|
Status The members of the European Union have transferred to it considerable sovereignty, more than that of any other non-sovereign regional organisation. As has been mentioned, in certain areas the EU begins to take on the character of a federation or confederation. However, in legal terms, member states remain the masters of the Treaties, which means that the Union does not have the power to transfer additional powers from states onto itself without their agreement through further international treaties. Further, in many areas member states have given up relatively little national sovereignty, particularly in key areas of national interest such as foreign relations and defence. Because of this unique structure most simply classify the European Union as a sui generis (unique) entity and leave it at that. On October 29, 2004, EU member state heads of government and state signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. This was later ratified by 13 member states. However, in most cases ratification was based on parliamentary action, rather than popular vote, and the process faltered on May 29 2005 when French voters rejected the constitution 54.7% to 45.3%. The French rejection was followed three days later by a Dutch one, in which 61.6% of voters refused the constitution as well.• The current and future status of the European Union therefore continues to be subject of political controversy, with widely differing views both within and between member states. For example, in the United Kingdom one poll suggested that around 50% of the population are indifferent to the European Union and 20% voted for parties that wanted to withdraw from the EU in the 2004 EU elections. Public opinion in Denmark and Austria is similarly Eurosceptic. However, other countries are more in favour of European integration — soon after the Netherlands and the French voted "no" on the constitution, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg voted "yes." What the term "European integration" itself means is also the subject of much debate. Current issues Issues currently facing the EU cover its membership, structure, procedures and policies. They include the status and future of the constitutional treaty; enlargement to the south and east; problems of financial probity and democratic accountability; relative economic viability; revision of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact; and the future budget and the Common Agricultural Policy. At the December 2005 European Council, which is a semi-annual meeting of the heads of state and government of the EU member states, a decision was taken on how it should allocate the EU budget for the next seven years (2007–2013). Also, the "Financial Perspective" was defined as EU members agreed to fix the common budget to 1.045% of the European GDP. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed to review the British rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, despite a promise to the contrary made to the UK Parliament. French President Jacques Chirac declared that this increase in budget will permit Europe to "finance common policies" such as the Common Agricultural Policy or the Research and Technological Development Policy. However, France's demand to lower the VAT in catering was refused. Issues controversial during budget debates include the British rebate, France's benefits from the Common Agricultural Policy, Germany and the Netherlands' large contributions to the EU budget, reform of the European Regional Development Funds, and the question of whether the European Parliament should continue to meet once a month in Strasbourg. Many commentators believe that these debates represent a major split between governments such as France and Germany, who call for a broader budget and a more federal union, and governments such as that of the UK, who demanded a slimmer budget with more funding transferred to science and research (and whose watchword is modernisation). The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), commonly referred to as the European Constitution, is an international treaty intended to create a constitution for the European Union. The failure of the constitution to win popular support in some member states (France and Netherlands) caused other countries to postpone or halt their ratification procedures, and the Constitution now has an uncertain future. Had it been ratified, the treaty would have entered into force on November 1, 2006. However, as of May 2006, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain had ratified the constitutional treaty. The two countries due to join the European Union in 2007, Bulgaria and Romania, have already accepted the constitutional treaty too, ratifying their accession treaty. Origins and history
