of the nation-states, but they are far from disappearing. Despite the obvious good it has done for the economy, and also in just keeping the peace, the nation-states continue to struggle against any increase in the EU’s power, though they are eventually driven to improve upon it by circumstance. This behavior is merely human nature at its core. We procrastinate, fearing the troubles of the present; we push them back into the future till the last possible moment, though this only makes life the more difficult for us in the end.
