2 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/ciolos/headlines/news/2011/06/ ...... with Turkey, after the occupation of part of Cyprus by the Turkish army and the ...... Eurovision is a European song contest, and hence just European states can ...
he rs
,I
nc .
EUROPEAN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SECURITY ISSUES
EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
BUILDING EUROPE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova‟s website under the E-book tab.
nc .
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‟s website under the Series tab.
,I
EUROPEAN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SECURITY ISSUES
he rs
EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
,I
nc .
EUROPEAN POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND SECURITY ISSUES
Pu bl
is
BUILDING EUROPE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
DAVID RAMIRO TROITINO
New York
Copyright © 2013 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
nc .
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
,I
For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com
is
he rs
NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‟ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Pu bl
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication.
en
ce
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Sc i
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
N
ov
a
ISBN: 978-1-62417-942-6
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York
nc . ,I
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
Thank you to Maria, Kirsi, Gregorio, Raul and Osvald for their support during the time I have been working on this project.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
,I
nc . Preface
he rs
CONTENTS
ix
Ideas about Europe
Chapter 2
Theories of European Integration
Chapter 3
The First European Community, the European Steel and Coal Community
17
The European Defence Community and the European Political Community: Crisis in the Process
23
Chapter 5
The Treaty of Rome EEC and EURATOM 1957
27
Chapter 6
The Common Trade Policy
33
Chapter 7
The Common Agricultural Policy
39
Chapter 8
De Gaulle and European Integration
51
Chapter 9
The British Position towards the European Integration: A Different Economic Approach
63
Chapter 10
The Enlargement to Greece and the Case of Greenland
69
Chapter 11
The Accession of Spain and Portugal
75
Pu bl
ce
Sc i
en
Chapter 4
1
is
Chapter 1
Thatcher and the EU
81
Chapter 13
The Single European Act
97
Chapter 14
The European Commission
119
Chapter 15
The European Parliament
127
Chapter 16
The European Council and the Council of the EU
141
Chapter 17
Other Institutions and Agencies
151
Chapter 18
The Enlargement to Sweden, Austria, and Finland
163
Chapter 19
The Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice
173
Chapter 20
Helmut Kohl and the European Union
185
a
Chapter 12
ov
N
7
viii
Contents European Union Law
197
Chapter 22
The European Budget
203
Chapter 23
Regional Policy
211
Chapter 24
The Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe
Chapter 25
The Treaty of Lisbon
Chapter 26
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
Chapter 27
European Identity
Chapter 28
The Monetary Union
Chapter 29
Social Europe
Chapter 30
Environmental Protection
Chapter 31
Transport Policy
Chapter 32
Energy Policy
Chapter 33
External Relations of the EU and the Common Foreign and Security Policy
311
The Future of the European Union
333
en Sc i a ov
N
,I
229 257
he rs
265 283 293
is
299
ce
Index
217 223
Pu bl
Chapter 34
nc .
Chapter 21
305
337
nc . ,I he rs
PREFACE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The main objective of this publication is establishing an understanding of the process of European integration and hence the current European Union that has resulted from this process. As this is a complicated development that includes many different areas, this book will focus on the main fields in which the integration has been settled; politics, economy, law, and social aspects. Thus, a comprehensive approach to all these fields will provide both general and professional readers with sufficient knowledge to understand the process and form their own opinion about it. On the other hand, each chapter has been developed independently, and hence can be read autonomously in order to understand a specific topic, policy, or problem in the European Union. Reading of the full book will provide a wide perspective of the process, as the chapters are connected; forming different groups based on similar themes, the combination of these wider groups providing the general approach to the whole process of European integration. A multidisciplinary approach is needed for understanding the European Union. European Integration is analyzed from the viewpoint of an unfinished process whose culmination in the long term will mean a higher European level of integration. Hence the current European Union is just a temporal organization whose final form will be the future European state, whatever form it takes. With this in mind, different proposals are included in the book for the possible future development of the organization, and they are backed by the study of previous developments and the way integration has been led until the present. The book starts with the basic ideas related to European Integration that were developed over the course of several centuries in the region, especially after the Second World War. The contributions of the German philosopher Kant, the Count Coudenhove Kalergi, the proposals of Aristide Briand and Churchill all have in common the idea of a United Europe as an alternative of the world politics dominated by nations and nation (? Not sure if that‟s what you meant) states and the consequent confrontations within this system. In other words, they present the idea of integrating the European continent as a peace system in order to avoid conflicts between the members and provide a better framework for the material development of European society. The theories of European Integration explain the process; the importance of the theories is in the different ways they proposed to build the European organization, predict the possible future problems, and establish a path for the integration by an identification of the key fields that should be integrated. It is important to understand these theories in order to understand
x
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
the whole process as the current integration is just provisional, and deeper integration will come in the future to fulfill the original targets of the organization. In that sense the European Union is basically focused on three main theories: neofunctionalism, federalism, and intergovernmentalism; their implications in the current and future shape of the European Union are fundamental. The history of the process is the starting point for European integration, a basic and essential field in order to comprehend where Europe is and where it will go. The main steps of the creation of the European Union are the different Treaties that include the areas under the common management via the European Union. The European Coal and Steel Community is important as it is the official beginning of the process, and the Schumann Declaration includes the main guidelines for the integration of Europe. The European Defense Community and the European Political Community, even when they were rejected by the French national parliament, are important to understand the further development of the organization. Also, nowadays the integration is recovering some aspects included in these two treaties, and hence they are a link with the actual development of the organization. The Treaty of Rome and the policies included in it present a different approach or another version of integration after the crisis of the rejection of the EDC and the EPC, an approach which has been dominant in the European Union since then. The Single European Act is analyzed as one of the main steps in European integration, with its contribution via the Internal Market to the achievement of the original target of the creation of the European State. The Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam increased economic integration and made possible deeper political integration in the European continent after the collapse of the communist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe. It signified a new geopolitical situation in Europe and in the world, one that influenced the development of integration by speeding up the process. The Treaty of Nice was a necessary step for the internal organization of the European Union when it was facing the biggest enlargement of its history into Central and Eastern Europe. Finally, the Treaty of Lisbon includes the latest developments in European integration. The European Union essentially consists of the policies under the influence of the organization and, hence, the areas where the previous national sovereignty has been transferred and shared in the common institutions; this book thus focuses on several of these policies. Firstly, Trade Policy is significant in terms of integration as it was the main vehicle of external representation of the European Commission and a key policy managed commonly in the European Common Market. Secondly, Common Agricultural Policy represented an overwhelming part of the European Budget, and hence its impact in Europe has been tremendous. At present it still represents an important part of the common budget and is undergoing significant reform that will have a profound impact in the further development of the Union. Thirdly, Regional Policy is becoming the central policy of the Union in budgetary terms. It is a key policy of the European Union and basic for one of the most important principles of the European integration, solidarity among the member states. The European Union is the world leader in environmental protection, and its internal implications are very important, as it is a horizontal policy affecting the rest of the policies under the power of the common management in the framework of the Union. Transport policy is a priority for the Union, as the necessity to integrate the different geographical territories included in the Union is basic to avoiding asymmetrical crises and uniting the European market. It is also important to unite the people of Europe and hence increase the feeling of Europeanism, a requirement for political integration. Energy policy is still mostly under the influence of the member states
Preface
xi
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
because it is an elementary field linked with the national interest protecting the national economies. It is a policy generating numerous conflicts between the member states in external relations, while also determining external relations of the Union. The Social Policy is also a linked with the national interest, but as the globalization process makes more difficult the control of the national states over the economic forces acting in the international market, the integration in this field is needed in order to protect and secure one of the most important characteristics of Europe. Finally, the Common Foreign and Security Policy is analyzed under its current shape and considering the necessities of Europe, as well as analyzing the future challenges in this field. The position of the member states is important to understand in the whole process because when joining the organization they had different priorities and expectations. In order to achieve them they accepted different duties. The national positions of each member state are explained in the context of their respective enlargement process. All the member states expect benefits from the Union, and at the same time they accept some minor sacrifices to improve their national necessities. The position of the main countries inside the organization are normally more important in terms of European integration, as these countries are bigger, more populated, and with a stronger economy inside the Union, and hence their positions have to be taken into consideration. To understand their positions there are three main chapters dedicated to the most important leaders of France, Germany, and UK in terms of European integration, Thatcher, de Gaulle, and Kohl, explaining their political views as an extension of their nations, and their influence in the development of the Union. The European Union works thanks to its institutions, and hence the accurate knowledge of them is a basic requirement in order to understand the organization. The main institutions are the European Commission, the Council, and the Parliament, maximum expression of Neofunctionalism, Intergovernmentalism, and Federalism in European integration. It gives the organization a working system based on these three main theories of integration, and hence provides the Union with a unique style in the world. Other institutions are also important in the working system of the Union, and hence are also explained, as the Court System, or the European Central Bank. Their main roles inside the internal organization of the Union, their powers, their relations with the rest of the institutions, and their relations with the European social and economic agents are a basic milestone for the current working system of the Union and its future development. The European legislation and the legislative process are very important in terms of Integration and balance of power between the different institutions and the member states. They have been one of the main fields of study for decades in the universities of the world, and hence the value in terms of integration should be understood as the logical translation of the political will of integration. The current legal system of the Union is explained in this book taking into account its legislative procedure and the way the European legislation is implemented in the national legislation of the member states. The European Economy is another important pillar for European integration, as it has been the key sector in terms of integration. The main spheres of application have been the Common Market, the Internal Market, and the Common Currency. These are analyzed along with the potential political integration as a consequence of economic integration. The European financial capacity and the European Budget are decisive in order to understand the real capacity for action by the Union; and, hence, where the income comes from, what the expenditures of the organization are, and how the common budget is allocated
xii
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
are important facts by which to understand the whole European integration process and how through this European policies affect the member states. As integration reaches the higher political levels, the process is facing a new challenge, the identification of citizens with future political integration; and thus European identity is analyzed pointing out its strong and weak points and possible future development in this fundamental sector. The link of citizens with Europe is nowadays frail, but without an effective transfer of loyalty of citizens from the national level to the European level the whole process of integration will fail. Finally the future prospects of the Union and the whole process of integration is discussed in the book; the different alternatives for new membership in the Union, the development of new policies, the development of new institutions, new political areas, and different versions of the future of the Union are presented as possible scenarios or final results of the European integration process. As it is clear that the European Union will need to increase integration in order to avoid a collapse, the necessity of understanding the future possibilities of the Union are fundamental for a thorough understanding of the integration process and the European Union. All these themes are explained following the historical development of Europe since the 1940s until the present, because they cannot be explained properly without their basic links with other fields that give sense to the whole process. The treaties are the main temporal line guiding the work, incorporating new policies, new member states, new institutions, new necessities solved with deeper integration.
nc . he rs
IDEAS ABOUT EUROPE
,I
Chapter 1
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The process of building a European association or community is not something new, or just an idea of the XX century. There have been different ideas about Europe throughout history and from different cultures. The name Europe comes from different traditions, such as Greek or Jews. The Greek Europa was a Phoenician princess who was very beautiful, and the main god of the Greeks, Zeus, fell in love with her. But the father of Europa took care of her very carefully making the loving advances of Zeus impossible. The princess used to walk on the beach, Zeus transformed himself into a white bull, and Europa was tricked into riding the bull when suddenly Zeus started running over the sea until he reached Crete. There he restored his shape and made her his mistress. Europa gave birth to Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Sarpedon.1 The word Europe is also recorded in the Bible. After the great flood sent by Yahweh, when Noah and his children were to repopulate the world, Japheth, son of Noah, was assigned the repopulating of Europe, was told by his father to populate the territories of Europe and became the father of the Europeans.2 Other traditions link Europe with Semitic, Phoenician, or Arab words. The shape of Europe and its borders were defined according to how different people spoke about it, and meant that the borders of Europe were, and actually are, more cultural than geographical. Europe became a Greek creation where Greek people lived. The Romans widened the concept, including more northern territories and more peoples in the concept of Europe. The fall of the Roman Empire and the consequent chaos meant a period of social and political instability and a change for the concept of Europe, when finally the rise of the Muslim religion and its occupation of the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean gave again a cultural identity to the concept of Europe, Christianity. As the two religions were reaffirming their influence over different areas, Europe became the main area for Christians, Africa and Asia for Muslims. The Europeans took over AlAndalus in current Spain from their Muslim rulers after centuries of fighting led by different Christian kingdoms located in the north of the Iberian Peninsula with important help from fellow Christians from the rest of Europe, especially from France. Their main ideological justification for the war was liberating Europe from Muslim occupation.3 1
http://phoenicia.org/europa.html. The Bible, genesis. 3 La Reconquista, la cruzada del Sur. Cebrian, juan Antonio. 2003. 2
2
David Ramiro Troitino
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Europe was defined again as a cultural space more than a geographical area, and this helped to expand the concept of Europe eastwards, to areas populated by pagan tribes in order to convert them to Christianity. The idea that Europe was once Christian is obvious, and it has been an important fact in developing the European identity, but to link the origins of Europe with this religion is difficult because it does not take into consideration the previous Greek legacy. Christianity has been very important in shaping the current concept of Europe, but has not been the only source, and the debate that has been opened with the rejected European Constitution and the possible inclusion in it of a reference to the Christian roots of Europe, is completely wrong. The current Europe has had other influences, as from the French revolution and the separation of religion and politics, so the debate is completely sterile and demagogic, because Christianity is one of the roots of Europe, but not the only one. Nevertheless, we find one of the first proposals of a European organization still linked with the concept of Christianity. George of Poděbrady, 1420-1471, king of Bohemia, made an attempt at joining Christian forces against the Turks. The king had a problematic relationship with Catholics and especially with the Pope, as he was member of the Hussites, a Christian movement based on the teaching of Jan Hus, and at the same time he was under threat fromhe Turks who had conquered Constantinople and most of the Balkan area in 1453. He proposed a European organization including the main Christian powers, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain, in order to settle disputes by peaceful means. The European organization would work with common institutions, as a common parliament, a common secretariat, a supranational insignia and a defense treaty. The main idea was an organization to protect Europe from external threats, the Turkish, to protect Christians from Muslims. His proposal was not accepted by the other powers of Europe and never came into effect.4 Another proposal came from the Abbot of Saint Pierre, 1658- 1743. This French writer and politician can be included among the first men supporting the Enlightenment. He thought about a European organization as a peace system by which to avoid conflicts between European states. The organization would be based on different social improvements and common institutions, as a permanent secretariat where the main powers of Europe, as the King of France, the emperor of the German Empire, the King of Spain, or the Pope would have a permanent seat, and other less powerful states would have a rotated seat in this council. He also proposed a Court of justice to solve the differences between the member states peacefully.5 Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804, a German philosopher, also made his contribution to the development of a political organization in Europe as a peace system. According to him, peace could be granted only if the following conditions were followed:
N
ov
a
4 5
No Treaty of Peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a Future War No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of States
Geroge of Bohemia, King of Heretics. Gotthold Heymann, Frederick. 1965. A project for settling an everlasting peace in Europe. First proposed by Henry IV. of France, and approved of by Queen Elizabeth, ... and now ... made practicable by the Abbot St. Pierre. 2010.
3
Ideas about Europe
nc .
No State shall by force interfere with the Constitution or Government of another State No State shall, during War, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins, poisoners, breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason in the opposing State
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
Kant believed that a perpetual peace could only be reached by a federation of Free states, a league of nations with a civil constitution, but not a state of nations, because it could reproduce the conflicts between nations. The idea of the federation was based in common interest, peace and development, with a big emphasis on freedom and cooperation without domination by any power inside the League.6 It is interesting to point out that Kant thought of this federation as a growing community until the inclusion of all the nations of the world. Jean Monnet, the father of Europe, had a similar vision two centuries later. This idea could make the European Union just one step towards a bigger target, a world organization. According to this idea, the possibilities of further enlargements of the EU are not defined by geographical borders but cultural and political ones. The XX century started in Europe with the Great War, 1914-1918, a war pitting almost all the continent one against the other, and inflicting a high number of casualties, around 37 million between dead and wounded. It was a shock for the whole society, and the nationalistic conflicts between France and Germany were thought to be one of the main reasons for this war. A Hungarian Count, Coudenhove Kalergi, 1894-1972, founded, in 1923, the PanEuropean movement, and in 1926 organized the first Pan European Congress held in Vienna. He thought about the Great War as a conflict between nations, provoked by the hatred between them. To avoid further conflicts and the collapse of Europe, the only possible way was uniting all the nations in a Union where they could know each other, understand each other, collaborate, and settle their disputes in a peaceful way. He thought that the main obstacle to achieving this Union was the rivalry between France and Germany, the most populated states of Europe. Major personalities of European culture, as Einstein, Thomas Mann, Freud, Rilke, or Unamuno belonged to Pan-Europa. Another major member was Aristide Briand, who was elected honorary president of the movement in 1927.7 Aristide Briand, 1862-1932, was a French politician who served several terms as Prime Minister of France from 1910 till 1929, and collaborated closely with Gustav Stresemann, 1878-1929, a German politician who was Chancellor and Foreign Affairs minister during the Weimar republic. Together they launched a plan to avoid conflicts in the future, a plan for a European organization. The idea was presented by Briand in the League of Nations, ancestor of United Nations, in a speech in 1929, and the concept was developed in a memorandum for the French government about the European Federal Union. The main target of Briand was the end of the conflicts between France and Germany via a common organization where sharing economic and political aspects would have made any war between the members impossible. His economic proposals were based on a common market, as well as free movement of persons, merchandise, service, and capital, very similar to the current European Union. 6 7
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm. http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/biografias.htm#COUDENHOVE-KALERGI, Richard 1894-1972.
4
David Ramiro Troitino
,I
nc .