Demographics The European Union is a densely populated, culturally diverse union of 25 member states, constantly expanding and developing. Over the next two decades the total population of the EU25 is expected to increase by more than 13 million inhabitants, from 456.8 million on 1 January 2004 to 470.1 million in 2025. Population growth in the EU25 until 2025 will be mainly from net migration, since total deaths in the EU25 will outnumber total births from 2010. The effect of net migration will no longer outweigh the natural decrease after 2025, when the population will start to decline gradually. The population is estimated to be 449.8 million in 2050 - a decrease of more than 20 million inhabitants compared to 2025. Over the whole projection period the EU25 population will decrease by 1.5%, resulting from a 0.4% increase for the EU15 and a 11.7% decrease for the ten new Member States. Member states and enlargement The European Union's 25 member states cover an area of 3,892,685 square kilometres (1,503,000 sq mi) and have approximately 460 million inhabitants as of December 2004. though it does not explicitly define "Europe" and "Europeanness". The member states of the European Union have land borders with 22 other nations. On 23 July 1952 six founding members formed the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which was transformed into the European Community, later renamed to European Union in waves of accession as follows: Notes: Future enlargement and close relationships Bulgaria and Romania are scheduled to become full members of the European Union on 1 January 2007. The Treaty of Accession to The European Union of Bulgaria and Romania was signed on 25 April 2005, member states parliaments are taking forward its ratification. Currently, all but two states have finalized the ratification process and the remaining ones (Germany and Denmark) have confirmed that they will finish by the end of the year. Croatia is an official candidate country to join and started accession negotiations in October 2005. In June 2006, the EU officials projected that the accession of Croatia would likely happen in 2010. The closure of negotiations for all chapters of the acquis communautaire is expected in 2008 or 2009, while signing the Accession treaty would happen in the year after. Turkey is an official candidate to join the European Union. Turkish European ambitions date back to 1963 Ankara Agreements. Turkey started preliminary negotiations on 3 October 2005. However, analysts believe 2015 is the earliest date the country can join the union because of the plethora of economic and social reforms it has to complete, and because the 2007-2013 budget takes no account of the considerable costs Turkey's accession will involve. Another issue is Turkey's geographic setting, as only 3% of its territory lies on Europe. However, the Copenhagen criteria do not impose strict geographic conditions. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been given official candidate status as of December 2005. The EFTA states of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are members of the European Economic Area which allows them to participate in most aspects of the EU single market without acceding to the EU. Switzerland, the fourth EFTA state, rejected EEA membership in a referendum; however, it has established close ties to the EU by means of various bilateral treaties. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia are officially recognized as potential candidates. Context (rationale for enlargement and future prospects) {{citationneeded}} Supporters of the European Union argue that the growth of the EU is a force for peace and democracy. They argue that the wars which were a periodic feature of the history of Western Europe have ceased since the formation of the European Economic Community (which later became the EU) in the 1950s. They also claim that in the early 1970s, Greece, Portugal and Spain were all dictatorships, but the desire of the business communities in these three countries to be in the EU created a strong impetus for democracy there. Others argue that peace in Europe since World War II is more because of other causes, such as the moderating influence of the U.S. and NATO, the need for a unified response to the threat from the Soviet Union, a need for reconstruction after World War II, and a collective temporary tiring of waging war, and that the dictatorships cited came to an end for totally different reasons. In more recent times, the European Union has been extending its influence to the east. It has accepted several new members that were previously behind the Iron Curtain, and has plans to accept several more in the medium-term. It is hoped that in a similar fashion to the entry of Spain, Portugal and Greece in the 1980s, membership for these states will help cement economic and political stability. As the EU continues to enlarge eastward, the candidate countries' accessions tend to grow more controversial. As previously explained, the EU has completed its accession negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria and set an entry date for the two countries in 2007. However, the rejection of the EU Constitution by France and the Netherlands, together with the EU's slow economic growth, have cast doubt on whether the EU will be ready to accept new, far poorer members after 2007. The prospect of large-scale economic migration from Romania and Bulgaria into the major EU economies such as the UK, Germany, Italy and France has also reared its head. These countries have only just begun to manage the major influx from the 2004 accedant member states such as Poland and the Czech Republic (especially in the UK and Germany). It is feared by these economies that they will be unable to cope with additional economic migrants which are projected to number in the hundreds of thousands from 2007 to 2010 alone. Both Romania and Bulgaria also fear that they will suffer a national 'brain drain' of their skilled and specialist workforce, similar to what the 2004 member state entrants are experiencing now. EU institutions and bodies The functioning of the European Union is supported by five major institutions: The European Council (regular summit with 26 members), which is a regular meeting of the 25 head of member states and the European Commission president is sometimes also listed as an institution, although since it