From the account of Gerhard Schroeder and Tony Blair, I interpret the social and political development of Western Europe after 1945 to be very close to that of the United States. This is obviously not an exact comparison, but there are similarities. It is most likely more fair to think of the European Union as the United States under the Articles of the Confederation, though obviously updated and slightly stronger. The participating nations operate mostly on their own, though there is a loose and mostly economic cooperation between them. To this effect, I find that the EU does represent the kind of “Third Way” that is discussed by Gerhard Schroeder and Tony Blair. In order to understand why the European Union embodies a new way of operating in the European community and is not the sort of continuation of nationalist policies, it is necessary to delve into Richard Kuisel’s arguments and contrast them with what Blair and Schroeder described.
Kuisel’s argument about the European community merely being old nationalist policies under an internationalist disguise seems contradictory to much of the evidence that he presents. In various cases, he demonstrates how France attempts to use the European community in order to fulfill its needs and desires, but is turned down by the other members of the community. One such instance is the controversy over whether or not to accept American investments and European monetary reform in the late 1960s. France did not like this idea and fervently fought against it, the European community overall, however, allowed it (Kuisel, 175). This demonstrates that, though there may be vast differences in the policies of the members of the European Union, a single nation could not use it to force its own polici...
... middle of paper ...
...ugh they are extremely free to act on their own and when they do come together it is mostly defined by political lines, rather than national/state lines (It is prudent to mention that the reason that the EU is working and the Articles of the Confederation did not is because the Articles of the Confederation were meant to tie together a single nation. The EU does not attempt this). The actual policies of the EU are created and enacted through very egalitarian means, assuring that all countries have the same amount of persuasion. This therefore disallows the sort of nationalist policies that Kuisel argues to exist within the European community. This is seen time after time in Seducing the French as the French attempt to enact policies that are not agreed upon by the other members of the European community and find themselves consistently not allowed to continue them.
Most of the time, countries only let another government set rules for them when they trust the other government. If 28 countries trust another government, the government must be very trustworthy. Also, the parliament is located in Belgium, Luxembourg, and France. There are other countries that do not have part of the government in their country, which means that the countries are uniting together. The European Union also has a common currency, called the Euro.
The economic and social systems of Western Europe and the Soviet Eastern bloc in 1945-1955 were very different yet very similar in several ways. The East was definitely trying to reconcile with the West, whereas the West wasn’t as in to interacting with the East after World War II. Based on my new found knowledge of both the West and East of Europe, I can say that from an economic aspect, both received very different treatment from different countries. Because of the Soviet Union’s socialism, countries such as the United States viewed them negatively because of disagreeing opinions on socialism. However, Western Europe was influenced by the United States (making us on their side) therefore receiving better treatment. The West and the Eastern bloc were very different socially as well as economically, yet bared some of the same aspects.
The nature of the cultural confrontation that took place between Old and New World cultures was profoundly shaped by the condition of fifteenth century Christian Europe at the moment of contact. Recent scholarship demonstrating parallels between New World and Old World paganism(1) raises the question of whether the reactions of fifteenth century Europeans to the native American cultures were conditioned by their own subconscious awareness of such cultural similarities. Given their history of suppression of their own primitive past, Europeans responded to the New World in the only way they knew how. Everywhere they turned they encountered alien cultural traditions exhibiting characteristics that reminded them of their own subconscious dragons. Acceptance of the Indian cultures on their own terms would have threatened the very catholic social order that had been the sole unifying force in Europe since the disintegration of the Roman Empire. The European predisposition to denigrate everything outside Christian experience was further accentuated by deep internal divisions within Europe that began to rend Christendom asunder in the sixteenth century.
Both the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) are strategies developed by the European Union in regards to their dealings with the ‘outside’ world. The European Neighborhood Policy finds its obstacles in the once superpower of the Russians, and their conflicting neighborhood policy. Whereas the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy finds its obstacles through its numerous memberships which on the outside one would consider a boon of combined knowledge, but when their insurmountable differences become involved it is a burden. The European Union unfortunately has become known for being a hypocritical organization, playing the mantra ‘do as I say not as I do’. Moreover, the European Union takes its power for granted and assumes “itself as a superior embodiment of soft power and a model of peace, democracy and prosperity in the region.” After the Cold War, the EU set out to develop a new phase of expansion and integration. One of the topics related to the process of European Union integration is the concern of a European Identity, and what it means to be ‘European’. The EU has struggled to define itself as a “Multicultural community sharing a set of universal values” , conversely defining what it means by ‘multiculturalism’ has become the center of political conflict within its governments. The conundrum may be if the European Union wants to keep the European feeling, then why should it bring in a country that is not European? But then again what is European? The debate over this term is one that surrounds the history of Europe and the possible futures available for the European Union. Is the EU or any nations allowed within it defined by the geographic constructs shown on th...