On the other hand, his political approach was based more in intergovernmental cooperation between the member states, different from the current supranational aspects of today‟s EU. It meant that the member states could keep all their sovereignty. Collaboration between them would make the organization work, something more similar to a confederation, where all the members of the organization keep their sovereignty and cannot be forced to adopt any legislation against their will. The institutions of the organization proposed by Briand were mainly three, copying the working system of the League of Nations:
he rs
1. European Conference: A General assembly with a consultancy power. 2. European Committee: Similar to the Council of the League of Nations and decision center of the organization where unanimity and consensus were to be the voting system. 3. Secretariat: The working body of the organization.8
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
Nevertheless, the difficult economic situation of the world after the big crisis of 1929, the death of Stresemann in Germany, and the growing nationalism in Europe, caused this plan to fail. Some states accepted the plan, but Germany did not, and it was clear that any European organization would need to count on the main continental powers to succeed.9 During WWII there were still some initiatives in the field of European integration, especially from federalists all over Europe, but the war meant a paralysis in the European building process. Right after the war, Winston Churchill, 1874-1965, made an important speech in Zurich about European integration. This outstanding politician proposed an organization where France and Germany could cooperate and avoid the possibility of a new war between them that could force the UK to participate in another world conflict. He was a politician from the British Empire and still thought of the UK as a great power in the world, so the involvement of the British in this European organization was merely in being a friend and a supporter, but never a full member. He thought of four world powers, the USA, the Soviet Union, the UK and the future European Federation. According to Churchill, the organization had to be open to all the noncommunist European states, based on democratic principles with a federal nature. The involvement of Germany and France was to be decisive and the center of the organization because peace between France and Germany and all their allies was the main target. The working system of the organization was meant to be based on federalist principles.10 Churchill‟s famous speech had a great influence in the further development of the European Union, or as he called it, the United States of Europe. After the Second World War there was a meeting of supporters of a united Europe in 1948; it was known as the Congress of Europe where people all over Europe met to discuss the possibilities of a European organization. The meeting was presided over by Winston Churchill and brought representatives from different countries and different ideas about how to build a joint Europe. The participants were politicians, intellectuals, and major
8
http://knol.google.com/k/the-briand-project-of-european-union#. http://www.aristidebriand.eu/ 10 http://www.ena.lu/the_zurich_speech-020100043.html. 9
5
Ideas about Europe
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
representatives of the European culture who took three main positions towards European integration: the unionist, the federalist, and the supporters of Pan-Europe. The unionists entailed mainly Anglo-Saxon and Nordic people who were keen supporters of European cooperation among states. According to their ideas, any European organization could work based just on agreements between governments. The decision making could still be in the hands of the member states, adding economic cooperation based on free trade agreements, not in a common market. The federalists supported a European federation similar to the United States of America. They wanted to build a European State integrating economy and politics. Their main leader in the Congress was Altiero Spinelli, an important figure in the further European Communities where he was Commissioner of the European Commission and afterwards an important leader of the European Parliament. The third group, the supporters of pan-Europe, had a middle approach, between federalist and unionist, suggesting a Confederation of European states, deeper than the cooperation of the unionists, but far from the federal idea of one European state.11
Source: http://europa.eu/abc/maps/index_en.htm.
N
ov
The European Union (2012).
The post war time was full of European ideas in the political sphere, but was also important in European cooperation in the economic field. Different organizations were 11
http://www.ena.lu/congress_europe_hague_710_1948_overview-020102596.html.
6
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
created to manage the recuperation of Europe from the most devastating war ever, as the European Payments Union, the Bank for International Settlements, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or the Marshall Plan promoted by the USA. Europe had been destroyed and in the huge effort needed to rebuild it, single states could not face the entire problem so cooperation between states was indispensable. As these organizations worked well, and Europe recovered, they were an example for further integration in the European continent.12
12
http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/anteceden2.htm.
nc . ,I
Chapter 2
he rs
THEORIES OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
There are different ways in which to build Europe and each one has its own theoretical framework to back its claims. These theories are based on different ideas by which to build Europe, and hence different ways are proposed, but the final result is the same, the creation of a European political entity. The reasons for uniting Europe have been changing during the process of integration; at the beginning it was clear that avoiding wars was the main target of the European organization; nowadays this target has been already achieved because a war between France and Germany seems impossible and hence wars between member states of the organization are highly unreal. At the current situation of the integration process the main target is having a strong union able to compete with other blocks of the world at least in equal terms and avoiding the decline of Europe as a world leader. The different theories of integration are just different ways of understanding the issue, and mainly of understanding the main problems of the society. As nationalism was thought to be the main reason for the wars that devastated the European continent, especially the First World War and the Second World War, different theories treat the problem in different ways. Federalism, closer to the United States of Europe, is mainly based on giving political rights to individuals, to the European citizens, and not to the nations of Europe, whereas with Intergovernmentalism the nations are still the hardcore of the organization but following the premise of collaboration among them. There are three main theories in the European building process, neo-Functionalism, Intergovernmentalism, and Federalism, plus some other minor theories. The especial case of the European Union cannot be explained and understood under the optic of just one of these theories, and often the EU blends points from all these theories. According to the political beliefs and opinions of each person involved in the process, one theory is more important than another, and frequently a compromise between different actors gives us a melting pot where various points from different theories are used in the European integration. Nevertheless, theories are important in three ways: explaining the integration, analyzing the current governance, and constructing the future of the EU. They are important in understanding why the integration has taken its current shape in order to understand how the European Union works nowadays and who are the key actors involved in the European building process in order to develop further the European Union for the future. So, these theories can explain the past, help us to understand the present, and provide us with tools for the future.
8
David Ramiro Troitino
FEDERALISM
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The idea of Federalism in Europe can be traced to Kant and his perpetual peace and the European federation he proposed. His idea had influences from the American model, a paradigm then of modern society and democracy and hereafter an example for the European federalists. The main supporter of the federalist ideas in the European building process has been Altiero Spinelli, 1907-1986, an Italian politician who was a communist in his early career and was in prison during the time of Mussolini. When he was released in 1943 he founded in Milan the Movimiento Federalista Europeo. Afterwards he was a member of the European Commission and later one of the main leaders of the European Parliament. His influence in shaping the current European Union was so important that he is considered one of the fathers of Europe.1 After the Second World War, federalists thought that national states were to blame for the massacre of the war and tried to take away political power from the nations and give it to the European citizens, the people of Europe. The same debate can be found much earlier in the times of the French revolution and the ideas of Robespierre and the Jacobins. All the citizens, all the members of a society, should have the same rights and the same duties because they are the center of an organized society. On the other hand, nations were thought by the federalists to be artificial political entities that had usurped political rights from the citizens. Are nations alive? Do people belong to the society because they belong to a nation? Do people have their political rights because they belong to a nation? Clearly for the federalists the answer to these questions is no, and hence nations should be kept in the cultural sphere outside of the political world. So, federal Europe should be an authority closely linked with the people. The federal government should be in charge of the main policies of the state, such as defense policy, economic policy, and external relations. Defense policy means a common army; it will avoid the possibility of wars between the members of the federation because they will not have any national army to fight against each other. Also, the common army might be used to protect the whole area and as a tool to increase the influence of Europe in the international arena. The problems of the common army in Europe are numerous; one such is language, because there should be one official language of communication between the members of the army in order to understand each other and coordinate their actions, and the language diversity in Europe is very high. The federalists point out that a strong federal government should be in charge of the army, because the decisions of using the army are politically very risky because they involve deaths and destruction, so only a strong federal government could afford the political cost. Economic policy means a common economic area with the same rules and freedoms. The idea is also based in sharing, creating a large market to avoid economic confrontations between member states. It also will bring economic development as the market and the possibilities are bigger with subsequent benefits for the economic agents and citizens of the federation. Of course, the rules of the common market could not be in the hands of the member states that could make legislation to protect their national economic sectors, so the federal government should be in charge of economic matters.
1
http://www.altierospinelli.org/index_en.html.
Theories of European Integration
9
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
External Relations are the international projection of the federation. Acting as a united block will provide protection to all the members of the federation, because any threat to one member will become a threat to the whole federation. Also, the interests of the members of the federation abroad can be protected in a more efficient way by a federation, much stronger than the member states individually. Here the key point is the common interest and not the particular interests of the members of the federation. Again, a strong federal government is needed for united action. Nevertheless, federalists believe in the concept of subsidiarity, or that the most effective level of decision making should be in charge of the decision making. This means that the areas where the actions of the federal government could be most effective should be under the power of the federal government. But there are other areas, other levels of decision making, such as national governments, or regional institutions, or local administrations that are more effective in some specific matters and hence should rule these areas. It is clear that Foreign Affairs could be managed better from the federal government because a single voice abroad increases the power of the members of the community, making their influence bigger than if each member state had their own foreign policy. On the other hand, water and sewage treatment in cities is better managed by local authorities, so that should be in their sphere of influence. Subsidiarity accepts multi-level governance as the best way to deal with the problems of citizens and avoids the creation of a central state, inefficient because of its big size. According to the federal ideas, a constitution is basic for uniting Europe, a charter where the powers of the federal government and the member states are clearly defined, where the rights and the duties of the citizens of the federation, no longer citizens of the member states, are included, where the common rules for the common society are clear. Of course, nowadays in the current European Union the word constitution is always linked with a federal state, and can be seen as one of the reasons for the rejection of the European constitution via referendum by France and Holland. The European federalists face the problem of the identification of the people of Europe with their own national state as a consequence of a long period of time where nations have been accepted as something natural. The main problem is how to change the loyalty of the people from the national states to the federal government. The creation of the European parliament and especially the first democratic elections in 1979 were the main hope for the federalists as the parliament was a democratic body representing all European citizens. In order to achieve the federal state, this institution should have been the center of the European Union. Currently the powers of the EP are growing but the roles of the Council and of the European Commission are still very important. Since the creation of the first Common Assembly in the ECSC, the importance of the European Parliament has increased and has followed a tendency based on receiving more power inside the Union. If the progression follows this pattern, in the future, the Parliament will be the central institution of the Union and then the United States of Europe will be closer. The reality of the current Parliament is not so optimistic because the nationalities are still very important as there are not European political parties, just national parties that join in groups in the EP according to their political affinity but often vote protecting their national interest. Also, there are differing ways of electing the members of the Parliament all over Europe according to the electoral traditions of each member state. It makes the European election a sum of national elections instead of a pure European election. Finally, and more
10
David Ramiro Troitino
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
importantly because of its implication to the whole federalist idea, the identification of the European people with the European parliament is minimal. The approach of the supporters of a federation in Europe has been similar to the big bang, to create the integration from the top to the bottom, to create a European federation first, and then the people of Europe will identify themselves with it as soon as they see the benefits of the unity. So, integration will quickly lead to a constitutional state. Of course, it does not seem very democratic to give something to the people because it is good for them even when they do not think so. This big bang approach is also linked with the distrust of the national officials and diplomats because the source of power of these people is the national state, so according to the federalists, they will never support the integration in Europe because it will mean the end of their own power based on national roots. Thus, the federation should be done at once, eliminating the obstacle of the national politicians and diplomats who care just for themselves and not for the common good. People then will support the federal state. The federalists do not pay much attention to the danger of concentrating too much power in a federal government that could be far from the 500 million European citizens, creating a dangerous distance between the people and the government, which could lead to the collapse of the system. Nowadays, with the new technologies, it is not a problem of communication, but the loyalty of the people in a national state is granted because of the feelings of the citizens, not just because of political or economic matters. The prospect of a European federation without a European nation could mean the end of this irrational loyalty of the citizens. The idea of a federation is also dangerous in the international sphere because an external projection of this system could lead to interregional rivalries as super states could reproduce the national states but on larger scales. So the main target of a peace system via a federation could lead to bigger wars between federations instead of nations. Federalism was an important force shaping the current European Union, especially in relation to the European Parliament, providing many ideas on how integration should follow. However, it has never been the leading force of the integration, and its popularity is very low currently.
a
Sc i
Functionalism is a liberal tradition based on a positive approach which accepts as fact that humans are rational and want peaceful progress, that conflict and disharmony are not endemic to the human condition. The main leader of the theory was David Mitrany, 18881975, a scholar born in Romania but naturalized British citizen. His work, Working Peace System, published in 1942, gives us the main points of functionalism. Essentially it claims that the main target is ending the conflicts of the world through international organizations. The shapes of the organization, its name, or other symbols, are not important. Functionalism stresses the functions of the organization over any other consideration. The priority of the organization should be the human needs or the public welfare of its members, the people, forgetting any kind of ideology because of its tight framework. It is a technocratic vision: people who know best about any job are the ones who should do it. Technicians have to rule over the areas where their expertise provides them with the wisdom to offer the best solutions to the problems of the people.
ov
N
FUNCTIONALISM
Theories of European Integration
11
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
On the other hand, functionalism does not trust politicians because they care more about keeping their power than about the common good. Politicians will do whatever is needed in order to be reelected, even if their actions will harm the community. Mitrany was sure that transnational organizations were more effective than national entities. As they were more efficient they could better solve the problems of the people, and this efficiency would transfer the loyalty of the people from the national level to the international one, ending wars and conflicts. The concept of flexibility is very important in this theory, because human needs, and not the creation of a supranational state, are the priority. Thus functionalism can adopt different forms, different names, and different means in order to achieve its target. Mitrany did not like either the European Communities, or the way the European building process was developing because he thought that it was just reproducing the functions of the states in a supranational level, keeping intact the decision making of the states. That could lead to the domination of the bigger states over the other members of the organization, a domination of Germany and France over the rest of the members of the European Union. Functionalism is too technocratic; it is mainly based in professionals doing the job, with a minimum involvement of other important actors, such as politicians, diplomats, and mainly citizens. The idea of building a community without counting on the people is very close to a dictatorship of the social elite. But even if their intentions are good, it is impracticable in the present time where democracy has become the main method of organizing societies. It also puts too much faith in humans and in their capacity to act rationally in all the situations. It could work in an ideal world, but reality shows us how humans behave, and feelings play an important role in human conduct. Also, the main problem, nationalism, is again more about feelings than a rational approach. The identification of the people with their own nation, and hence their loyalty to their own national state is not based on rational facts, but on sentiments. Functionalism also lacks any scientific rigor and it has a poor record of prediction. Its main contribution to the European building process has been its influence on other theories, as neo-functionalism. Transactionalism This theory is based on securities communities involved in a formal merge of separate units into a larger unit, the union of states in a bigger community. The way to create this community is presented as some sort of institutional merging or the creation of a supreme overarching authority. Three conditions are needed to achieve this union:
a
1. Compatibility of major values 2. Capacity for relevant political groups to respond to each other‟s stimuli without violence 3. Mutual predictability of each other‟s main intention.
N
ov
The first condition is based on cultural, economic and political aspects. We can only build a community based on what we share, not on what we want. Thus, the peace system can work only as long as we share common values. It seems that this theory is focused on the creation of a community between Europe and the whole western world, countries such as the USA, Canada, or Australia. It forgets other areas, as Central and South America, and seems too Anglo-Saxon directed. It also can lead to a confrontation between cultural groups in the
12
David Ramiro Troitino
he rs
,I
nc .
world, as Muslims, Indians, Chinese, or Europeans, a clash of civilizations, and leaves huge areas of the world without the possibility of joining any of these major groups. The second condition is based on communication between politicians who can understand each other because they share common values and because their different states are already integrated in different fields, as economy. So, a war between them is unlikely to happen. The third condition is also based on common values because the mutual predictability is possible only if we understand each other, if we know what we would do in a similar situation and the other would react in the same way. The supporters of this theory have great faith in the new communications of the world that could lead to an increase of dialogue between different actors and units, removing obstacles for the creation of the security community. This theory lacks clarity, and seems to be created on purpose for the Cold War and to explain the fluent relations between the USA and Western Europe.
is
NEO-FUNCTIONALISM
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
This model is one of the most important in the current European Union, and can be used to explain many aspects of the working systems of the European institutions and the decision making of the Union. The primary scholar developing this theory has been Ernst B. Haas, an American political scientist. Neo-Functionalism wants to replace power politics with a new supranational style following a clear strategy. First, areas of low politics, those that draw little attention from the public and the media, should be integrated; but realizing that these are key strategic economic sectors, coal and steel was the first sector to be integrated in the European building process with the Treaty of the European Coal and Steel Community. The importance is not high politics of European integration, such as a constitution or major areas as the military or a common political government, but economic areas that have to connect both needs and expectations, leaving aside those large issues as culture or defense that have a higher level of resistance from the agents involved in the process of integration. Economy here plays an important role because as any area has a deeper integrated economy it will be easier to have a common interest and hence at the end of the process a common state. The economic actors will look for common decisions that could be provided only by a common authority. Neo-Functionalism is also focused on institutional issues because it promotes the creation of a high authority to oversee the integration and acting as a neutral actor between the disputes of the member states, looking after the common will over the national interest. Another important task of this institution is acting as a sponsor of further integration. The national authorities will try to bend the method of integration towards their own interest, so the whole process would be led to the wrong direction if left in the national hands. The high authority should be independent from the national states and its decisions respected by all the actors involved in the construction process. It should also provide ideas for deeper integration in various areas. This institution is the European Commission in the European Union; it is the executive branch of the Union, it acts independently of the states, as its staff sign a paper accepting that they will work for Europe, and not for their national states. The European
Theories of European Integration
13
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Commission is also pushing constantly for deeper integration in existing policies, proposing new Communitarian policies, or supporting new enlargements of the organization. This does not mean that the European Commission is always going to take the best decision for Europe; it means that the Commission is always going to take a decision for a deeper Europe. The third point is based on the so called spill over effect. Integrating particular sectors will provide benefits for society, but at the same time will create new problems that can be solved only with deeper integration. As an example of the spill over effect, we see the European Coal and Steel Community that established a common market for these products. It meant an important boost for the companies of the member states working in this field. It gave them a common market with common rules that all the actors involved in this sector had to respect. Some states had different transport policies to carriage raw materials, and it had an influence in the competitiveness of the companies. Other companies from another member state, the other economic actors, would probably want to compete on equal terms so they would push for common rules in the transportation of raw materials, they would push for deeper integration in order to end the differences that were benefiting just some companies. The next logical step could be integrating the transport policy in the Community. It means that the actors involved in the sector that is integrated are going to become active European players asking for deeper integration and making European building an issue of the Europeans, not just politicians or technocrats, hence Europe will be built from the bottom up. The spill over effect will create Europe step by step, without conflicts with the society or the politicians. Nevertheless, the spill over effect needs that the economies of the member states are reasonably interdependent before further integration happens. From a wider perspective, the spill over effect will act as a bigger integration tool because the problems created by the integration in one sector will have influence in other economic sectors and they could be solved with deeper integration. As an example, the creation of the Customs Union meant the free movement of goods inside the Union, but each country had its own currency. The change of the value of these currencies was having a negative effect on trade in the common market because there was no stability in prices and the uncertainty meant that the economic actors were not willing to take risks, so it meant less economic activity. To solve this problem deeper integration was needed, so the exchange rate coordination was created; it solved some problems, but generated new ones; it led to cooperation in monetary policy and the creation of the ECU, which was working well until new problems and challenges arose that required deeper integration to solve them, leading to the creation of the common currency, the Euro. It means that from a customs union we went to a common currency, and this is not the end of the process because the Euro has solved some problems but has generated new ones that can only be solved with deeper integration, such as the creation of a European Economic government. Spill over also needs political activism to provide a push in the right direction because the member States will bargain down to a lowest common denominator position. Of course this role in the EU is for the European Commission, the only institution with the right to start Communitarian legislation. Afterwards, the Commission is not included in the rest of the legislative process, which is under the power of the Council and the European Parliament under the co decision procedure, but the initial push is given by the Commission. According to neo-functionalism, deeper integration will come because of social interest, because the benefits are going to be important and society will want to have more benefits. The transfer of loyalty from the national states to the union will be a consequence of the search for the most effective route for the fulfillment of the material interest of the social
14
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
groups. It accepts that politics are just a group based activity, a competition between different crowds to influence decision making. It means that the member states of the organization will be under pressure to fulfill the demands of these groups, for deeper integration. As the integration becomes deeper, the center of the decision making will change from the governments of the member states towards the union institutions, where the decisions of common policies are taken. Social and economic groups will try to influence the union, changing their interest from the national to the supra national actors, changing swiftly their loyalty from the national level to the community level. As the integration becomes deeper, more policies, more actors, and more sectors will be involved, and new institutions at the common level will be needed. It means that political integration is a side effect of economic integration. Neo-Functionalism do not provide any empirical evidence to support its claims and forgets about key values such as liberty and justice that are mainly protected nowadays by the national states. It also forgets about feelings; people will not just transfer their loyalty from the national governments to the European level just because they will get a bigger economic benefit. Finally, it cannot explain the different periods of stagnation in the European building process. The different crisis of the European Union, and the periods when integration halted completely, cannot be clarified by the spill over effect.