lacks its own staff, budget and the legal powers held by the above 5 institutions, it is better described as a "quasi-institution". There are two financial bodies: There are also two advisory committees to the institutions: There are also a great number of more specialized agencies of the European Union, usually set up by secondary legislation, which exist to implement particular policies. Examples are the EUROPOL (the European Police Office), the European Environment Agency, the European Aviation Safety Agency or the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, the Political and Security Committee, established in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, monitoring and advising on international issues of global security. Location of EU institutions As soon as the European Economic Community (EEC) was established, political and legal wrangling began over where the European institutions should be located. The Member States were unable to reach agreement on where the permanent seats should be, particularly since the concept of a European district, proposed by Jean Monnet, won little support. From 1958, the Commissions of the EEC and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) had their seats in Brussels. Until such time as the member states reached agreement on a single permanent seat for the Community institutions, European officials were distributed between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, leading, in particular, to a considerable increase in overheads. Brussels was chosen as the seat of the Single Commission and the Council of Ministers. In practical terms, this meant that most European officials were employed there. Luxembourg sought compensation for the loss of the High Authority and the Special Council of Ministers of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), both of which were relocated to Brussels. However, Luxembourg became the seat for the new European Investment Bank (EIB) and was given the assurance that certain meetings of the Council of Ministers would be held there, in April, June and September. The Court of Justice, the Central Statistical Office, the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, the Advisory Committee and the financial services of the ECSC and the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly also remained in Luxembourg. Meanwhile, France refused to renounce its claim for Strasbourg as seat of the Parliamentary Assembly. An expensive and inconvenient compromise was reached whereby Parliament’s Members met in plenary session in Strasbourg but meetings of parliamentary committees were held in Brussels. Certain plenary meetings were also held in Luxembourg, which was also the seat of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. The EU has no official capital and its institutions are divided between several cities: Legal framework
European Communities: European Community plus Euratom The term European Communities refers collectively to two entities — the European Economic Community (now called the European Community) and the European Atomic Energy Community (also known as Euratom) — each founded pursuant to a separate treaty in the 1950s. A third entity, the European Coal and Steel Community, was also part of the European Communities, but ceased to exist in 2002 upon the expiration of its founding treaty. Since 1967, the European Communities have shared common institutions, specifically the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission and the Court of Justice. In 1992, the European Economic Community, which of the three original communities had the broadest scope, was renamed the "European Community" by the Treaty of Maastricht. European Union: European Communities plus CFSP and PJCC The European Communities are one of the three pillars of the European Union, being both the most important pillar and the only one to operate primarily through supranational institutions. The other two "pillars" – Common Foreign and Security Policy, and Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters – are looser intergovernmental groupings. Confusingly, these latter two concepts are increasingly administered by the Community (as they are built up from mere concepts to actual practice). Effect of Constitutional Treaty If it had been ratified, the proposed new Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe would have abolished the three-pillar structure and, with it, the distinction between the European Union and the European Community, bringing all the Community's activities under the auspices of the European Union and transferring the Community's legal personality to the Union. There is, however, one qualification: it appears that Euratom would remain a distinct entity governed by a separate treaty (because of the strong controversy the issue of nuclear energy causes, and Euratom's relative unimportance, it was considered expedient to leave Euratom alone in the process of EU constitutional reform). Intergovernmentalism and supranationalism A basic tension exists within the European Union between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. Intergovernmentalism is a method of decision making in international organisations where power is possessed by the member states and decisions are made by unanimity. Independent appointees of the governments or elected representatives have solely advisory or implementational functions. Intergovernmentalism is used by most international organisations today. An alternative method of decision making in international organisations is supranationalism. In supranationalism