In recent years, Europe has faced many dramatic changes which require important decisions to be made from each and every country. Historically, many European countries have shown to be very protective of their respective national identities. Several of these recent important changes and events taking place in Europe threaten the idea of these countries national identities. It is the decisions these countries make which will shape the future of the European Union. As tensions grow, certain countries are beginning to figuratively as well as literally break away from the standards of the European Union. Depending on how countries decide to react, these changes may very well lead to the decline of “Liberal Democracy.”
Problems with the Maastricht Treaty and its Goal to Unify Europe My position is in opposition to the unification of Europe as proposed under the Maastricht Treaty, as beneficial to Europe. We will prove beyond a reasonable doubt about the uselessness of the treaty. The main principle of the Maastricht Treaty is European Unity. Unity is a nice warm hearted word.
...: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (4), pp. 603-24.
The European Union (EU), since the initial foundation in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and throughout periods of development, has been considered one of the most advanced forms of regional integration. It, based on numerous treaties and resolutions, has strived to promote values such as peace, cooperation or democracy, and in 2012 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” (Nobel Media AB, 2012). Despite its struggle for promoting democracy, the EU itself has long experienced scholarly criticisms that it suffers the democratic deficit, from which its democratic legitimacy is undermined by observable problems in political accountability and participation. As the importance of legitimacy in a democratically representative institution is hardly debatable, the criticism of whether and why the EU lacks democracy has been given a considerable gravity in academia.
The EU shares sovereignty with its member states just like a federal system would .At the same time its member states retain much of their traditional autonomy and are still viewed as nation states as confederation would. Thus the EU may be described as a multi-level governance supranational organization that resists strict classification as either a confederation or a federation but it has both confederal and federal character .
Uvalic, M. (2002, July). Regional Cooperation and the Enlargement of the European Union: Lessons Learned? International Political Science Review, 23(3), 319-333.
I will firstly look at each one individually and how it is organised then analyse its powers and responsibilities before comparing them and drawing up my conclusions. However I would like to note that there are many different interpretations and parameters of ‘powerful’ which make it difficult to answer the question. The EU was established in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty. It comprises what are known as three ‘pillars’.
The European Union stands on the threshold of unparalleled change over the coming years. The next waves of enlargement will be unprecedented in nature and continental in scale. This process has gained so much political momentum that it is now irreversible.
Senior, Nello Susan. "Chapters:4,15." The European Union: Economics, Policies and History. London: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.
The enlargement of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and 2007 has been termed as the largest single expansion of the EU with a total of 12 new member states – bringing the number of members to 27 – and more than 77 million citizens joining the Commission (Murphy 2006, Neueder 2003, Ross 2011). A majority of the new member states in this enlargement are from the eastern part of the continent and were countries that had just emerged from communist economies (EC 2009, Ross 2011), although overall, the enlargement also saw new member states from very different economic, social and political compared to that of the old member states (EC 2009, Ross 2011). This enlargement was also a historical significance in European history, for it saw the reunification of Europe since the Cold War in a world of increasing globalization (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). For that, overall, this enlargement is considered by many to have been a great success for the EU and its citizens but it is not without its problems and challenges (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). This essay will thus examine the impact of the 2004/2007 enlargements from two perspectives: firstly, the impact of the enlargements on the EU as a whole, and thereafter, how the enlargements have affected the new member states that were acceded during the 2004/2007 periods. Included in the essay will be the extent of their integration into the EU and how being a part of the Commission has contributed to their development as nation states. Following that, this essay will then evaluate the overall success of the enlargement process and whether the EU or the new member states have both benefited from the accessions or whether the enlargement has only proven advantageous to one th...
Because it could be quite complicated to look at the EU model from a point of classical democratic nation-state, it seems to be reasonable to discuss this problem, not by abstract reasoning, but by focusing on a concrete case. European Union is the best case available, which in recent decades has developed into a new type of political system with enormous consequences on democracy and governance in its member states. Despite repeated attempts for major institutional reforms, this system is likely to persist in its basic structures for the future and is unlikely to develop into a federal state or to disintegrate into a classic international organization. The present state of democracy and governance in the EU is therefore worth to be analyzed, as it is not a mere transitory state.