INTERGOVERNMENTALISM
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
This theory is based on agreements between States. It supports coordination as the way to solve conflicts between the members of the organization because the states are accepted as the last recipients of sovereignty. According to this idea, the leaders of the state do not have the right to give up to another organization the power their citizens have given to them by democratic elections. It also links the emotional loyalty of the citizens as something unique, which could not be transferred to any other political institution. The main leader of this theory is Moravscik2, an American professor at Princeton University who believes that cooperation between states is possible only when they share some common interest or common values as Transactionalism says. So, only the states which have things in common can collaborate and coordinate their policies. As the state is the political power, any institution of any international community should act just as civil servants, without any independence or without holding any political power on its own. According to this theory European integration should be based on the member states, and not on European people, or European institutions, or other any other agent. The basis should be agreements between states and good faith in their relations. The common institutions should be just common forums at which to negotiate and solve different problems. Of course, the voting system based on majority is not accepted, as unanimity is the only way in which all the states can defend their own positions and keep control over the process.3 This theory is clearly too state-centric, neglecting the day to day policy making and many other important factors involved in the process. It has some importance in European 2 3
http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/ http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/intergovernmentalism.pdf
Theories of European Integration
15
,I
NEW INSTITUTIONALISM
nc .
integration, as for example, the central role of the Council of the European Union as it is the EU‟s main decision making body and it represents the member states. But the importance of the Council is shared by the European Parliament as the co decision system expands with each new treaty.
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
It is a social theory based on the power of institutions because they shape or even determine government dependences. The main figures of the theory are Bulmer and Pierson. They point out that the governments of the member states change often, while the civil servants of the European institutions dealing with European problems stay in office longer, influencing the new comers, or new members of the member states. This theory emphasizes path dependency, once a decision or path is chosen; it is very difficult to get back on the rejected path.4 As an example, we find the Common Agricultural Policy, a controversial policy which cost a huge amount of money to the European Union and which also concerns environmental issues and trade problems with other parts of the world. It has been proposed to reform or abolish it, but the political cost in terms of European integration will be much higher than the economic benefits, so just minor reforms have been done in this field. European integration, as a building process, is almost always willing to include new policies under the structure of the European Union, but never gives back the power over these policies to the national governments. Europe takes from the national level to the European level, but never the other way around until the current moment in the process. This theory overemphasizes the power of the European institutions and it ignores the fact that the institutions are often dominated by national interests, as in that traditionally the Commissar of Agriculture of the European Commission is a French citizen, or the Commissar for the internal market is a German because these states have huge interests in these policies.
en
POLICY NETWORKS
N
ov
a
Sc i
The main scholar working with this theory in the field of the European Union is Peterson. It is based on the exchange of resources within networks shaping policies. Policy networks at the EU level bring together institutional actors and other stakeholders such as private firms, public interest groups, technical or scientific experts, and national officials. Networks theory lacks hierarchy and depends on resource exchange among these actors.5 It can explain the new legislation of the European Union, as the European Commission ask the opinion of different groups and experts involved in the field to draft any proposal, and national officials in the Council give shape to the position of this institution in the decision making process. But it cannot explain big decisions, such as the main treaties or the adoption of the common currency, and, many times, political decisions without consulting the mentioned groups.
4 5
http://www.newinstitutionalism.org/ http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_90.pdf.
16
David Ramiro Troitino
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM
CONCLUSION
he rs
,I
nc .
The key thinkers of this social theory linked with the EU are Jeffrey Checkel and Thomas Risse. It stresses the importance of ideas as a leading force in the process of integration, more than factors as economy or politics. The positions of the political actors of the EU are shaped not only by the national pursuit of national or self-interest but by the bargaining process itself, especially the pressure to conform or reach consensus. Hence the national interest is not predetermined, but constructed during the process. This theory suffers an important methodological weakness as it accepts that framework norms can emerge from anarchy.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The European Union is unique and cannot be explained by just one of these theories, but at the same time, all these theories can partly explain the European Union. Of course there are theories more important than others in the European Union. Neo-Functionalism and Intergovernmentalism have been present in the process since the creation of the first Community. Federalism has become more importance in the Union as the process goes ahead. Currently the institutional framework of the EU can be explained according to a triangle among the three main institutions: the European Commission, neo-functionalism; the Council, Intergovernmentalism; and the European Parliament, Federalism. However, the evolution of these institutions has also had influences from other theories, and their current shape differs from its original forms.
nc . ,I
Chapter 3
he rs
THE FIRST EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, THE EUROPEAN STEEL AND COAL COMMUNITY
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
After WW II, the international situation changed dramatically for European states because the continent had been destroyed and its influence in world affairs was becoming minimal. Germany, a former power, was devastated, the UK, then still the biggest Empire of the world, could not compete with other states and was declining little by little. France, another colonial power, faced similar problems to the UK. The post-war world was a battlefield between two main powers, the USSR and the USA, and no European state could contest their supremacy. Some parts of central Europe and Eastern Europe were within the orbit of Soviet influence, while Western Europe was under the influence of America. The decolonization process meant the loss of influence of the former colonial powers as they could not afford to challenge the new super powers, and these territories became another arena of the Cold War, such as Vietnam, a former French colony, or Angola, a former Portuguese possession, or Egypt, a former British colony.1 The European building process should be understood in this context of the Cold War, besides its primary target of creating a peace system, firstly as a way to strength the Western European states towards the threat of international communism and secondly as a way to recover the former influence of European states in world affairs through unity. Jean Monnet, 1888-1979, was a key person in the creation of the first European Community and in the further development of the organization. He is known as the father of Europe. He was born in Cognac, France, and soon started working in the family business related to the drink called Cognac, traveling all over the world to sell its production. During the First World War he was sent by the French government to London as a link between both governments because of his personal contacts in the British capital. There he developed his work coordinating the Allied war efforts and created a multinational navy to manage the common external help. He thought that as the Allies were facing a common enemy, they should have common answers to it. After the war he became involved in the League of Nations as its General Secretary, but soon left the organization frustrated by its working system, mainly the decision making based in cooperation that made impossible almost any common decision. Afterwards he focused again on business, mainly in the USA, where he made important personal contacts with influential American politicians. But the crisis of 1929 1
The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Account. Hanhimäkki, Jussi. 2004.
18
David Ramiro Troitino
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
strongly hit Monnet and his business. During WW II he was sent again to London by the French government to coordinate the war efforts of the UK and France. Jean Monnet developed a plan to integrate France and the UK into a single unit because he thought that both were facing the same enemy, Hitler, so both should have the same rights and the same duties. His plan included common citizenship for France and the UK, common command for the army, and also integrated other fields. The plan was accepted by the British government, and Charles de Gaulle, representing France, was sent to sign it by the French government. But the fast defeat of the French army by the German forces and the consequent surrender of the French government made the situation of de Gaulle difficult as he was not representing the French anymore, so the Treaty was not signed. Monnet followed with his tasks in London and Washington, being decisive for the American support to de Gaulle as the leader of Free France, lobbying his friends in America to influence Roosevelt into accepting de Gaulle. The American president disliked the French general because of his personal attitude but finally accepted him as the French leader. It was an ironic situation as afterwards the French general became a strong enemy of the European ideas of Monnet, and even a personal opponent of him. After the Second World War, Jean Monnet was designated by the French government as Commissar of equipment and modernization, coordinating the economic help of the USA via the Marshall Plan to aid in the recovery of the French economy. His strong relation with Robert Schuman2, then Foreign Minister of France, helped to shape the first European Community. The situation was difficult because the division of Germany into two states was a fact, and the USA wanted a strong West Germany as the main possible battlefield of the Cold War in the European territory. The Allies had been discussing the issue of the Ruhr area, the industrial center of Germany and an area rich in mineral resources such as coal. Some of them just wanted to have an international area there, taking away German sovereignty to avoid a new reviving of the German threat, others wanted to use it for their own economic benefit to force Germany to pay economic war compensations, but all these options meant a weak Germany, something the USA was not willing to accept. The Americans were frustrated by the endless debate about this area and threatened the rest of the Allies to give full control over the Ruhr to the West German government. Then Jean Monnet presented his plan of an integrated community to Schuman, who adopted it; it was published in what we know today as the Schuman declaration.3
2
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWschuman.htm. World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it. The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war. Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries. With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point. That Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic
N
ov
a
3
The First European Community ...
19
,I
nc .
The proposal included the French plan of Aristide Briand as an example of the commitment of France to the peaceful building of Europe, and underlined the crucial relation between France as Germany as the center of the process, but being open to other European states. It also made clear that this Community was just the first step in building the European federation, following the neo-functionalist approach of integration of economic fields with low involvement in politics. It is important because, since the first moment of European integration, it was clear that the main target was the creation of a European federation, something still not achieved, but still the target. It next speaks about the potential of this economic field in order to integrate the economies of the member states of the organization,
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims. The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification. This production will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising living standards and to promoting peaceful achievements. With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks, namely, the development of the African continent. In this way, there will be realised simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions. By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace. To promote the realization of the objectives defined, the French Government is ready to open negotiations on the following bases. The task with which this common High Authority will be charged will be that of securing in the shortest possible time the modernization of production and the improvement of its quality; the supply of coal and steel on identical terms to the French and German markets, as well as to the markets of other member countries; the development in common of exports to other countries; the equalization and improvement of the living conditions of workers in these industries. To achieve these objectives, starting from the very different conditions in which the production of member countries is at present situated, it is proposed that certain transitional measures should be instituted, such as the application of a production and investment plan, the establishment of compensating machinery for equating prices, and the creation of a restructuring fund to facilitate the rationalization of production. The movement of coal and steel between member countries will immediately be freed from all customs duty, and will not be affected by differential transport rates. Conditions will gradually be created which will spontaneously provide for the more rational distribution of production at the highest level of productivity. In contrast to international cartels, which tend to impose restrictive practices on distribution and the exploitation of national markets, and to maintain high profits, the organization will ensure the fusion of markets and the expansion of production. The essential principles and undertakings defined above will be the subject of a treaty signed between the States and submitted for the ratification of their parliaments. The negotiations required to settle details of applications will be undertaken with the help of an arbitrator appointed by common agreement. He will be entrusted with the task of seeing that the agreements reached conform with the principles laid down, and, in the event of a deadlock, he will decide what solution is to be adopted. The common High Authority entrusted with the management of the scheme will be composed of independent persons appointed by the governments, giving equal representation. A chairman will be chosen by common agreement between the governments. The Authority's decisions will be enforceable in France, Germany and other member countries. Appropriate measures will be provided for means of appeal against the decisions of the Authority. A representative of the United Nations will be accredited to the Authority, and will be instructed to make a public report to the United Nations twice yearly, giving an account of the working of the new organization, particularly as concerns the safeguarding of its objectives. The institution of the High Authority will in no way prejudge the methods of ownership of enterprises. In the exercise of its functions, the common High Authority will take into account the powers conferred upon the International Ruhr Authority and the obligations of all kinds imposed upon Germany, so long as these remain in force.
20
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
making impossible a new confrontation between them. It is again a clear neo-functionalist approach. The declaration continues with describing the working system of the new community and especially about its main new institution, the High Authority. Jean Monnet was appointed as the first president of the High Authority where he oversaw the development of the Community. Eventually, his confrontation with de Gaulle and the personal veto of the French president made him resign. Monnet followed his work in the European building process with other positions, less public but still influential. Jean Monnet became the president of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe, a very persuasive private lobby, and he was also active in pushing for the enlargement of the community to the UK, Ireland, and Denmark. He was an important backstage figure in the creation of the European Communities established by the Treaty of Rome, especially with the EURATOM. Monnet finally promoted the creation of the European Council.4 It means that he was involved in all the major steps of the European building process, but mainly as a secondary actor, from behind, using his influential relations to determine the mechanism of the integration. His intentions were clearly good, building a united community of states to avoid wars and increase the living standards of its citizens. He even wanted to expand the organization, when minimal requirements could be fulfilled by the candidates, to other parts of the world, in a process that could end with a World Federation, something like a World Union. Nevertheless, he has been criticized many times for is lack of democratic background. He was never elected to any position in his life by democratic elections, being always designated by his influential friends. It means that somehow he did not represent the people of Europe, that he was giving the Europeans what they needed but without consulting them, a dangerous matter. Be that as it may, currently he is well respected all over Europe, and his image evokes more an idealistic person than a totalitarian one. After the Schuman declaration, the agreement was soon signed in 1951 in Paris creating the ECSC with France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands as member states. The inclusion of France and Germany was the center of the community as a way to end the confrontation between both countries. Also, both were the main countries of Europe in economic and population terms beside the UK. It means they were the heart of the new community and their power and importance was bigger than their partners‟. Still nowadays we can feel the leadership of both countries in the European Union. The ECSC was a big novelty compared with other international institutions, being a new concept of supranationality, where the member states share their sovereignty under the umbrella of common institutions that will focus on the common good and not on the interest of each individual member state. It is important to differentiate this concept from giving away sovereignty to an international community, as normally the enemies of the European integration like to point out. The member states of the ECSC were looking for a common goal and the shared the power given by their citizens in a wider entity. In order to deal with common sovereignty, the member states of the ECSC created different institutions with clear roles. The High Authority was the highest power of the new community, being independent of the member states. It had a role similar to that of the current 4
Jean Monnet. The Path to European Unity. Brinkley, Douglas. 1992.
The First European Community ...
21
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
European Commission but with wider and stronger powers. It was the institution in charge of the Community and also the frontrunner of the integration in the field of Coal and Steel. Its first president was Jean Monnet. The council of the ECSC was the legislative power, and the member states were represented there. It could be identified with the current Council of the European Union but with the latter having more power and greater influence in the working system of the Union. There was also an Assembly in the ECSC where representatives from the parliaments of the member states were to gather. It was the origin of the current European Parliament. This institution changed mostly because of the first European democratic elections in 1979 and the introduction of the co-decision system. But the Assembly of the ECSC had not very much power and was merely a body of political representation. Its creation was mainly based on democratic principles of the integration process and for the further development of the institution. There was also a European Court of Justice, a key institution in the developing of the European Communities. As the Community had common rules to be applied and respected in equal terms to all the economic and political agents included, it needed an independent body to ensure fulfillment of these rules without national interference. The ECJ was the highest legal institution in the fields included in the ECSC, higher than the national tribunals, their governments, or any other institution of the member states. The main role of the Court of Justice was supervising the good working of the community. Currently, the Court of Justice of the European Union is more important because it has different levels and it deals with many more policies. Finally, another institution was the ECSC Committee, a consultative body with no power in the decision making or working system of the community. The members of this Committee were the social agents involved in the field of coal and steel, as trade unions, companies, or independent professionals. According to the theory of Neo-Functionalism, it is necessary to include in the integration process actors other than political institutions, as economic or social agents, to lobby their respective governments in order to achieve deeper integration. The creation of the ECSC Committee follows this pattern and is the example for different committees in the European Union, as the European Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions. The importance of the ECSC is huge in the European building process; it was the first attempt at integration in terms of equality and supranationality. Hence it is a prototype for further integration. The ECSC was the first multinational power in international relations, being a huge change from the existing cooperation to one at a higher stage. It also was a road map for European integration based on building Europe step by step; integrating the low politics sector to avoid confrontation in the integration process. The new Community emphasized equal treatment between France and Germany, the basis of the European Union and still reflected in some of its institutions and fundamental in further integration even nowadays. Both states had similar population and economic power, and hence it was not a big problem to give them the same power inside the common institutions. It made understanding and cooperation between these two countries the center of the European integration. But after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequent German reunification, the equality between France and Germany was broken. Currently Germany has more members of the European Parliament than France, but in other key institutions as the Council of the European Union both countries still have the same votes.
22
David Ramiro Troitino
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Finally, the ECSC was very important because it did not included the United Kingdom in its founding members. The British economy had strong links with coal and steel and was interested in a Community based on this economic field, but its interest was based on cooperation and not on integration. The decision was hard because the UK was and still is a very important state in Europe. If the UK had been in the ECSC since its creation, its influence could have changed the current supranational Europe to an international community based on agreements between governments focused on free trade. Afterwards, with the enlargement of the EEC to the UK, the British had no other option than accepting integration as the model of the new Community.
N
ov
a
Founding Member States: Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Source: http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/1945-1959/index_en.htm.
nc . ,I
Chapter 4
is
he rs
THE EUROPEAN DEFENCE COMMUNITY AND THE EUROPEAN POLITICAL COMMUNITY: CRISIS IN THE PROCESS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
The ECSC was succeeding; it was working well, the supranational approach presented not many problems and the long term ill relations between France and Germany seemed over in a very short period of time. The European states were willing to cooperate among themselves because of the benefits of integration plus some other important external reasons. The USA thought of Europe as a one more field of confrontation in the world war against communism, an important area that needed to be strong to resist communist expansion. On the other hand, the Soviet Union wanted to spread its political system to Western Europe. At that time there were important communist parties in such important countries as France and Italy, and hence any social or economic crisis could raise them to power.1 But there was a third important factor, the will of the European states to stand as a third way in the context of the Cold War, independent from the USA and from the Soviet Union, competing with them on equal terms in the ideological field, economic field, and, of course, military field. After WW II, the tension between the USA and the USSR grew, and the center of the Cold War changed from Europe to Asia. The triumph of Mao and the Communist Party in China supported by the Soviet Union, and strongly directed by Stalin and the cold position of the USA towards the Chinese Nationalist troops meant a change in the international arena. International revolution seemed closer and conflict soon arose between the two blocks in Korea. The communist north, with the permission of China and the Soviet Union, attacked the southern part, capitalist and supported by the USA. After an initial success of the communist troops, the Americans regained the initiative and China got involved in the conflict, sending weapons and millions of soldiers to support North Korea. The conflict lasted from 1951 to 1953 with an important number of casualties.2 Even before the conflict, the USA had already seen the possibilities of a confrontation in Asia, and planned rearming West Germany as the border between Western Europe and Central Europe and the main battlefield in Europe in the case of a military confrontation. The
1 2
The Cold War: A New History. Gaddis, John. 2006. The Korean War: A History. Cumings, Bruce. 2010.