power is held by independent appointed officials or by representatives elected by the legislatures or people of the member states. Member state governments still have power, but they must share this power with other actors. Furthermore, decisions are made by majority votes, hence it is possible for a member state to be forced by the other member states to implement a decision against its will. Some forces in European Union politics favour the intergovernmental approach, while others favour the supranational path. Supporters of supranationalism argue that it allows integration to proceed at a faster pace than would otherwise be possible. Where decisions must be made by governments acting unanimously, decisions can take years to make, if they are ever made. Supporters of intergovernmentalism argue that supra-nationalism is a threat to national sovereignty, and to democracy, claiming that only national governments can possess the necessary democratic legitimacy. Intergovernmentalism is being favoured by more eurosceptic nations such as the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden; while more integrationist nations such as the Benelux countries, France, Germany, and Italy have tended to prefer the supranational approach. The European Union attempts to strike a balance between the two approaches. This balance however is complex, resulting in the often labyrinthine complexity of its decision-making procedures, eg, the codecision-making process. Starting in March 2002, a Convention on the Future of Europe again looked at this balance, among other things, and proposed changes. These changes were discussed at an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) in May 2004 and led to the Constitutional Treaty discussed above. Supranationalism is closely related to the intergovernmentalism vs. neofunctionalism debate. This is a debate concerning why the process of integration has taken place at all. Intergovernmentalists argue that the process of EU integration is a result of tough bargaining between states. Neofunctionalists, on the other hand, argue that the supranational institutions themselves have been the underlying driving-force behind integration. Main policies As the changing name of the European Union (from European Economic Community to European Community to European Union) suggests, it has evolved over time from a primarily economic union to an increasingly political one. This trend is highlighted by the increasing number of policy areas that fall within EU competence: political power has tended to shift upwards from the member states to the EU. Some member states have a domestic tradition of strong regional government. This has led to an increased focus on regional policy and the European regions. A Committee of the Regions was established as part of the Treaty of Maastricht. EU policy areas cover a number of different forms of cooperation. The tension between EU and national (or subnational) competence is an enduring one in the development of the European Union. All prospective members must enact legislation in order to bring them into line with the common European Union legal framework, known as the Acquis Communautaire. (See also European Free Trade Association (EFTA), European Economic Area (EEA) and Single European Sky.) See table of states participating in some of the initiatives. Single market Many of the policies of the EU relate to the development and maintenance of an effective single market. Significant efforts have been made to create harmonised standards designed to bring economic benefits through creating larger, more efficient markets. The single market has both internal and external aspects: Internal policies External policies and military Co-operation and Harmonisation in other areas Economy If considered a single unit, the European Union has the largest economy in the world, with a GDP of 12,427,413 million USD (2005) using Purchasing power parity (PPP) equivalence. The EU economy is expected to grow further over the next decade as more countries join the union — especially considering that the new states are usually poorer than the EU average, and have the capacity to grow at a higher rate. The European Council published estimations on 17 November 2005 that the economy of the European Union will have grown approximately 1.5% in 2005 (1.3% in the eurozone), and 2.3% 2006 (2.1% in the eurozone) surpassing earlier growth predictions. In 2006, it is expected 3½ million jobs will be created in the Eurozone. The European Council is hopeful that the European Union will grow further in the future; economic growth for 2007 is expected to be at 2.7%. Germany, the largest economy in the EU, will grow about: 2.9% in 2006 and 2.9% in 2007. After extremely slow growth, the EU's rate of growth is expected to increase in the next couple of years. EU member states have agreed a programme called the Lisbon Strategy which aims at making "the EU the world's most dynamic and competitive economy" by 2010. Economic variation Below is a table and three graphs showing, respectively, the GDP (PPP), the GDP (PPP) per capita and the GDP (nominal) per capita for the European Union and for each of its 25 member states, sorted by GDP (PPP) per capita. This can be used as a rough gauge to the relative standards of living among member states, with Luxembourg and Ireland the highest; Poland and Latvia the lowest. The two future members Bulgaria and Romania (set for 1 January 2007) are also included in the table, as are the official candidates and officially recognised potential candidates. The data set is for the year 