24
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
other European countries, especially France, were concerned about an independent and strong German army because the end of the Second World War was still fresh in their minds, and German militarism was feared. As it happened before with the Ruhr area, the American will to strengthen West Germany provoked a response from France following the example of the ECSC. The French government thought of integrating the military field as the best way to avoid an independent German army. The idea was very simple: creating a European Army or Defence Community under the command of all the member states could exclude the possibility of using this army against each other because it was an army in common. Germany could not use the army developed under the umbrella of the new organization against the other members of it, particularly France. René Pleven, Prime Minister of France, presented in 1950 a plan for the creation of the European Defence Community entailing France, West Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries, already members of the ECSC. The European Defence Community was based in similar terms to the ECSC but with tighter control from the national governments. It was proposed to have a common budget, common institutions, and a common army; but in reality the military forces were going to be under strict control from their respective national parliaments with the exception of West Germany that was going to be under the surveillance of the common institutions.3 The plan was not popular in the French Parliament, because the communists, an important force, saw it as a tool of the USA to fight against communist ideas, while the supporters of de Gaulle thought of it as an attack on French sovereignty, a way to end the military independence of France. Other members of the Parliament were concerned about the absence of the UK, the main military force of Western Europe at this time The main problem was that an army is one of the main pillars of any state, and there was going to be a common army without a common state, and hence no common institution was to be in charge of the army. Who was going to decide when to use the army and who was going to be responsible for the deaths of soldiers in possible military operations were the main questions at that time. Europe was not still ready to achieve this milestone in its integration because it lacked the political infrastructure to deal with it. The Italians sponsored a plan, based in deeper political cooperation, to save the EDC; it was called the European Political Community and was drafted by the Common Assembly of the ECSC in 1952, again too ambitious for the political moment of Europe at that time. Finally the French Parliament rejected the EDC in 1954 by a vote of 264-319, and the EPC was forgotten. The consequences for European integration were very important, as West Germany‟s becoming a full member of NATO and included its new army placed the country directly in the European sphere and thus diminished its military independence and its threat of militarism. Even nowadays we can feel the rejection of the EDC as debate about a European army has emerged again. Why build a common army if we already have NATO? Is NATO the military expression of the European Union? Does that mean Europe will never be independent from the USA? Should Europe collaborate with the USA or should it push for individuality and eventually confrontation with the USA to reassert European influence in
3
http://www.ena.lu/european_defence_community-020100497.html.
The European Defence Community and the European Political Community
25
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
world affairs? Or should Europe collaborate fully with the USA, accepting its smaller role in decision making? On the other hand, as economic integration has reached high levels with the introduction of the common currency, and political integration is much higher than before, is Europe ready to integrate the military field? Or it will be better to integrate the political field more fully before trying to create a common army? Here the problem is the international position of Europe, as an economic giant and a political dwarf. If Europe wants to stand strong and independent in world affairs, it should integrate more deeply in both the military and the political fields. But the rejection of the European Constitution and the current crisis of the Euro show that European citizens are still not ready to take such step in integration. So, Europe should accept its minor role in the world as a consequence of its inability to integrate deeper, and hence support the USA as our major ally in the world. Another important consequence of the rejection of the EDC was the process of building Europe and the speed of the integration. After the ECSC there was great optimism among the supporters of European integration, and it was thought that the process would move much faster. The atmosphere invited to try new challenges, and the defeat of the EDC meant a big disappointment and a crisis in the building process. Nationalism arose again in Europe, especially in France, and integration as a whole was in danger. Europeans were not ready for a big integration in a fast way, as federalists wanted, so the strategy changed towards a smoother approach, closer to neo-functionalism, building Europe step by step, avoiding the most conflictive areas, such as a European army, focusing on the economic field where political resistance was and still is smaller. It led to the creation of the Common Market and the European Community, and still nowadays shapes the process of European integration; where big words and projects are avoid evading fierce confrontation. After the rejection of the EDC, the word federation disappeared from the European integration process and has never been used again in the official treaties. The original ideas included in the Schumann declaration, as the federation of Europe, were not forgotten but were not presented as such ever again. It is curious that when the word constitution, a pillar of a federation, was used to present a new treaty, the reaction of the people of Europe was negative and the treaty was rejected. A similar treaty, with different name, but including most of the policies and reforms comprised in the so called constitution, was passed by the national parliaments of the member states without major setbacks.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . ,I
Chapter 5
he rs
THE TREATY OF ROME EEC AND EURATOM 1957
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
After the crisis of the EDC, European integration focused on the economic field as the best way to accelerate the process. The leaders of the member states of the ECSC plus the UK met in 1955 in Messina in a conference where they agreed upon the creation of a preparatory committee for the construction of a common market and also a community based on atomic energy. It was a year after the rejection of the EDC, and all the parties involved were very cautious to avoid another failure that could have doomed the whole European project. Two new communities, the EURATOM and the European Community, were created by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, deepening integration in Europe. These two communities were independent from each other, and from the previous ECSC. The first was based on atomic energy and was a consequence of lobbying by Jean Monnet and his supporters. He thought that atomic energy could be the new source of energy of the future because it could be locally produced in Europe, avoiding the dependency on oil from other parts of the world and also because it was relatively cheap. The changes in the European economic model, the exhausting reserves of coal on the continent, and the independence of former European colonies rich in oil, led to an energy crisis with higher prices and a threat to the recovery of the European economy. Atomic energy seemed the answer, and Monnet wanted to use this new energy source from a common perspective, building a community where the development of this energy would be the result of common work. It could avoid the military use of this energy among the member states of the organization and could also increase the integration between the member states. Monnet thought of the potential spillover effect of this energy as an important tool for the creation of a European political entity. Nuclear energy was essential as well in the new making of war, as the nuclear powers felt safer from aggressions from other states. It was a weapon based more on prevention than aggression. As steel had been basic for making weapons before, nuclear energy was thought to be the future in the military field. Sharing the technology and facilities under a common institution might avoid the possibility of using it against each other, reassuring peace and increasing the integration among the member states. Also, Europe needed to work together in this field to gain independence from the unstable international situation. As the president of Egypt decided to nationalize the Suez channel, France, the UK and Israel attacked Egypt. This was a fundamental transportation facility for the European economic interest because most of the oil was coming to Europe via Egypt, a much cheaper and faster way than sailing around Africa. The crisis was solved with the
28
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
involvement of the USA supporting its Egyptian ally, crucial in the context of the Cold War. The European powers had to withdraw from the area, making clear their minor role in world affairs dominated by the USA and the Soviet Union. A European community in the atomic field could help European powers increase their political influence in the world, or at least their independence in the context of the Cold War. These were the theses defending the creation of EURATOM, but the real situation was different. The other member states did not trust the real intentions of France, because they thought that the French government wanted to use this community to have free access to German technology and to a common budget to develop French nuclear weapons. The mistrust among the members, the stabilization of the price of oil, and the temporary end of the energy crisis led to an empty community with no real power. EURATOM had its own independent institutions, but finally in 1967 these institutions were merged with the European Community institutions, thus losing their independence.1 The current situation is again opening the debate about nuclear energy because of similar reasons as in the „50s plus environmental and security concerns. But the position of the European Union is based on national independence in this field, promoting or not of nuclear energy depends on the governments of the member states. Some of them, as France or Finland, are keen to build new nuclear facilities, another, Spain, is closing its. It means that it is policy out of the European level, involving just national actors, even when its consequences are global, and not regional. It is because the political consequences of a common energy policy are very important, and the European building process still has not reached a deep enough level of integration to deal with such a problematic issue The European Economic Community was established in the same treaty, and was mainly a common market with free movement of people, services, goods, and capital. The idea was to create a large market for the economies of the member states to increase trade and wealth. It also had other less pragmatic reasons, as accelerating European integration. Having a common market with common rules, the European economies would integrate step by step, finally creating a single market. The economy was chosen to be the first field to integrated, leaving politics for a future stage. Each member state also had its own interest in this common market. Germany was an economy based on exports, as it still is, and was keen for a market where no technical, legal, or economic barriers would decrease its activity. Fewer borders between the member states‟ economies made it easier for West Germany to export. It meant an important increase in German economic activity. On the other hand, Germans were afraid of other policies included in the Treaty, as the Common Agricultural Policy, very expensive and likely to spend most of its budget in France. Nevertheless, the competitiveness of the German economy made this country the main beneficiary of this common market, but also made Germany the main contributor to the common budget. The German government currently still gets important economic benefits from the European market because the economic activity is bigger than without the market and because the German economy is based on exports; around two thirds of German exports are within the European market. The German companies benefiting from the European market pay taxes in Germany, with the consequent benefit for the German state. Germany pays more than other countries because its economy is bigger than the other member states‟ economies and hence gets a bigger benefit from the common market. It would 1
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/euratom/euratom_en.htm.
The Treaty of Rome EEC and EURATOM 1957
29
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
nonsense that German companies could sell on equal terms in the rest of Europe, increase their benefits, and raise the income of the German state via the taxes they pay there, without contributing to the common budget of the European Union. Italy also supported the common market because of the heavily industrialized northern area of the country and the poorer southern part of Italy. The north was interested in a free market to export to the rest of the member states competing on equal terms with German or French companies. The south was more interested in the free movement of people, to export workers to other parts of Europe without restrictions or discriminations. Also, the inclusion of the Common Agricultural Policy meant an important benefit for the agricultural sector of this part of Italy, focused on Mediterranean production. France was less enthusiastic about the common market, because its economy was less competitive than the German, but free competition was thought of as a shock therapy where the French companies had to adapt to the new rules in order to survive, in the process winning global competitiveness. On the other hand, other policies, as the CAP, were going to mean a huge influx of capital in its important agricultural sector. The relations of the new community with Africa could also finance the external influence of France in the African continent, something it could not afford alone in the context of the Cold War because France did not have enough muscle to compete with the USA or the USSR. Finally, the BENELUX countries had no other option than joining a market where Germany and France were present. It is because of obvious economic reasons, because the economies of the three states highly depend on the German and French market, and they could have had tough times without access to them. So, as we have seem, there were economic reasons to create the common market, but also there were political reasons in terms of integration, and thirdly, each member state had its own interest. All of these together made possible the creation of the EEC and the common market. At the beginning the Common Market had many problems and basically was just an industrial market based on free trade and an agricultural market based on public subsidies. In order to solve the problems of the Common Market, deeper integration was needed. The main target was increasing the economic competitiveness and wealth of Europe, and a new reform creating the Single Market was launched and signed in 1986. Again the problems of the Communities were solved with deeper integration. The way the new community was developed followed the example of the ECSC, a supranational community with common rules, the same rights and duties, plus common institutions. One of the supranational institutions was the European Commission, the executive body, the only one with the right to initiate new legislation and independent from the member states, acting just for the common good of the community, leaving aside the national interest of each member state. It worked in a collegial way and had its own staff. The Council was the most powerful institution, and it represented the national interests of the member states. It decided most of the matters related to new legislation, approving, rejecting, or reforming it. The main decision making process was based on unanimity; that meant that if just one state did not agree on any measure it could not be passed. This way was decided upon in order to break the resistance of those who thought that the new community was a threat to national sovereignty. The evolution of the Council shows that each treaty or reform puts more policies under another form of decision making, qualified majority, where not all the countries have to agree, and a majority of them, depending on the kind of majority
30
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
needed, can pass legislation even if other member states are against it. Mainly new policies are under unanimity, and when they are already working well and there is no longer fear about the national interest of the member states, they move to a qualified majority. The Assembly was a copy of the ECSC, with no real power, but necessary for giving a democratic face to the integration process. Step by step the Assembly got more power, and finally was elected in a democratic way in 1979. From that point on, the European Parliament got more power, being currently a powerful institution that can stand almost on equal terms with the Council. It was clear from the beginning of integration that a European state was wanted, and this state should be democratic, with a common parliament elected by the Europeans. At the end of the process the parliament will probably become the main institution of the European Union, so it is very likely that it will win power in each new treaty until the European state is created. Another important institution was the High Court, a sentinel of the common rules with power to force the member states to follow the Communitarian law. It was something similar to the ECSC and different from the rest of the international organizations of the world that usually lack this kind of institution. Finally there was an Economic and a Social committee, to involve in the process other actors such as workers, trade unions, companies, or liberal professions. Its powers were minimal; it was just a consultation body. The EEC was the real start of integration in Europe because its spillover effect led to deeper and deeper integration, in a process that could probably lead Europe to the United States of Europe. The common market in reality was just an industrial market, but was working well. Years later, new integration was needed to increase the effectiveness of the economic system and solve the problems created by the common market, so a single market was created, where there were fewer borders to trade. It led afterwards to the adoption of the common currency to avoid barriers to the market, and it is supposed to lead to an economic government in the European Union to fix the problems generated by the common currency. This would be the last stage in the creation of the European state. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Rome meant the disappearance of the word federation from the treaties of the EEC and the EU. It was like accepting the process, accepting the consequences of the new legislation, policies, and treaties, leading the member states to the United States of Europe but hiding it from the citizens and, of course, avoiding any kind of publicity about it. In this sense the treaty of Rome was a step back in terms of European integration because the model chosen for the integration did not count on the European people. The development of two key polices was also included in the treaty of Rome: the Common Agricultural Policy and a united trade policy. Both were handled in a Communitarian way and had a huge influence on the image of the European communities at home and abroad. The French influence is clear in the Treaty of Rome, and its political predominance over other partners was important in the development of the Union for many decades. It was the member state that obtained more economic benefits and political hegemony in Western Europe. It is important to remember that WW II, having occurred not much more than 10 years earlier, was still fresh in the minds of Europeans. Germany was still willing to pay for normalizing its relations with the rest of the international community and accepted this French leadership. Hence an important benefit for West Germany at that moment was political. The other members of the community could not challenge French
The Treaty of Rome EEC and EURATOM 1957
31
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
dominance either, and their dependency on the economies of Germany and France gave them no real option to stay aside from the new community. As the Economist magazine pointed out “The French have a good claim to have invented the EU and have traditionally felt a sense of ownership over it”2, and it can explain different attitudes in European Union history, as Chirac, president of France, calling the member states of the Union that supported the war in Iraq anti-Europeans, even when there were more countries in Europe supporting the war than against it. He meant anti-French instead of anti-European and made a clear identification of France and Germany as Europe.
2
The Economist. Number ….
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE COMMON TRADE POLICY
,I
Chapter 6
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
After the formation of the Common Market by the Treaty of Rome, a common customs area was created with common customs. The member states included in the common area stopped having internal borders between them for trade. It meant that any product already inside the Common Market could move freely within the area. The common customs were just a consequence of the common area, because different customs would have meant a problem of trade diversion. International trade could enter the territory of the Communities through the borders of a country with lower customs taxes, and afterwards move freely in the common area. In this context, the member states could not any longer have any international trade agreements with other parts of the world, because it could have an effect on the rest of their partners of the Common Market. As a way to solve this problem, a Common Trade Policy was developed. First, these national agreements became communal agreements for the whole area, and if it was not possible to arrange it, a monetary compensation was paid to the third party for cancelling the trade agreement. It is still a normal procedure nowadays when a new state joins the European Union. The Union adopts the trade agreements of the candidate country, or it abolishes them after a monetary compensation. This issue was important for the rejection of the enlargement to the UK in the 70s. The British had a system called Empire Preferences based on trade agreements with former colonies of the British Empire, as South Africa, Canada, or Australia. It gave these countries better conditions to trade with the UK, and the British were not willing to cancel these international trade agreements, and the European Communities were not willing to accept them in the common area. After the rejection of the British application, the trade patterns of these countries changed, with Canada focusing on trade with the USA and Australia with Asia, making easier an agreement in the third application of the British.1 The Common Trade Policy has also a big importance in terms of European integration because it was one of the first Communitarian polices where power was held mainly by the European Commission. Its good working was set as an example of Communitarian rule and benefits for all the members of the Community. In that sense, it is also an important policy because it was the only international policy where the European institutions became visible. The trade agreements, meetings, and negotiations were the international showcase of the 1
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/.
34
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
European Commission, the window of the European integration to the world, the main vehicle of the Community in the international arena. This policy was also important for European integration in terms of decision making. As the member states shared their sovereignty here, the legislative power was under the control of the European institutions, first under unanimity and afterwards under qualified majority, the Commission being the executive power. The importance of the Trade Policy is also economic because the European Communities before, and now the European Union, are one of the major players in world trade. The current Union is the first commercial area of the world with 1/5 of global trade. The 40% of European trade leads the international market, surpassing the role of the USA, as the EU represents around 17.5% of world exports and the USA nearly 15%. The role of the European Union is also important in terms of imports, as it represents 18% of world imports, behind the importing sector of the USA that represents 22.5% of world imports. The trade deficit of the EU is around 89,000 million euros and the USA deficit is much higher, nearly 500,000 million euro. The economic importance of European trade can be felt also in the services trade, where the companies of the Union represent 25% of world trade. So, as this data exposes, the European Union is a giant in trade terms, a major player in world trade, and this policy depends on the European institutions.2 The rules of the Trade Policy are very complex because they are located in different places of European legislation. Traditional trade is included in articles 131-134 of the Treaty of Rome.3 The goods included here are mainly industrial production as the main goods for trading at that time; further amendments include other products to the trade policy. The European Coal and Steel Treaty also has some provisions about trade of these products, and the Security Policy also has some provisions about trade, such as restrictions on trading goods that could have an influence on security matters.4 The Common Agricultural Policy is important in trade because it is a contradiction in the trade behaviour of the European Union. The Trade Policy defends open markets and tries fostering international trade because of the benefits it could bring to Europe, but on the other hand, the CAP promotes a loose market on the European level as a way to protect European farmers from the competition of international farming producers.5 The Ronda Uruguay was an international meeting for trade and created problems with the CAP and the Trade Policy as the European Union was promoting the free trade of services and at the same time did not want to open the European market to the agricultural products of other parts of the world. The Europeans wanted that other countries open their services markets for European companies, including fewer taxes for foreign products because they were more competitive in this field. On the other hand, the other part of the negotiations was more competitive in agricultural production than the EU and wanted free access to the European market as an exchange for opening their markets for the services companies of the Union. The late reforms of the CAP have reduce the impact of these policies in the international world, opening the European farming market more to the rest of the world‟s producers. The main problems of the Trade Policy are related to the complexity of the legislation link with it. As was mentioned before, article 133 of the Treaty of Rome included traditional 2
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/globalisation/international_trade/index_en.htm. http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Part4.html. 4 http://europa.eu/pol/cfsp/index_en.htm. 5 See chapter CAP. 3
35
The Common Trade Policy
he rs
,I
nc .
trade, but many new products were not included there because they did not even exist, especially in the trade related to high tech and new technologies as the internet. It has provoked strange situations, when in international meetings there are representatives of the European Commission acting on behalf of the Community in the goods included in the treaties, and the member states, representing themselves in other goods not included in the European legislation, plus the third party of international partners. Since 1995 the EU as a whole is a member of the World Trade Organization, and at the same time, the member states are also individual members of the WTO. As it was not logical that the European Commission representing the interest of the member states had to negotiate with the member states in international negotiation on trade, more trade goods were included in the European legislation by the law of 1/94, and especially also in the Treaty of Nice that effected the biggest reform in this field. The Common Trade Policy works using different measures:
en
ce
Pu bl
is
1. Self-application of trade tools: The European Commission negotiates on behalf of the Union with other states. The bilateral negotiations end with an agreement between both parties. These kinds of negotiations are used with countries that are not members of the World Trade Organization, basically state economies. This tool is no longer important since China joined the WTO. 2. Conventional tools: It is related to member states of the WTO and the EU. The negotiations apply the clause of better trade conditions. It means that for a new agreement the lower tax or better conditions already applied to the other members of the WTO will be applied. Here the European Commission is not autonomous because the EU depends on the agreements accepted before in the WTO. 3. Preferential Trade Policy: It is focused on third world countries promoting trade between them and the Union in the context of humanitarian aid and development policy of promotion of universal values. Basically it is based on fewer taxes for these countries, fewer quantity restrictions, or different payments in case of natural disaster harming local production
N
ov
a
Sc i
The Common Trade Policy conducts its action under the Commission regulations with different instruments, mainly import and trade defence. The imports are controlled by the common customs and the regime of imports. The WTO member states have the tax of better trade conditions as was mentioned before, but they also enjoy free movement of goods without quantity restrictions for the trade of the goods included in the GATT. The members of the organization, and hence the EU, can apply some temporal quantity restrictions in some emergency situation, but only as an exception to the rule of free movement. Later, this emergency situation has to be explained to the WTO, and if the affected country does not accept them, the pertinent institution of the organization will solve the case, with both contenders forced to accept its resolution. On the other hand, countries that are not members of the WTO have to face quantity restriction in the Communitarian customs, establishing quotas for the whole Union. The trade defence is based on three main actions: 1. Anti-dumping law: It is an action to avoid unfair competition from international companies in the territory of the European Union. Basically the idea of dumping is based on a company that works in different markets in the world. It gets its benefits
36
David Ramiro Troitino
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
from these markets, and in a market where the competition is fierce, the company just artificially decreases the prices of its products selling them under cost price and losing money with each sale. At the same time the company affords these losses with the benefits it gets from other markets. The target of the company is forcing its competitors into a situation where their products cannot match its prices, eliminating them or getting a big share of the market. Once this is done, the company raises the prices of its products and starts getting benefits. This action is illegal, and the European Commission takes care that no international company operating on European soil applies this practice and harms European companies. 2. Plan against state aid: Here the Commission act again as a protector of fair competition. If any international company gets benefits from any state, normally the state where the company has its headquarters, and applies this money to disturb the free competition of the Common Market using it to prevail over other companies, the state aid is declared illegal. Basically the Commission tries to preserve the European market from any artificial interference or distortion to free competition. 3. Rules about trade obstacles: If the European companies find any artificial obstacles to trade in the international markets against the agreements signed in the WTO, they can ask for the protection of the European Commission, which will act in defending them in the WTO.
a
Percentage of World trade.
N
ov
The original power on Trade Policy had been cut by the member states after the pressure of some member states for controlling the powers of the Commission introducing a Council committee of high-level trade officials called the "Trade Policy Committee", which has responsibility for negotiating and managing trade agreements involving tariff amendments,
37
The Common Trade Policy
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
customs and trade provisions, and protective measures.6 This Committee cuts the autonomy of the Commission and gives more power to the member states on international trade negotiations, a setback in integration terms; but it is likely to disappear as more members join the Union and the necessity of a common management of the European single market will be more difficult in the Council.
6
http://consilium.europa.eu/policies/council-configurations/foreign-affairs.aspx?lang=en.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . ,I
Chapter 7
he rs
THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The CAP is the most important policy of the European Union in terms of budget, because for long periods of time most of the EU budget was expended in this policy. Currently the CAP receives nearly half of the EU budget. So, the money spent in this policy is huge in European Union terms. After the Second World War, there was a lack of almost all the essential primary goods in Europe, and the threat of a great famine was real. The economic situation of Europe was precarious and it needed an important effort in order to restore farm production to supply the European population. Shortly after the war, there was another important fact that influenced the production of food: the independence of European colonies all over the world. These countries were mainly agricultural suppliers for the European metropolis because their production was much cheaper than in Europe and it became their main economic activity. Independence meant instability in the supply and growth in prices. The governments of European states handled the situation in different ways, but generally they opted for protecting their farmers with subsidies to have a secure, stable, and independent supply of food for securing the living of their citizens. Some European countries still had an important national sector related to agriculture in which many citizens were working. Importing food from other states such as Argentina, South Africa, or Australia would have solved the problem of the shortage of food in the short term, but it could have also generated other problems. The European farmers needed more money to produce, so they could not compete in a free market with these producers. Importing cheap food would have meant the end of the European farmers, as they could not compete in a free market, with all its social consequences. Europe was greatly damaged after the war, and there was a problem with housing in the cities even for the urban population. If people from the countryside had to end their economic activity because they could not stand the competition of the international farming producers, they would have moved to the cities to find a new living. The cities were already handling housing problems even for the urban population, so these farmers would have problems finding adequate living conditions, with the consequent social problems. It basically meant the possibility of having many people in cities without the essential living conditions. At the end of the war, and in the following years, there was a competition between two political systems, communism and capitalism, and some important European states, as France and Italy, had an important communist presence in their national politics. Social unrest provoked
40
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
by the massive movement of farmers from the countryside to the cities could have meant the rise of communist influence in these countries. To secure the states from any internal communist threat, it was important to protect the national farmers. So, the protection of the farmers became a necessity for avoiding revolutionary movements inside the European states. National cultural traditions and the role of the countryside were also important for retaining national identity. The cities then and even now are more homogenous than the countryside, and normally there is an urban society that looks beyond the cultural traditions for more modern cultural activities. As the rural areas are more traditional, they keep the cultural heritage in a more conservative way, keeping the folklore untouched for a long period of time, keeping the roots of the European nations versus the modernization of the cities. As the national state was the main political vehicle in Europe at that time, it was important to keep the source, the traditions, in order to unify the community of citizens and maintain their loyalty to their national state. Because of these reasons most of the European States decided to subsidize their farmers, creating close national markets paid for by the taxes of their citizens, and blocked their national markets from external producers. This policy protected the national farmers but had some negative effects in provoking a distortion in prices and production because free competition meant importing cheaper products and hence cheaper prices for consumers, plus production adapted to demand. This system was widely accepted in continental Europe and was important especially in France, because of the huge amounts of the economic subsidies, the number of small and middle farmers operating in the country, and the economic crisis after the war that made it impossible for the French government to afford these expensive subsidies. The French politicians thought of the European Communities as a way to make viable the protection of the French farmers. Also, as a consequence of national protection, French agricultural production increased while the French national market could not absorb the whole production, creating a difficult to manage costly overproduction. Creating a European market for agricultural products instead of close national markets could give access to other markets for French farmers to sell the overproduction not absorbed by the French national market. The economic support of the European Communities in the field of subsidies could also solve the financial problem of the French state. The best way to solve the French problems related to its agricultural sector was integrating this policy into the European Communities. Hence, the French politicians, using the predominant role of France at the beginning of the European Communities, lobbied for the inclusion of this policy in the European integration, and the CAP was included in the Treaty of Rome, becoming the center of the European Economic Community budget. At the beginning of the process, the rest of the partners of the European Communities were reluctant to develop the CAP because of its financial cost, but the pressure of the French government led to the conference of Stressa in 1958, and a long process until the CAP started working.
The Common Agricultural Policy
41
THE STRESSA CONFERENCE
he rs
1. Common Market with Common Borders
,I
nc .
The six members of the EEC met from 3 to 12 July in Italy to discuss the introduction of the CAP with Walter Hallstein, president of the European Commission, and Sicco Mansholt, Commissioner with special responsibility for agriculture, and the real architect of the Common Agricultural Policy. They decided to focus the CAP on two main points: a common market for agricultural production and different market organizations for different products to protect the farming industry.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The integration of the agricultural markets of the members of the EEC meant the unification of their national markets into a single market on the European level substituting for the previous national markets. In order to achieve a common market it was needed to abolish all the internal barriers to the free movement of goods and all the obstacles to the trade of agricultural products inside the organization. At the same time, the external borders had to be harmonized to have a common border because once the external products reached any member state, they could move freely in the whole European market without restrictions. The main discussion about the common borders was the level of protection needed to make the European producers competitive. So, a high level of protection was decided on, with high taxes, quantity restrictions, and temporal restrictions. The taxes were focused on prices, forcing international producers to pay high taxes for accessing the European market. It made its products more expensive than the Europeans‟, artificially increasing the competitiveness of the European farmers in the European market. Quantity restrictions were important for restricting access of international production to the European market. It decreased the offer of farming products and consequently increased the prices paid by the final consumers, the European citizens. The quantity restrictions were calculated according to European production. Another important tool was the temporal restrictions. Agricultural production is seasonal, and the readiness to harvest is decisively influenced by weather conditions. Other parts of the world, with different weather conditions, have their harvest ready earlier than in Europe, and it gives them a privileged position in the market because they are the first to reach it, so they have dominance over the market and could saturate the offer before the European farmers could even reach the market. The temporal restrictions wanted to avoid this dominance by forbidding the import of these kinds of products until the European production was completed and already in the market, giving the benefit of reaching the market first to the European farmers. The creation of common borders and common rules meant the common management of them, the European management of the European market, and the institution to deal with it had to be common and hence European Commission was chosen. This policy gave a lot of power to this European institution, but under the close supervision of the European states. This control explains the traditional composition of the DG of the European Commission in
42
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
charge of agriculture, where traditionally most of the workers and the Commissar in charge are French.
2. Market Organizations
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
The complexity of agricultural production made difficult the creation of common rules on the European level because of different weather conditions, different types of production, and different importance of farm products. The solution was the creation of market organizations for different kind of products. Each market organization included different products with common rules and common protection different from the other market organizations that included different production. In practical matters it meant that the CAP was divided in different independent chapters, with different levels of protection, and it explains why continental production, at that time mainly focused in France, still gets higher benefits than other kinds of productions, such as that of the Mediterranean. The main protection in the market organizations is the guaranty of a fair price for the production of farmers that can allow them a living in good conditions in the countryside through their agricultural activity.
WORKING SYSTEM OF THE CAP
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The situation of a perfect market that is open to all economic actors, where the economic agents have access to the information of the demand and the offer, and is not dominated by a single company or group under monopoly rule, leads us to an equilibrium point where the demand coincides with the offer, and prices and quantities are the consequence of this equilibrium. It means that the economic agents included in the offer will produce a specific quantity for a specific price, and the demand will consume a specific quantity for a specific price. So, if we increase the price, the suppliers will produce a bigger quantity, but at the same time the demand, with higher prices, will consume less. That means a distortion between the demand and the offer. The offer will sell the production that has not been consumed by the demand at lower prices. Once the over production is sold out at this lower price, the offer will reduce the quantity of their production because they will lose money producing so much at a reduced price. Then, with less quantity in the market, the demand will pay more for it, increasing prices. That means that with higher prices the offer will produce more, and again prices will drop. In the conditions of a perfect market this operation will continue until the wishes of the demand and the offer meet and prices and quantities will be stable at an equilibrium point.
43
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The Common Agricultural Policy
Pu bl
Spider's web patterns.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The CAP works in altering the natural equilibrium between the offer and the demand, creating an artificial price and interfering in the normal relations between producers and consumers. As we have seen, the offer and the demand will have a common point where they will meet their wishes in terms of prices. The demand of the consumers decreases with the quantity at some point because they are not able to consume an unlimited quantity. For example, we can eat 20 strawberries, and if the prices go down, we can eat 25, but if the prices goes down further we will not be able to eat 200 strawberries. Also there is a limit to the quantity produced because of technology and of the capacity of land to produce agricultural goods. The CAP paid each year a guaranteed price (P1) higher than the equilibrium price (PE) for the produce because at this equilibrium price the farmers could not earn enough money and they would stop their farming activity. It meant that with this price (P1), the consumers bought a certain quantity (Q1), but the farmers produced a higher quantity (Q2). Normally the producers have to decrease the prices in order to sell their overproduction, but as the agricultural market in Europe had an artificial higher price sustained by the European Union, this natural correction did not happen. The producers sold at the price of (P1), and produced (Q2); the consumers bought at this price the quantity of (Q1), and the difference between the quantity produced (Q2) and the quantity consume (Q1) could not be absorbed by the market, and hence had to be bought by the European Union.
44
he rs
,I
nc .
David Ramiro Troitino
is
Working system of the CAP.
Pu bl
This system had the positive effect of keeping artificially high prices for agricultural production, increasing it, and providing a high and constant income for European farmers, solving the problems discussed before, but it also had some negative consequences as:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
1. Budget. This policy was very expensive; most of the money of the European Union went to the CAP in order to keep the high prices in the market. The protection of European farmers was done at a huge financial cost. It also generated tensions between the institutions about the control of these funds, especially between the Council and the Parliament. The main institution controlling these funds was the Council, where the member states are represented, because this policy was very important for their internal situation and they wanted to keep it under their control. On the other hand, the European Parliament argued that this was a Communitarian policy, so it had to be under the control of the institution that represents the common interest of Europeans, the European Parliament. 2. It generated tensions inside the European institutions, especially inside the European Parliament, where the members of the Parliament often voted according to their nationality instead of their political ideology. The examples are numerous, such as French members of the Parliament, communist, socialist, center, or conservative, voting together against any reform of the CAP because the main beneficiary of these funds is France. The problem here was that the European Parliament represents the interest of the whole community, of all Europeans, but in the case of the CAP, it changed its role becoming a Parliament divided according to the nationality of its members. 3. Consumers had to pay a higher price for agricultural products than in normal conditions. In a free market they will pay PE, but under the European circumstances there were paying P1. So it meant that consumers were supporting farmers each time they bought any agricultural product. 4. Overproduction: The system generated an overproduction that the market could not absorb, and each time this overproduction was bigger because new technologies
The Common Agricultural Policy
45
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
made it possible to produce more with a cheaper or even price. As the guaranty price was fixed and the production grew, the expenditure grew equally, increasing the financial cost of the CAP. Another fact that increased the financial cost was the necessity to storage the production bought by the European Union. 5. Distortion of the international market: The EU bought the difference between what was produced and what was consumed in the market, but could not store it for long because agricultural production has a limited period of life for consuming. There is a point at which the production is out of date and cannot be consumed with security, and then has to become waste. Before this point was reached, the European Union needed to sell it, but the European market could not absorb it, and the international market had lower prices. The EU needed to sell the agricultural production under the international price in order to lose less money. As an example, the European Union buys wheat at a price of 8 euros, and needs to keep it at a cost of 1 euro; it means a cost of 9 euros. The international price of wheat is 7 euros, and the EU needs to sell its overproduction at a price of 6 euros, losing 3 euros. If the EU would not sell its wheat, it will lose 9 euros. This action saved money to Europe but made a distortion in the international market forcing the international producers to reduce their prices with the consequent decrease in their profit. If we add the fact that the USA had a similar system, the international agricultural market had artificially low prices. At the same time that the EU closed its market to international producers, it decreased the price in the international market with the consequent discontent of the countries which produced agricultural goods. The EU tried to reach the markets of these states in financial services and high tech in an open competition, but at the same time closed the European market for the production of these same countries. It created problems because these states wanted to have access to the EU market as a compensation to opening their own markets to EU companies. Currently the system has been reformed, and also there are higher prices in the international market because of the growing demand of China and India, reducing this problem. But in case of a drop in price in the international market, the problem will rise again. 6. Anglo-Saxon model: Some members of the European Union opted for a different model, importing cheap agricultural products instead of protecting their own farmers. The UK, because of historical reasons, imported most of its food from the countries of the British Commonwealth, previous members of the British Empire, as Canada, Australia, or South Africa. It meant that there were fewer farmers in the UK, so less money of the CAP went to this country. At the same time, the UK paid more money to the EU via VAT because its imports were higher, so there was a distortion between the money the UK paid and the money it received from Europe. The problem was partially solved with the British Rebate1 where the UK got a reduction in their net contribution to the EU, but is currently creating tensions between the EU and the UK because the situation has changed. The British have developed their own agricultural sector under the umbrella of the CAP, and the distortion between what they pay and what they get is smaller, and at the same time the importance of the CAP in the general budget of the EU is gradually decreasing. It means that the UK
1
Go to the British rebate page.
46
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
gets money from the EU via other policies, decreasing the distortion mentioned above. 7. Another important problem is that the CAP originally was created to protect farmers, but it was very difficult to define what a farmer was. If the EU just took into consideration the production, whoever owned land and produced was a farmer, so big landowners were considered farmers. As an example, one of the main landowners of the UK is the British Monarchy, currently represented by Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen receives substantial quantities of money from the CAP when obviously she is not a farmer. This situation is similar in other countries of Europe, as in Spain, where the house of Alba, a noble family that owns large amounts of land, also gets important funds from the CAP. The problem also expands to the part time producers of agricultural products. These are people who have another job as their main activity but at the same time own land and produce, and hence get paid by the CAP, as we can see in the case of Denmark. Here the problem is to define the concept of farmer and who can get support from the CAP. The EU wants to implement a modulation in the payments to farmers, where the amount of money paid decreases as the quantity increases, hence protecting mainly small and mid-sized farmers. But it will damage the big agricultural companies that own big extensions of land. So more thoughts about this problem are needed and the current reform is still addressing this problem. 8. Environmental damage: The system encouraged increasing production and had negative consequences on the environment because more land was used even when the productivity of it was low, and the existing land also wanted to have bigger production. It created the necessity of increasing the productivity of the land, aggregating the use of chemicals, and higher necessities for water, resulting in a negative effect on the European environment. It also was a contradiction, because the European Union was funding the protection of the environment and included this target in other policies, but at the same time the CAP encouraged overproduction and damaged the European environment. 9. Corruption: As the CAP was the main policy of the EU in monetary terms and its size was big, it was difficult to control, and fraud was bigger than in other policies. As a consequence some part of the money spent in the CAP was wasted. There are many examples, such as the fraud committed by some Italian producers with olive production. The market organization of olives is organized in a way that farmers get paid by each olive tree they have, not by the production. As it is very difficult to count these trees, the European Commission took pictures of the fields from airplanes, and later counted these trees from the pictures. They discovered that some Italians had olive trees made of cardboard that from the air looked like real trees. These farmers got payments for these fake trees. But this is just one example, and the corruption here is not a matter of just one country because is possible to find similar examples all over Europe.