2007 and graphs are for the year 2004. All 2007 data are projections. Source: CIA World Factbook All other figures, source: IMF web site (2007 GDP PPP, 2007 per capita GDP PPP, 2007 per capita GDP, current prices). Related articles and books Language barriers One major criticism of the EU is that it has 20 official languages for 25 member states (although there are only 3 working languages in the European Commission: French, English and German). This results in a potential 380 interpretations needed to translate all statements between all the languages of the EU. The European Parliament employs over 4,000 interpreters at a cost of almost one billion euros annually, and translations can take up to a week to be translated into the languages of all member states. One of the problems is that sometimes translating needs to be done across intermediate languages because of a lack of interpreters for some languages, which can often lead to a loss of information and clarity or, even worse, errors in the translation. It has been suggested, most notably by former UK commissioner of the EU Neil Kinnock, that these costs could be omitted by making English the official language of the EU. Some have also suggested that Esperanto or Interlingua could serve as a common second language for the EU. On the other hand, there is an argument that all legislation, and indeed all proposed legislation, be available to the public of the EU in their national languages. The EU produces substantial legislation applicable to all member states: debate and accountability would be severely hampered if ordinary people could not have access to documents in their own language. Even worse, this would favour some countries over others. Common Agricultural Policy The Common Agricultural Policy, better known as the CAP, is a system of subsidies paid to EU farmers. Its main purposes are to guarantee minimum levels of production, so that Europeans have enough food to eat, and to ensure a fair standard of living for those dependent on agriculture. The policy has been accused of distorting trade in agricultural products for decades. While the EU guarantees its farmers a price that is several times the world market price, Third World producers struggle in vain to compete in an unfair market. These subsidies, paid for by the EU taxpayers, secures the standard of living for farmers in EU countries, but also endangers Third World jobs, potentially causing increased poverty and malnutrition. The policy costs around £30bn a year - or half the EU's £60bn annual budget. Common attempts to put the finances into some sort of perspective include examples along the lines of it adding £9 onto a family of four's weekly food bill, or that the annual income of an EU dairy cow exceeds that of half the world's human population. Another problem is that the subsidies cause overproduction. The CAP has also been blamed for encouraging environmentally damaging intensive farming. Critics say that the CAP has become badly unbalanced, with 70% of its funds going to only 20% of Europe's farms - predominantly the largest - and leaves nearly three-quarters of EU farmers surviving on less than £5,000 a year. Small farmers account for about 40% of EU farms, but receive only 8% of available subsidies from Brussels. For example, according to British government figures, five UK farms receive more than £1m a year in subsidies. Since 2003 fundamental reforms have been implemented, sector by sector, with a view to "de-linking" agricultural support from market-distorting price support. Instead of being paid to produce (and thereby providing an incentive for surpluses which must be disposed of on the world market), farmers will receive payments for services such as conservation and rural development. Although the total financial level of support is not declining, the change in the type of subsidy is substantially reducing negative impacts on non-EU agricultural producers. France led the anti-reform camp, which includes Spain, the Republic of Ireland and possibly Germany, while Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands were demanding change. Biodiversity The European Union has interpreted differently (relative to other advanced nations) the mission of creating a Biodiversity Action Plan under the 1992 Rio Accord. Instead of creating detailed inventories of biota and corresponding threat analyses and action plans for species, the EU has embedded references to protection of biological resources in a set of economic development policies* related to fishing, agriculture etc. While this same strategy has been taken by a number of developing countries, the EU has not met the standard set by some advanced nations such as Canada* and Australia ** in terms of extensive species identification, analysis of pathways of species decline and development of highly specific recovery plans. In contrast a number of individual countries within the EU (such as Sweden and the United Kingdom*) have produced documentation in the spirit of the Rio Accord in a level of detail consistent with other advanced countries. Comparison with other regional blocs CIA World Factbook On December 16, 2004, The World Factbook, a publication of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) added an entry for the European Union. According to the CIA, the European Union was added because the EU "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself". Their reasoning was explained in this small statement in the introduction: See also Lists Other Further reading | |||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
 |
|
| |