The Common Agricultural Policy
47
SOLUTIONS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
There will be a cap to the money received by each agricultural holding of 300,000 euro. To calculate this cap or "capping", the EU executive proposes that wages be deducted from employees reported in the previous year as well as taxes and Social Security contributions. The member state will recover this money and invest it in innovation and research, as the Commissioner for Agriculture, Dacian Ciolos, has explained. This measure will affect mainly the big landowners in order to focus more intensively on the real target of this policy, the European farmers. The reform maintains the two pillars of the CAP, for agriculture and livestock, and rural development. The first is financed by Community funds and includes an important reform linked to the historical rights, abolishing them gradually. The historical standards were included in the CAP to protect the farmers of Western Europe from the negative consequences of the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. This reform will be negative for countries like Spain and France, because in 2019 it establishes a uniform payment per hectare across the European Union. As the European Union was growing, and more agricultural states joined the organization, the historical standards were included to maintain the level of incomes of farmers from the older member states. It meant that the farmers of states which are already members of the European Union were getting more money than the farmers of new member states, breaking the principle of solidarity in the European Union. This situation will be finished in 2019, and will be a more fair system to the rest of the member states. Moreover, farmers will be rewarded with an additional payment to those who make environmental efforts, including monetary payments. It is expected to lead to a more sustainable agricultural system because it could act as an extra motivation for European farmers to go ahead with actions as reduction of greenhouse
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The situation of the CAP is not sustainable in the long term, so it needs to be reformed, and the European Commission is working on that. The main reform is concerned with the guaranty price paid by the EU, or direct payment. If the protection of the EU is not linked to prices, farmers will decrease their production, decreasing the negative effects of the working system of the CAP. But if the EU wants to protect its farmers, it needs to subsidize them in a different way. There many proposals here, some of them already working, as payments linked to rural development, or using agricultural land for forest, with farmers reducing the amount of land cultivated and getting paid for it. It mainly means that farmers will get paid just for being farmers, no matter how much they produce, how much they work. It is a strange solution, because it pays money for just being a farmer, but on the other hand, farmers are farmers because it‟s their job, and they want to work, and produce, not just sit at home and get a payment. So, in the long term, more ideas are needed in order to reform the current system of the CAP to reduce its negative effects and at the same time protect European farmers. The European Union has introduced some important changes for the CAP that will start working in the period 2014-2020 in order to reform this policy and avoid some of the problems already mentioned:
48
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
he rs
,I
gases or more efficiency in the use of energy. The new targets of the CAP are the creation of jobs, food security, and promoting the use of renewable energy. The second pillar, rural development, is co-financed by member states or regions. The reform will almost equalize the scheme, but introduces new priorities related to aid. It will include actions improving competitiveness, promoting and organizing food chain risks, conservation and enhancement of ecosystems, and the promotion of resource efficiency. The different market organizations that have different payments for different productions, protecting the continental production more,; the distinctiveness of French production will disappear in the next reform of the CAP, providing French farmers a flat payment for most products, thus equalizing them and the other European farmers, without special protection to French farmers or to any kind of production.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The new CAP intends to keep the traditional ratios for most co-payments, but may increase them if the farmers bet on innovation, cooperation, the creation of producer groups, or small grants to young farmers. Another reform, based on the report of the Agriculture Committee of the Parliament, has also called for spending cuts in bureaucratic and administrative expenditures linked to agricultural policies in member states, because an important amount of money did not reach the final target, the farmers. Now the states should reduce these bureaucratic expenditures to make the system more efficient. The reform includes measures to fight against price volatility in agricultural products; the new reform proposes a global system of notification of agricultural reserves and a special budget item in case of crisis. About the new budget, the CAP receives most of its funds from EU coffers, accounting for more than 40% of the EU budget. In 2012 this represented an expenditure of 57 billion euro. It will keep to similar levels in the next years. The budget of the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reserves 3,500 million euro to deal with crises like the one of the summer 2011 of cucumbers affected by the outbreak of E. coli. This is an important new tool of the CAP and will be used in case of a crisis affecting a particular agricultural sector when 2 the trust of consumers is lost with consequent economic harm for producers. Professional associations have complained bitterly about the reform because it does not count the productivity of the land for payments, being based only on hectares. The system 3 will not be fair to many farmers according to ASAJA because the only important fact will be having land, not the way it is used, or the benefits for the society in terms of production. The more land you have, even when it is not productive at all, the more money will you get from the CAP, without any link to the operational system, or the quality of farming, or the quality of a good job from a good farmer. It also creates a problem with innovation and investments in the farming sector because there is not real benefit in producing either more or less. The areas that already had invested more money in their development are the ones that will suffer more with this reform, again France and Spain, and the main beneficiaries will be Central and Eastern member states, because of the extension of land there and the lower investment ratio. 2 3
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/ciolos/headlines/news/2011/06/20110630_en.htm. http://www.asajacyl.com/.
49
The Common Agricultural Policy
nc .
So, as we see, the reform will be positive for some member states and negative for others. Other complaints are related to milk and livestock because the payments for these products have been abolished, with consequent economic harm for the breeders. This is similar to another controversial decision, the end of payments to sugar producers, a clear sign for the international market with many benefits for European consumers also, but with unpredictable consequences for European producers.
51.0
41.7
36.0
58.7
56.4
41.3
42.9
42.8
30.2
en
Sc i a ov
+14.5
-1.4
-3.0
-2.1
-2.1
15.7
13.5
11.1
+0.7
-5.6
1.8
1.5
1.3
+8.0
+3.4
1.1 0.7 8.8 8.2 3.3 141.9 1.13
0.8 0.6 7.2 8.2 3.3 126.5 1.01
0.8 0.5 6.2 5.7 2.3 100
+13.2 +0.3 +7.5 +3.4 -8.2
+10.1 -3.9 -7.1 +3.3 -8.3
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/2011/2011_en.cfm.
N
+3.2
is
45.5 9.5
% change from 2010 CA PA +0.4 +11.7 -9.0 +2.5
he rs
% of total budget
ce
1. Sustainable Growth 1a. Competitiveness for growth and employment 1b. Cohesion for growth and employment 2. Preservation and management of natural resources of which Direct aids & market related expenditure of which Rural development, environment & fisheries 3. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice 3a. Freedom, security and justice 3b. Citizenship 4. EU as a global player 5. Administration of which for the Commission Total In % of EU-27 GNI
Billion € CA PA 64.5 53.3 13.5 11.6
Pu bl
Heading
,I
The EU budget 2011 - The figures (CA: commitment appropriations - PA: payments appropriations)
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . ,I
Chapter 8
he rs
DE GAULLE AND EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
en
ce
Pu bl
is
There have been several personalities of great importance in the European building process. Most of them were supporters of European integration, such as Jean Monnet, Spaak, Spinelli, Delors, etc. Generally they can be encapsulated into two main streams and two different ideas of Europe. One of these two streams was that of the followers of integration and the creation of a supranational power and the formation of a new political superstructure, a European Federal State. One of the most important figures in this group was Jean Monnet, a French citizen who believed in a united Europe, where real and effective power would lie in common institutions. The second group, less heterogeneous and differing more in ideas, supported European cooperation, emphasizing the role of national states in some sort of confederation, with all power concentrated in national governments and not held by any outside institution. Charles de Gaulle was a member of this latter group, maybe the most important of them in European history, because his long term as president of France gave him the opportunity of leaving a deep imprint on the European building process.
FACTS ABOUT DE GAULLE
N
ov
a
Sc i
Charles de Gaulle was born in 1890 in Lille, a French city near the border with Belgium. He was given a conservative, Catholic education and soon decided to follow a military career, studying in various military schools until he graduated. He fought in WW I, was injured a few times and showed bravery. In the beginning of the battle of Verdun he was injured again and 1 taken prisoner. He made a number of attempts to escape, but failed. De Gaulle was a good officer by now, but not yet a well-known figure in the French army. In the next period, though, he became a public figure, a leader, thanks to his theoretical knowledge and various writings, which had a great impact on France. At the beginning of WW II and after the decisive defeat of the French Army in a very short time, he showed strong determination to go on fighting and resisting the German occupation. He flew from France to England, urging the French government to go into exile and continue the war from the French possessions in Africa. This was his first contact with 1
Charles de Gaulle, Mémories de Guerre: l‟Appel, Vol. 1 (Paris:Plon, 1954), p.67.
52
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
the concept of integration. Jean Monnet was in Britain and elaborated a plan to keep France fighting against the Germans. His idea was that both countries, France and Britain, would unite to defeat their common enemy, sharing rights and duties. The best way to effectively unite both countries according to Monnet was by integrating them, creating a new political structure, combining both countries to the extent of a common citizenship. De Gaulle, a French nationalist, convinced of the greatness of the French nation and its privilege to become one of the main world powers, accepted this plan as the only way to keep his country fighting, as the only way to save French honor, even though he disliked Monnet. This was not the last time that he sacrificed his political views for the sake of France; it was also evident in his foreign policy and his relationship with the European Community. De Gaulle made many political mistakes in his career; many times his actions were old fashioned and unrealistic, but he showed a strong pragmatic sense, being able to adapt to new situations and transform his ideas. The plan itself did not work, as the French government rejected it and surrendered to the Germans. De Gaulle stayed in London and tried to gain the leadership of “Free France”. Once 2 he was recognized as the one in charge , he struggled to maintain the illusion that France was still at war and that France was one of the allies. As leader of a country with no power, supported by the allies as a secondary actor in order to maintain the illusion of a national French opposition against the Germans, he had a lot to deal with. He tried to act as the head of government of one of the most important countries in the world, equal to the US, Britain or the Soviet Union – the natural position of France according de Gaulle. But in fact he was just a general commanding a small group of soldiers fighting for a flag which had no more territory than its colonies. This was the source of some of de Gaulle‟s problems with the US and Britain. The American president F. D. Roosevelt did not like de Gaulle, his pretentious manners, and his thoughts of greatness that did not fit with his stature. The French contribution to the war compared to the US was minor, and so Roosevelt treated de Gaulle as what he was: a minor figure in the context of WW II. De Gaulle never forgot this, but was obviously more pained for his country. Representing France, any mismanagement against him became mismanagement against France. The British premier Winston Churchill had a good personal 3 relationship with de Gaulle , but he was beholden to the USA. Britain could not face the power of the Germans without the support of the Americans and the former number one 4 world power now found itself in American hands. Once France was liberated by the allies, comprising American and British forces and some token French unit, de Gaulle was appointed by the allies as head of the provisional French government. His main aim was to normalize political life and restore the prestige of France by behaving like one of the powers which had won the war. That illusion was tolerated as such by the rest of the allies, but in reality France could never have an effective say or even an influence in the main post war decisions. So in May 1953 de Gaulle withdrew 5 from active politics, but was ready to come back when circumstances would permit.
2
Thanks to the help of Jean Monnet. Booker and North (2003), The Great Deception (London, Continuum), p. 80. 4 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html. 5 http://www.charles-de-gaulle.com/. 3
De Gaulle and European Integration
53
he rs
,I
nc .
In 1958 the Fourth Republic was threatened by certain factors, mainly economic, but also those concerning the colonies, especially Algeria. That was when de Gaulle appeared again to save France from its enemies, as he liked to point out. Once elected president of the Fifth Republic, he took measures to reform the French economy and succeeded. In the political sphere, he drafted a new Constitution and decided to solve France's main issue, the colonies, by withdrawing from Algeria thus ending the colonial system. Not that he was convinced of its rightness. France was simply not strong enough to keep its colonies in the context of the Cold War. By this de Gaulle showed that he could sacrifice his ideas for the sake of France. His dream of his country as a world power, an active participant in world affairs, was unattainable. France lacked the power to maintain its influence in the colonies, and after the 6 French withdrawal from Algeria, the political and economic situation stabilized. De Gaulle turned his eye towards Europe.
DE GAULLE AND EUROPE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
After WW II the world was divided into two main blocks: the USA with its allies and the USSR with its supporters. While the two superpowers were fighting the Cold War for world supremacy, the dreams of de Gaulle of restoring France to greatness were impossible to achieve by conventional means. He needed a new approach. In the beginning, he tried to maintain a policy of independence from foreign powers, most of all the United States. American influence would mean the end of French independence. He was aware, though, that Europe was defended against the Soviets only by the American army and was aware that Western Europe rested free only thanks to the collaboration with the USA. So he started working in two ways, reassuring French independence and developing nuclear facilities in France. The latter, according to de Gaulle, would again take France to the top league of global politics, and keep away the threats. Harold McMillan actually tried to convince de Gaulle to support the enlargement of the European Community to the United Kingdom, offering nuclear technology in exchange, but the French president rejected this offer. British nuclear technology was reliant on the USA, on the Polaris missiles, and de Gaulle wanted full autonomy. Getting the American missiles would have meant dependence on American supplies. As a political gesture he moved the headquarters of NATO from Paris to Brussels and withdrew France from the military structure of NATO. It was clear that his country alone could not stand independent in the world, so he had to look for partners that would accept the preeminence of France, or at least an equal partnership. The British were close allies of the USA and hence could not join an alliance with France. His partners should help him in creating a third way in the bipolar affairs of the Cold War and should not be tied to either side. With the intention of getting France recognized as a third force in world politics, he went to Moscow and other Soviet countries, but came back with minimal results: the only 7 effective consequence of these trips was propaganda. It was clear that France alone was too weak to play an active role in the world, as it lacked economic and military resources to do so. Here, the French president made another 6 7
Still, supporters of French Algeria tried many times to assassinate de Gaulle. http://www.charles-de-gaulle.com/.
54
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
change in his political views. The only possibility for an effective alliance would be West Germany. As a prisoner in WW I he had declared that cooperation between the Germans and the French would be impossible in the future. After WW II, he had supported the idea of allied domination over West Germany as the only possible means to prevent another rise of German power. Now cooperation with the eternal enemy of the French nation would be the only possibility to rebuild the greatness of France. In other words, his political vision was old fashioned and unable to understand the new circumstances of the world. One could say that luckily for him and for the Germans, the USA did not accept the ideas of de Gaulle. The United States gave full independence to West Germany because they were interested in a strong West Germany as the first battlefield in a hypothetical European war against the Soviet Union. Cooperation with West Germany was developed through the European Community because the Germans wanted it and it was one of their conditions. De Gaulle always preferred bilateral contacts between the two countries. He promoted meetings with Adenauer, the Chancellor of West Germany, to discuss Community issues, trying to reach an agreement with the Germans and then to present a common position with them in the Community meeting. A common position of the two most important member states was unlikely to be rejected. The influence of this bilateral conception and the influence of de Gaulle can still be noted in our day. The issue of West Germany shows us a change in de Gaulle‟s political views, because according to his ideas, the nation was the last political structure, there was nothing beyond that, but if he wanted to cooperate with the Germans he had to do it through the European Community, the diplomatic channel open between both countries. And the essence of the Community was supranational institutions where the national states gave up sovereignty to an upper sphere, the common institutions. So de Gaulle accepted cooperation with Germany through the EC because it was the only possibility to increase the influence of France, and because he was wise enough to realize that many economic problems of his country could be solved in the framework of the EC thanks to the economic power of West Germany. This shows that he had the illusion that he could change the essence of the Community from within, from supranational to intergovernmental, but he failed in this. West Germany from its perspective as the country defeated in the war, was eager to embrace the collaboration with France, for very many millions of people had been killed and the Germans were still blamed for it. They needed to get past this, so they needed to normalize their diplomatic relations with the rest of the world and they needed to demonstrate German generosity and solidarity through such an idealistic project as the EC, and they could also minimize the French influence over West Germany in a wider Community with four more members. To be accepted by France as a partner in the Community, with the political preeminence of France and an economic cost for Germany as the main contributor to the common Budget of the EC, was seen as a fair price to pay for the normalization of West German external relations. De Gaulle also paid the Germans a diplomatic price by supporting a united Germany. This issue was of great importance for Adenauer, after the de facto recognition by the USA and the UK of East Germany, which ended in the partition of the country. So De Gaulle found a perfect partner to improve France's economic and political position and his acceptance of the EC can be understood as a means towards his ambition to restore
De Gaulle and European Integration
55
8
he rs
,I
nc .
French greatness. But he did not accept the development of the EC into a supranational entity. He fought against it from within and even tried to change the whole Community through his Fouchet Plan, supporting the power of the national states. In a Community of six, of France, West Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Italy, the preeminence of France meant that in a Community led by states France could play the main role without the risk of national ideas melting in supranational institutions or in a „European‟ influence. The idea of de Gaulle using the EC for the benefit of France was clear during all his years as president of France, and this influence can be seen in the main issues of de Gaulle‟s relations with the EC, i.e. the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the empty chair crisis, the enlargement to the UK, and the Fouchet proposals. It can still be seen – the heritage of de Gaulle is still alive in many circles of French society, and France's actions as an EU member are still influenced by his legacy.
is
THE ENLARGEMENT TO THE UNITED KINGDOM
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
The European Community began as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in the 1950s. From the beginning of the negotiations, the UK was interested in the new project, but as a supporter of national sovereignty as opposed to supranational power, it agreed to a Community of intergovernmental cooperation instead of the integration of the ECSC. Hence the UK retired from the negotiations and later created another model of a European Community. This was based on a free trade area without common power institutions able to impose resolutions on the member states, working rather through negotiations and agreements between the member states. The creation of the European Free Trade Association with the Treaty of Stockholm in 1959 expressed the wishes of the British. When the idea of a Common Market was launched in the Treaty of Rome, the UK was again interested, but retired from the discussions for the same reason, opposition to supranational power. Afterwards, because of different reasons such as the economic crisis in the UK or the success of the EEC, the British tried to join the Community. By logic the ideas the British government had about Europe should have coincided with those of Charles de Gaulle. It was even considered that since France had a new president in 1958, the character of the new Europe might be moving away from dogmatic emphasis on supranational 9 technocracy. Both countries agreed with the idea of the primacy of national sovereignty over any common institution and political cooperation as opposed to political integration. But in reality, de Gaulle became a bitter enemy of the British application, blocking the enlargement twice, in 1961 and 1967. The reasons for de Gaulle‟s vetoing of the UK's admission lay mainly in fear. The links between the UK and the USA were viewed negatively, and the UK also represented a threat to the hegemony of France in the EC and, as a result, a threat to 10 developing the CAP. 8
Booker and North (2003), The Great Deception (London, Continuum), p. 120. See Milward, A.S. (2002), The Rise and Fall of a National Strategy (London, Frank Cass), p. 443. Foreign Office officials used de Gaulle‟s repeated denunciations of the Federal Europe concept to justify ‟the lack of discussion about sovereignty‟. 10 Moravcsik, Andrew (2000), De Gaulle Between Grain and Grandeur: The Political Economy of French EC Policy, 1958-1970 (Part 1) (London UCL), p. 101-106. 9
56
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
In de Gaulle‟s time the Community was clearly dominated by France, and the French had and still do have some sense of ownership of the EC. De Gaulle viewed the EC as an instrument to empower France, this being the only reason for him to be inside it. Other European countries entering the association would not have been a problem, since their size in terms of population and economy were relatively small, but Great Britain was a big country, powerful enough to maintain its independence and, hence, to dismiss the influence of France. This new member would rival the influence of France and could ruin de Gaulle‟s desire of placing France at the center of the European stage. It was also a threat to the perception of a close relationship with West Germany. The French president thought that a powerful and independent big country in the EC could overshadow the influence of France and could also affect the development of a FrancoGerman alliance which had acquired symbolic force with the signing in 1963 of a friendship treaty between West Germany and France. This alliance was the core of French influence. It was clear to de Gaulle that there was not enough room for two main powers in the Community, and, hence, the enlargement to Great Britain had to be blocked. A special relationship between the UK and the USA also played an important role in the refusal of the French president to the enlargement. De Gaulle was suspicious of the UK‟s close links with the USA, and thought they would pave the way for American penetration into and domination of Europe and, consequently, of France. According to the ideas of de Gaulle, France had to stand independently between the great powers, the USA and the USSR. De Gaulle was afraid that with the UK the Americans would join the Community via the back door. He was afraid that the UK would promote a free trade agreement with the USA and Canada inside the Community and this, of course, was unacceptable, because the economic power of the USA would lead to economic domination of the EC. France would lose the European market, which at that moment was an indispensable market for such sensible French products as the agricultural ones. In his speech announcing his personal veto to Britain‟s entry, de Gaulle claimed that Britain was not yet sufficiently “European” in her 11 outlook, and still too closely tied to the USA. The third main reason for de Gaulle‟s personal veto against the UK was the Common Agricultural Policy. This European policy was settled in the Treaty of Rome, but did not start working until some years later, even after de Gaulle‟s term as president of France. It was still under discussion at the time of the petition of Britain to join the EC, and de Gaulle did not want the British to interfere in the negotiations or the final result of the agreement. The CAP 12 was a good deal for France and represented many benefits for French farmers. Agriculture was still very important for France, and it needed huge subsidies to face the cheaper production of other parts of the world, like Argentina, Canada, or Australia. The French state was having considerable financial problems because of support to agriculture, so the Community was going to pay for this European policy for the benefit of French farmers and their government. On the other hand, the high artificial prices of agricultural products because of the subsidies lead to a boom in production – farmers produced as much as possible because the guaranteed prices supported by the government made production profitable. As they produced more than the French market was able to absorb, they created a tremendous surplus. France 11 12
Booker and North (2003), The Great Deception (London, Continuum), p. 102. http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/grandeur1.pdf.
De Gaulle and European Integration
57
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
had to sell this surplus in the international market because these were perishable products and could not compete with cheaper international prices. It meant that they had to sell, losing money and creating a supply distortion in the international agricultural products market, which in turn meant a decrease in international prices. The idea of the CAP was to get finances from the European Community and at the same time deal with the surplus on the European market. The CAP was going to be the most important policy at the European level in terms of finance, absorbing most of the European budget - 55,000 million euros in 2007, and making France one of the most important beneficiaries. That is one more reminder of de Gaulle we can still feel today. The UK had developed another type of agricultural system. It was based on imports and the liberalization of the market. It meant a reduction in the importance of the British national agricultural sector but low prices and advantages for the colonies and for British industry, which could access the labor liberated from the countryside. De Gaulle was afraid that with the UK as a full member of the Community, the CAP, which was against British interests, would disappear or lose entity. The negotiations were not finished, so it was crucial for France to keep Britain out of the EC over this period – according to Community law, any country that joined the organization had to fulfill different requirements, one of them was to accept all the rules, laws, and policies of the EC. Once the CAP was approved by all the member States, the UK had no choice but to accept it if it wanted to join the Community, so it was very important to keep the UK out of the EC until an agreement was reached on the CAP.
THE EMPTY CHAIR CRISIS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
De Gaulle was against any supranational integration that could reduce the independence of France, but he had to accept the Community for the good of France. During his mandate he had numerous clashes with the European Commission president, the German Wallenstein, a supporter of European integration. The main crisis is known as the “Empty Chair Crisis” and came from the opposition of de Gaulle to the advance of integration in the Community; this consisted mainly of proposals to allow the Community source its own income and to award greater powers to the Assembly. De Gaulle was also against what he saw as the increasing political importance of the Commission and against the imminent prospect of the Community moving into a stage of development in which there would be more majority votes in the Council, all proposals 13 leading to the implementation of a supranational Europe. Accepting that decisions would be made by the majority could have meant in de Gaulle‟s eyes that France would be forced to accept the orders of the EC if the other five members supported any proposal against the interests of the French. It was a big change, because the Community started working with a voting system based on unanimity, based on agreement between all the member states. The majority‟s winning meant loss of sovereignty, because member countries gave power to the European institutions. The member countries were forced to accept the result of the vote, even if they were against the regulation voted in, or if that regulation was against their interest. De Gaulle could not accept this because his political beliefs were based on national sovereignty and because of his nationalistic views on France 13
http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/grandeur1.pdf.
58
David Ramiro Troitino
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
and the Community. European Integration was supposed to be a tool to increase the power of France, not decrease it. When Community income was discussed, De Gaulle yielded, even though he believed that the EC should get its income from the national contributions, never from its own sources. The economic independence of the European institutions could make them dangerous and out of the control of the national governments and too independent and hence a threat to national autonomy. But, on the other hand, there was the issue of financing the CAP, which was going to give huge benefits to France. In order to get the money required for the CAP, de Gaulle accepted the EC sourcing its own income. The CAP itself was another important factor in the crisis and a constant issue in de Gaulle‟s relationship with the EC. The negotiations to implement this policy were blocked because other members of the EC did not want to finance the farming sector of France. De Gaulle threatened his European partners with leaving the Community if the CAP was not approved. De Gaulle withdrew the French ministers from the meetings of the Council, stopping the activity of this important institution. The crisis continued for six months and ended only after the French government, under strong pressure, accepted a deal at a special Council meeting in 1966, known as “The Luxembourg Compromise”. The accord meant that in the case of decisions which could be made by a majority vote, any member state could veto it if its national interests were at stake. In other words, national governments were to keep their sovereignty in sensitive issues. The compromise had no constitutional status, but it had a huge influence in the decision making of the Council. As a consequence, most decisions were to be made by letting deliberations and negotiations run until an agreement finally emerged. The national veto was invoked less than a dozen times between 1966 and 1985, but its effect on the negotiations made the Community slow and ineffective. The influence of de Gaulle through the “Luxembourg Compromise” lasted until 1986, when the Single European Act expanded the circumstances in which a simple majority vote was allowed, leading to the final demise of the Compromise.
en
COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
N
ov
a
Sc i
The CAP was a constant issue in the relationship between de Gaulle and the European Communities, as we have already seen, and it was also one of de Gaulle's biggest successes at the European level. In 1961 agriculture in France still accounted for 25% of all employment and state subsidies and gave a huge boost in output and caused downward pressures on prices. The living standards of millions of small farmers were threatened, and the consequent movement of people from the countryside to the cities where jobs were scarce and no housing was available made agriculture the main issue in French domestic politics. Farmers kept the land through state subsidies, and the expenditure was heavy and difficult for the French Republic to afford. When de Gaulle took power in 1958, France‟s farm surpluses had already reached a 14 crisis point. At a crisis Cabinet meeting in August 1962, de Gaulle declared that agriculture was “the most important problem” France had to face. Even de Gaulle affirmed that if the 14
Moravcsik, Andrew (1998), The Choice of Europe: Social Purpose And State Power: From Messina to Maastricht (London, UCL), p. 144.
59
De Gaulle and European Integration 15
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
problem was not solved “we will have another Algeria on our own on soil” . The problem of the state subsidies was that production increased as a result of it, because it altered the market balance between supply and demand, artificially raising prices and hence production. De Gaulle had to find new markets for the surplus of French farmers, and he also had to find another way of financing this policy because it cost a lot and the revenues of the state were exhausted. The situation was dangerous and again de Gaulle had to choose between his political convictions against supranational institutions and French national interest. He, as before, showed pragmatism and chose the latter. The CAP was already included in the Treaty of Rome, but just as vague declarations. In 1958 the conference of Stressa developed this policy, but it was almost eleven years before full agreement was reached thanks to de Gaulle‟s work, even though the final negotiations finished under the mandate of Pompidou, successor to de Gaulle. France secured the economic support of the rest of the member states of the EC, especially that of West Germany when the policy was made European, changing the national subsidies into European subsidies. It also secured the European market for French production, as a high level of protectionism in agricultural goods at the borders of the European area was agreed to. Imports from Argentina, Canada, or Australia had to face high duties when crossing into the borders of the member States of the EEC. It is clear that France got the CAP as a reward for its membership in the EC and Europe, especially West Germany, paid for the CAP to have France as a partner in the European 16 building process. It was a great success for de Gaulle, because it was his personal veto of enlargement to the UK and his threats to the EC of France‟s withdrawing from the organization and the “empty chair crisis” launched to blackmail the other member states that led to an agreement on the CAP. In other words, de Gaulle‟s lack of commitment to European integration, his full dedication to France, and his intransigence made possible great benefits for France and created the most important European level policy up to now. The influence of de Gaulle can still be felt nowadays, with the biggest part of the European budget going to the 17 CAP.
Sc i
THE FOUCHET PROPOSALS
N
ov
a
If the CAP was a great success of de Gaulle‟s policies, the Fouchet proposals were the biggest failure. De Gaulle tried to change the Community from the inside to a model closer to his beliefs. It is clear that he did not like the supranational character of the EC but was forced to collaborate with the Community because of the various reasons discussed above. He thought that once inside and securing benefits for France, he could transform the essence of the EC “into an intergovernmental framework which has already become a Community” 18 according to Jean Monnet. 15
Booker and North (2003), The Great Deception (London, Continuum), p. 109. Moravcsik, Andrew (1998), The Choice of Europe: Social Purpose And State Power: From Messina to Maastricht (London, UCL), p. 113. 17 http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/grandeur1.pdf 18 Booker and North (2003), The Great Deception (London, Continuum), p. 106. 16
60
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
To achieve this transformation, de Gaulle proposed through the Fouchet Committee, which was dominated by him, a new Community composed of a voluntary union of independent states. He also proposed moving the location of the institutions from Belgium, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg to one location, Paris, where the new secretariat would work instead of the European Commission, an institution that represented the European level. The 19 French president wanted to have the institutions in Paris in order for his country to benefit from the presence of a center of power. Moreover, he thought that if the European institutions where located in Paris, the French government could control them better and the influence of France could grow, creating an association of Western European countries with France, which was different from the original idea of a Community where all the members had the same rights and duties. His ambitions to substitute the Commission with a secretariat were an obvious attack on European integration, substituting the independence of the Commission for national control, mainly French control. Its commitment to the European good made this institution representative of all de Gaulle hated. He attacked the Commission constantly, accusing Wallenstein of behaving like a head of state without legitimacy, complaining about its not being representative of the European societies it was meant to serve, in other words a 20 dictatorship created by civil servants without any democratic support. Another proposal was, of course, an extensive national veto over common policies, which in reality meant cooperation instead of integration and a safeguard of the national sovereignty of the member states. All these proposals could have meant the end of the European building process and the end of the Community because in a Union of States, de Gaulle pretended to maintain the influence of France over the other members without any commitment from France itself, expressing the real point of view of de Gaulle about the Communities – they were to be a toy in the hands of France, for the benefit of France. But on this occasion, de Gaulle miscalculated the muscle of the European dream of a union between equals, the power of the people who were working for a European supranational state and, of course, he overestimated the power of France. This time West Germany stepped aside and did not support the reforms proposed by de Gaulle, defeating his aims and making the Fouchet proposals the biggest failure in de Gaulle‟s policy. Denying the reality of the European Community, not accepting the fact that the world was changing, trying to go back one century to restore great France, de Gaulle showed his limited political understanding of the world. His position would have meant a reduction of the European Community to a minimal expression, articulating an idea removed from reality from a politician too old to understand the new realities. It could have meant the final fall of Europe, and hence of France, from world affairs, the end of the independence of Europe and of France, because in a globalized world the influence of separate European states would be minimal, far less than the central role he wanted. De Gaulle had a huge influence in developing the European building process, in slowing the speed of integration, but he could not change its essence. He made the mistake of thinking it was possible to have a nationalist approach more typical for a politician of the XIX century, still worried about the greatness of France, not realizing that the only option for France was to stay inside a strong Community and to never again be a sole power. His biggest value was a 19 20
http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/grandeur1.pdf. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html.
De Gaulle and European Integration
61
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
capacity to adapt and change his views as many times as needed for the sake of his country, treating the integration into the EC as a minor ill.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . ,I
Chapter 9
he rs
THE BRITISH POSITION TOWARDS THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION: A DIFFERENT ECONOMIC APPROACH
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
After WW II the situation in Europe was difficult: the European states collaborated in order to rebuild their economies, the Marshall Plan, the Bank of Basle and other institutions were created or developed to increase the cooperation between the member states. The United Kingdom suffered a big crisis in the aftermath of the war, losing its leading position in the world to the new world powers, the USA and the Soviet Union. It took some time for the UK to adapt to the new situation and understand the new world. Related to the European Communities, the British were present in the Congress of Hague, the famous Congress of Europe, where different personalities of the continent met to discuss the building process of a closer area. The Congress was divided in three main groups: the supporters of the European Federation, the supporters of Cooperation, and the supporters of Pan Europe, Britain being the leader of the so called Unionists, or supporters of cooperation. Mainly their attitude was positive towards the process, but underlining the importance of national sovereignty and trade. Another important moment in European integration after war was a famous speech made 1 by Winston Churchill at the University of Zurich , where the British leader spoke about the necessity of integrating Europe in order to avoid future wars. According to his words, the center of the community must be France and Germany, two states that have had many conflicts in the past and which have twice led to a global confrontation where the rest of the states, and specially the UK were involved. Churchill supported integration, and saw it as a requisite for world peace. He thought of the UK as a promoter of the integration of continental Europe, as a father guiding France and Germany during the process, but never as an active partner in the integration. He thought of the USA, the Soviet Union and the UK as the world powers ruling the world. The great British premier, who many times before had been able to analyze the international situation with amazing exactitude, missed at that time completely the British reality and the British position in the new world after WW II. Step by step the UK faced its decline and saw the end of the British Empire with the independence of most of its colonies and its decreasing role in the international arena where it could not compete with the USA or the Soviet Union because it lacked the economic and 1
http://www.cvce.eu/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_zurich_19_september_1946-en-5da812de-3a204e2a-9cc1-7e0f90c8f97b.html.
64
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
material means to stand equally with the new giants. At the same time, the British economy was in a big recession, losing position with other European economies that were growing faster than the British. The previous British predominance over the world and over Europe was finishing, and a new scenario arose. The first European Community was the ECSC, an important economic sector in the British Isles, so its government was interested in participating in the new community as a way to fund the deficit of the sector and gain access for British producers to the German and French markets. It was an economic sector under crisis, and it also had much power in British politics through the trade unions. The UK sent some delegates to discuss the inclusion of the UK in the still not created ECSC, but they withdraw when the principle of national sovereignty was not respected, pointing out their interest in the trade area and cooperation, but not in integration. For the same practical reasons, the British were in the conversations leading to the foundation of the European Economic Community by the Treaty of Rome, but again, as previously, they did not take part in the new community and withdrew from the final conversations. The situation was difficult for the British, because their economy was in bad shape, and their European partners were succeeding as a consequence of the Treaty of Rome and the creation of the European Common Market. As the economies of the member states integrated in an interior market with common borders, the UK was left outside, as an external partner, losing access to an important market for them, even more important after the end of the British Empire and with the American predominance in the world economy. So they tried to create a parallel community in order to gain access to new markets and end the exclusion of the British from Europe.
ce
THE EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
It was signed in 1959 in the Treaty of Stockholm by some European states, and the organization expanded further to include the UK, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland among others. The other states had different reasons for joining this new European organization; Denmark and Norway had important economic links with the UK, and hence needed to be in the same organization as the UK in order to have access to the British market. Austria, Switzerland, and Sweden had the status of neutrality in the Cold War, and could not join the European Communities because it was seen by the communists as an organization against the workers of the world supported by the USA and hence against the Soviet Union. Joining the organization meant joining one side of the Cold War against the other. On the other hand, Portugal was not a democratic country as it was under the power of the dictatorship built by Salazar, and a democratic system was a requirement for joining the European Communities; Portugal could not join it. The EFTA gave international backing to the Portuguese regime plus the important economic ties the country had with the UK. The new organization proposed a different model uniting Europe, one mainly based on trade and common agreements, without integration or any loss of national independence, following the ideas expressed by the UK previously. The working system was based on the good faith of the partners and their will to collaborate among each other, reaching common positions based on consensus. In practical matters it was an organization based on industrial
The British Position towards the European Integration
65
is
he rs
,I
nc .
production trade, excluding agricultural products, an area of free trade based on the British tradition without any political meaning. The organization worked at the beginning, and more countries joined the organization, and Europe was divided in two main markets, in two main economic areas. But the member States of the European Communities were performing economically better, growing faster and increasing their economic role in Europe. At the same time, the British economy had many problems and the market of the EFTA was not big enough for its economy to solve its problems. As the UK was being left behind France and Germany, and its economy was in crisis, their government had no other choice than asking for membership in the European Communities, even when this decision was against their political beliefs based on cooperation and free trade. In practical matters it meant the end of the EFTA, because its main partner was going to join the European Communities, and hence the EEC market, with common borders against any other external country or economic area. The free trade area had no chance to grow without access to the British market, and Ireland, Norway, and Denmark asked at the same time as the UK for membership in the European Communities. Once they joined, the stature of the EFTA decreased and became a mere annex to the EEC market.
Pu bl
THE FIRST AND THE SECOND PETITIONS OF THE UK FOR MEMBERSHIP
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The British encountered many problems in joining European integration because they were seen as close allies of the USA. It provoked fears in the other members of the EEC because they wanted to keep some independence from the USA, especially France. The decision of the USA, backed by the UK, in accepting the division of Germany into two parts, alienated the British from West Germany. It meant the hidden support of Germany in favor of the French negative position towards the UK in this matter. On the other hand, other member states were interested in the UK‟s being inside the Community, because they had important economic links with the British, especially the Netherlands, but their influence could not stand up to the French rejection. Other supporters of British membership were important personalities linked to European integration, as Jean Monnet, the so called father of Europe, but they could do nothing against the combination of the French and German positions. France had many reasons for rejecting the British application, first of all the leading position of France inside the Communities as its main political actor. The Second World War was still recent and Germany was willing to cooperate with international partners as a way to show their good faith. The inclusion of West Germany in the European Communities was a big step in rehabilitating this state in the international arena. The other member states, as the Benelux countries and Italy, did not have the power to challenge the French position. So France was the leading political force of the Communities, a position that could be in danger with another heavyweight, as the UK, inside the Community. On the other hand, the British economy had important ties with the Commonwealth, an organization that included many former British colonies. It was not compatible with the European market because of the system of Imperial Preference on trade within the Commonwealth that gave practically free access to the British market to products of the members of the British Commonwealth. It meant that with the UK inside the European
66
David Ramiro Troitino
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
market, this free access would expand to the whole European market because there were no internal borders. So this system needed to be changed against the will of the British, who still hoped to keep some influence in world politics via their Commonwealth. This problem also had an influence on the relation of the Communities with its former colonies via the Lomé agreements; of all the members of the European Communities, only France had ex-colonies of importance. France was using these agreements to keep its influence over these territories, and including the numerous British ex- colonies in the Lomé agreement could mean the end of French influence.
Source: http://www.uhcg.org/Lost-10-Tribes/chapter-12.html.
en
The British Empire in the 1920s.
N
ov
a
Sc i
Finally, the Common Agricultural Policy was still under discussion, without its final shape, and the French government was concerned of the UK‟s changing the rules of this policy because the British agricultural sector was very different from the French and had other needs. The idea is still currently clear that when you join the European Union you have to accept the whole of it, you cannot join some parts of the Union and leave aside others. Once you are inside, you influence the development of European policies on the common ground of the European institutions with two main possibilities, rejecting new policies unless they fit your wishes, or signing a special protocol leaving your country outside this new policy. As France needed the CAP because of internal reasons, they could not accept British membership until this policy was approved by the Communities. As in the case of any enlargement, still nowadays all the states need to agree, unanimity is required, which in reality means that each member state has the right of veto; Charles de Gaulle rejected the application of the UK twice because it was against the French interest. Hence Denmark, Ireland, and Norway, which had applied commonly with the UK, were also not accepted into the Communities. Finally, the third application was accepted when Pompidou was president of France after the retirement of de Gaulle and the final approval for
The British Position towards the European Integration
67
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
the CAP. The British had asked for membership under a government of Conservatives, and also under a government lead by Labor, so there was a common agreement between the main political parties of the UK about joining the European Communities, and they were willing to accept most of the petitions of the European Communities, including the CAP and the end of the Imperial Preference system. The UK accepted the whole of the Community because it needed access to the European market to reinvigorate its economy, but this generated problems afterwards, especially under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher. Nevertheless, the enlargement meant the inclusion of Ireland and Denmark in the European Communities, and the application of Norway was also accepted, but a domestic referendum in that Scandinavian country had a negative result for the European aspirations of its government, keeping Norway outside the Community.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE ENLARGEMENT TO GREECE AND THE CASE OF GREENLAND
,I
Chapter 10
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
Greece had an association agreement with the European Communities since 1962, and normally it is the step previous to full membership in the European organization. The agreement was basically based on trade, and provided benefits to Greek agriculture, mainly access to the European market. It was not against the interest of the farmers of the European Communities because the Greek production is Mediterranean, and it did not compete with continental French production, the central production of the communities. On the other hand, other Mediterranean producers, as Italy or southern France, did not have the capacity of fulfilling completely the demand of the European market for Mediterranean products. So the European consumers were keen to absorb the Greek production without harming any member 1 states of the Communities. In 1967 there was a military coup in Greece, and the King somehow supported it because Greece was involved in a civil war. As one of the requirements for joining the European 2 Communities, according to the Birkelbach doctrine is being a democratic state, the whole process of enlargement stopped. It was in standby until 1974, when democracy came back to the country. The new democratic Republic restarted the negotiations with the European Communities, but there were important differences between the Greek conservative party, and the PASOK, the socialist party, about the terms of the negotiation and the benefits of Greece‟s joining the European organization. The conservative party, ruling the country during the accession negotiations, wanted to accelerate the enlargement in order to present it to the Greek people as a success of the conservative party and thus obtain domestic political benefits from the accession to the European Communities. For the same reason, the Greek socialist party was against the terms of the negotiations, but never against the EC. Even the European Commission advised against the enlargement because the Greek state was not ready to join without important reforms, proposing a long transitional period for the adaptation of Greece to the Communitarian reality. It was clear that the enlargement of Greece was going to generate problems inside the Communities, but it was thought that the small size of Greece would minimize these problems.
1 2
http://video.minpress.gr/wwwminpress/aboutgreece/aboutgreece_greece_eu.pdf. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5965.1967.tb01170.x/pdf.
70
David Ramiro Troitino
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Nevertheless, for the first time, the leaders of the member states did not follow the advice of the EC Commission and agreed on accepting Greece into the Communities. Their decision was based on different reasons, mainly political and cultural, because they thought the enlargement will stabilize Greece during a difficult time of political transition from a dictatorship to a democracy keeping the country away from the communist threat. Enlargements have since then been the main international vehicle of the European Communities to influence the international arena, the carrot of full membership to the European organization in order to force the candidate states to implement the European standards in their domestic legislation. There were other reasons to accept Greece against the advice of the Commission, as the role of Greece as spiritual source of Europe. The European communities included just some part of Europe, and were willing to become a real European movement in order to integrate the continent. As Greece is the spiritual source of Europe, with its philosophy, writers, theater, art, and culture, an organization with aims to unite Europe needed to count on Greece to become European. The history of the Greeks since ancient times has been linked with Europe, first uniting the West (Europe) with democracy and political rights against the East (the Persian Empire) and the rule of kings, or during the Roman Empire where the political center was in Italy, but the cultural references were mostly Greek, or during the Renaissance, when there was a research for the origins of Europe in its sources, Greece and Rome, establishing a line from ancient Greece to the current Europe that is commonly accepted by all the European citizens. People such as Aristotle, Plato, Alexander the Great, Pericles, and others are seen as Greek, but also as Europeans, part of a common past. The fact that Greece was a poor country compared with the other members of the European Communities was important as well. The European Communities were seen as a club of rich countries interested mainly in economic benefits, while including a country as Greece, obviously less developed than the other members, meant opening the organization to all democratic European states, independent of their economic status, and hence getting closer to the European dream of uniting the continent. The Greek republic had to face serious problems in its international relations, especially with Turkey, after the occupation of part of Cyprus by the Turkish army and the consequent social instability. The country‟s being member of the European organization provided for it a stronger position internationally, as well as a stronger position against the Turkish threat. In the same context, membership also meant losing its strong post-war dependency upon the USA. It meant bigger political stature in its external relations. Finally, Greece became a full member of the European communities on 1981.
a
GREECE INSIDE THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
N
ov
As we have mentioned before, the government of Greece was in a hurry to close the agreement before the coming national elections because of domestic reasons. It meant that the government had a weak position in the negotiations for the enlargement and accepted almost everything proposed by the EC. When any country joins the European Union, and previously the European Communities, it has to accept the whole of European politics, legislation, and working systems. It is not possible to negotiate the conditions of what to accept or what to
The Enlargement to Greece and the Case of Greenland
71
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
reject from the Union, it is all or nothing. But the candidates can negotiate about many other points, as stand still clauses, or the periods of time when the candidate country will adopt the EC rules. Normally the states establish a timetable to make the integration smoother, doing it step by step, avoiding big shocks for their economies. The EC also did something similar with its policies, and with the money sent to the new member states, because it could mean a drastic reduction of the funds dedicated to those who are already member states. So the conditions of the agreement were not as good as possible for Greece because the Greek economy was weak compared with the other member states of the organization. It was not ready to compete in a free market with German or French companies. The negotiation should have taken that into consideration giving time to the Greek economy to adapt to the new situation by establishing different stages before reaching full integration. It meant that in giving complete access to European companies to the Greek market, Greek companies faced problems because they were much less competitive, and longer transition periods would have softened this negative effect. On the other hand, Greek companies got access to the European market, but for the same reasons could not make good use of it. Nevertheless, in the long term, Greek membership contributed to the development and modernization of the Greek 3 economy and Greek society. Also, as the main policy of the European Communities, and main receiver of European funds was the Common Agricultural Policy. Greece, as an important agricultural country, was hoping to obtain big benefits from there. But as we have explained in the chapter dedicated to 4 the CAP , Mediterranean production does not get much financial support from the European Communities. On the other hand, it gets free access to the European Market and other kinds of protections. So, the main benefit for the Greek agricultural sector was exporting to the markets of the other member states of the Union, but it took some time for them to be ready and extract bigger benefits from this possibility. Another important problem of Greece inside the EC was the working system of the Community based on a close collaboration with the national institutions. The lack of technocrats in the Greek state with enough qualification to work with the EC was a problem in this collaboration, reducing the possibilities for Greece in the EC. The European organization works based on the information sent by the national civil servants in order to organize European policies, and hence to use the European funds. The Greek civil servants did not do their job properly, and the national plans sent to Brussels were inadequate to receive Communitarian support. The amount of money transferred by Europe via its policies towards Greece was smaller than the Greek country could have obtained in a normal situation, and the benefits for Greece were logically also smaller. The situation took some years to change to maximize the opportunities given by membership to Greece. On the other hand, as Greece was a country of emigrants, with more than 7 million 5 Greeks living abroad and important Greek communities in other European countries, as the United Kingdom and Germany, the enlargement made it easier for Greeks to emigrate to other European states. The existing Greek communities in these countries also benefited from the European legislation, where discrimination because of nationality is forbidden, and Greeks obtained equal treatment with the nationals of the European countries where they 3
http://www.greekembassy.org/embassy/content/en/Article.aspx?office=1&folder=39&article=50. Pagina de la CAP. 5 http://en.sae.gr/. 4
72
David Ramiro Troitino
PAPANDREOU AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
nc .
resided. Exporting people became one of the most beneficial points for Greece in its accession to the EC.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
Andreas Papandreou, leader of the socialist party in Greece, PASOK, became prime minister in October 1981 shortly after the accession of Greece to the EC. During the previous election political campaign the rhetoric of Papandreou had been clearly against the European Communities and the influence of the USA over the country, but when he became Prime Minister he did not withdraw his country form the EC or NATO. Nevertheless, he had a hardened position towards the terms of membership and tried to change the conditions of the enlargement. In 1982 Greece submitted a memorandum requesting different terms for the implementation of certain Communitarian policies, trying to change the rules of the game in the middle of the match. Papandreou proposed to change the role of Greece in the Communities by establishing a special regime of relations and regulations that was rejected by the European Community because it was against the spirit of the Communities. Then, the Greek Premier tried to obtain more financial funds for his country, further economic support in order to restructure the Greek economy and increase its competitiveness in the framework of the Common Market. His request was not initially supported by the member states. The Greek politician threatened to withdraw his country from the organization, and finally opted for a strategy similar to that of de Gaulle and the Empty Chair 6 crisis. Basically he blackmailed the communities with the voting system of the Community based on unanimity where the Greek government could reject all the proposals and hence paralyze the activity of the Community. These actions showed that even a small country member of the EC could block and blackmail the organization with the unanimity system unless it obtained what it wanted, and made clear that a reform in this system was needed. The Greek problem was solved with the involvement of Kohl, the new German Premier, and the final agreement for the creation of new funds, mainly dedicated to Greece in the form of 7 Integrated Mediterranean Programs , was approved in 1985. As Greece was the only fully Mediterranean state inside the Union, it was the main receiver of this new fund. Papandreou obtained his money, and the Communities followed their path without a Greek blockade. Nevertheless, the creation of this special fund afterwards became of great importance in the European Union, because it introduced, on behalf of the Union, an effort towards structural policy development shaped in 1988 with the new structural policy, the beginning of one of the 8 most important policies currently in the EU. The current budget of the European Union in the year 2012 dedicated more than 40% of its financial support to policies linked with the 9 solidarity between member states and structural funds.
6
de Gaulle. http://aei.pitt.edu/view/eusubjects/inmp.html. 8 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/prord/sf_en.htm. 9 Chapter Budget. 7
The Enlargement to Greece and the Case of Greenland
73
GREENLAND LEAVES THE COMMUNITY 1985
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Greenland joined the European Communities at the same time as Denmark in 1973 as a territory included in the Scandinavian country. Nevertheless, in a referendum in 1985, supported by 53% of its people, Greenland decided to withdraw from the organization and obtained a special status in its relation with Denmark. Previously in the national referendum of 1973, celebrated in Denmark to approve the accession of the country to the EC, a majority of the citizens living in Greenland had voted against it, a harbinger of the result of the referendum of 1985. The main reason for Greenland to leave the EC was the fishing rights included in the creation of the Common Market that allowed free access for the European fleet to the waters of all its member states, and hence to the rich waters of Greenland. Fishing was the main industry of Greenland, and its citizens thought wiser to withdraw from the Community to keep exclusiveness of access to its waters for the Greenlander fleet. After the referendum Denmark granted home rule to Greenland, which thus became the first territory to leave the European Communities. There had been some precedents, as the independence of Algeria in 1962, previously 10 legally considered a territory of France even though it was located in Africa, and hence part of the European Communities, but Greenland was the first European territory to abandon the Community, and it was the first and only one that did so via referendum, with the general agreement of its people. As Greenland retained links with Denmark, it got special status and was included in the Overseas Countries and Territories, having special agreements with the EU and its market, plus different monetary agreements based on fishing and access for the European fleet. The economic relations of Greenland and the European market are still very important, because most of the exports of Greenland, more than 90%, have their final destination in the territory of the Union, and more than 60% of their imports come from the European Union. Besides the shock of the withdrawal and the loss of fishing grounds, the decision of Greenland created a problem of citizenship, because as part of Denmark, the people of Greenland have Danish citizenship, and all the holders of the member states‟ citizenship 11 automatically obtain citizenship of the European Union. So Greenland does not belong to the European Union, but its citizens are European Union citizens. Also, in the negotiations between the European Union and Greenland, there is a strange situation because Denmark is on both sides of the table, as a member of the Union on one side and on the other side representing Greenland, as Denmark is in charge of the foreign policy of 12 this territory. The future of Greenland seems closer to the European Union currently because global warming has opened the possibility of exploiting the vast resources of the Arctic. Greenland alone does not have the capacity for developing an industry to access these resources and their enormous financial benefits, so it might rejoin the European Union in order to get help in this task. The Union would be interested in accessing these resources to increase the independence of Europe in energy and raw resources, besides the economic benefits derivate 10
Here is important the difference between colonies and overseas territories. Created later in 1986 with the Treaty of the Single European Act. 12 http://fpc.org.uk/articles/345. 11
74
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
from these new possibilities. The rejoining seems far in the future, but the possible accession of Iceland to the European Union could accelerate the process. It is likely that Greenland will sign an agreement to get closer to the EU in the short or middle term, as an intermediate step for reintegration into the European area.
nc . ,I
Chapter 11
he rs
THE ACCESSION OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
Both countries are located in the Southwest of Europe and have historically had an important relationship with Europe since prehistoric times and became important powers during the time of the great discoveries of the Americas, the circumnavigation of Africa, and 1 the relations between Europe and Asia. The creation of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, located in different continents, meant the beginning of European influence in world affairs. Also these Empires were important in Europe, as the Spanish Empire was united with the German Empire and had possessions all over the Mediterranean, Italy, Benelux, and France. This relation was important in cultural matters, as the University of Salamanca and its important school had great influence on European culture;s world renown writers as Cervantes and his novel Don Quixote, painters as Velazquez, and other important cultural personalities also gave this Empire importance. But the European importance of both countries decreased step by step as their Empires declined, becoming in political terms minor powers in Europe and somehow isolated from the rest of the continent. Nevertheless they were still important in Europe in cultural terms, and were involved in all the European cultural movements. Both countries looked inwards, increasingly separating themselves from the center of Europe, but their cultural elites were still strongly linked with Europe, by 2 outstanding figures such as Picasso, Dali, or Ortega Gasset. The political elites were also linked with Europe, and Europe was taken as an example of modernity, as an example by which to reform these countries and increase their level of development. The XX century meant the creation of dictatorships in Spain and Portugal under the powers of Francisco Franco Bahamonte and Antonio de Oliveira Salazar and their exclusion from the democratic states of Western Europe, being even more isolated from the European states as they were seen as the last fascist regimes of the continent. But the Cold War and the possibility of communist regimes in both countries made the USA support these countries and incorporate them into the Western area, even when the political ties with other European partners were weak.
1 2
The Portuguese Empire, 1415-1808: A World on the Move (Carcaner Press Limited) A. J. R. Russell-Wood. 1998. A Concise History of Spain (Cambridge Concise Histories), William D. Phillips Jr, Carla Rahn Phillips. 2010.
76
David Ramiro Troitino
PREVIOUS RELATIONS WITH EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
THE NEGOTIATIONS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Portugal was interested in having relations with other European states in order to integrate into the international arena and secure the domestic situation with international support, but it could not join the European Communities because of its political system. On the other hand, its economy was linked with the United Kingdom, a traditional ally, so the relations with this country were more important. As the British proposed a new European organization based on economics without any political implication, the Portuguese government involved the country in the negotiations, and Portugal became a founding 3 member of the European Free Trade Association. When the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark left the organization to join the European Communities, the rest of the member states of the EFTA signed bilateral free trade agreements with the EEC during the 1970s. Then the relationship of Portugal and the EEC was based in these economic agreements. It could not go further until Portugal became a democratic state. The case of Spain is more complicated; because its economic ties with the members of the EFTA were not as strong, it did not apply for membership; the country was somehow isolated from Europe because its political relations with the member states of the EEC were generally bad. After the Spanish civil war, many intellectuals left the country, becoming a strong opposition abroad to the Spanish regime, especially in Europe, and some of them 4 became important in the development of European integration, as Salvador de Madariaga , founder of the College of Europe, the best institution of learning of European Integration. Other important personalities, more than 100, were present at the European meeting in Munich in 1962 representing Spain, though without any official representation from Spain. The conclusions of this European Congress included a reference to the Spanish government, pointing out the necessity for the country to become a democracy in order to integrate into Europe. Franco rejected these proposals, and the relations between Spain and the EEC became even more problematic. Nevertheless, there were economic relations between both areas, and half of Spanish exports had the EEC as its destination. A preferential agreement was signed in 1970, and established a preferential system with the objective of eliminating the 5 barriers to commercial exchanges between Spain and the Community. Spain and Portugal became democratic after the death of Franco in 1975 and the collapse of the Portuguese regime in 1974. Soon afterwards, both applied for membership in the European Communities. There was identification in both countries of Europe and freedom, and the accession became an obsession in order to secure the new democracies. The negotiations started soon, but the way was long and full of obstacles, and the enlargement finally became a reality in 1986, after almost 8 years of negotiations.
The EEC Communities linked both countries in the enlargement process, so the accession was dependent on an agreement between Spain and Portugal. In the case of Portugal, there 3
http://www.efta.int/about-efta/history.aspx. http://www.madariaga.org/about-us/origins/salvador-de-madariaga. 5 http://webcas.cas.suffolk.edu/royo/eu_spain_portugal.pdf. 4
The Accession of Spain and Portugal
77
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
were no major problems, because of its small size and previous economic ties with the Communities, but the case of Spain was much more complicated because of its magnitude. The negotiations were conducted by different chapters, mainly agriculture, industry, and fishery. Agriculture was a delicate issue because it was the main Spanish economic activity, and it could distort the already problematic CAP inside the Communities and at the same time compete with French production. The CAP was by far the policy of the European Communities with the biggest share in the European budget, and the inclusion of an important country in terms of agriculture could have meant a huge increase in the global expenditure to keep the level of payments received by all the European farmers. So it was important to reform the sector in Spain before the accession to adapt it to European needs. On the other hand, the French farmers of the south of the country, focusing on Mediterranean production, were afraid of Spanish cheap production and its consequences in terms of market share. The Spanish could produce more cheaply with better quality, and because of its weather condition, the harvest was ready before that in France, reaching the market before its French competitors. And logically there was important unrest between French and Spanish farmers. They even blocked the borders between France and Spain to prevent Spanish agricultural production from reaching the European Market. Violence was common with trucks burnt and destroyed and physical attacks commonly spread, while the French police did not stop it. This problem lasted for many years, even with Spain already inside the European Communities, and the High Court of Justice of the EU banned these actions and blamed them on the French state because of the inactivity of its police. Nevertheless, after long discussions, the problem was solved with the inclusion of Stand Still clauses and the gradual access of Spanish products to the European market. Industry was a problem because the regime of Franco had promoted a big industrial sector in Spain, being an important country in this field, but the industry was obsolete and was mainly supported by state subsidies, something against European legislation. It was clear that the Spanish could not compete with other member states in a free market and its industry should be partially dismantled, but the problem was the timing. Spain wanted to join the Communities quickly in order to get financial support from the European Communities for reforming its industrial sector, but the member states thought that the cost would be too high. The negotiations were difficult, and finally an agreement was reached and Spain undertook the reform prior to the accession with some European support complemented it with national financing. The EEC was paying before the enlargement to save money after the accession. The Spanish government used the EEC requirements for reform in this field to justify the needed reform in the eyes of its citizens and avoid social conflict. This was a constant in many other fields of Spanish society, anxious for joining the European Communities. The state needed to reform many fields of the Spanish economy, essential reforms that should have been undertake anyway, but were presented to the citizens as a petition of the EEC. As there was high support for the enlargement among Spanish citizens, the social protests were minimal under the circumstances of the reform, with many State companies closed and with high unemployment. The reforms were basic for Spanish economic competitiveness and were accepted as a minor price for joining the European Communities. This situation expanded to other fields, as social and political; as an example, the legalization of the Spanish Communist party, the long term enemy of Spain during 40
78
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
years of a pseudo fascist regime, was partly presented as a necessity to be a fully democratic country in order to join the European Communities. Fishery was another important field in the negotiations because of the size of the Spanish fleet, the biggest in Europe, and one of the most important in the world. The situation of fishing was difficult after having increased national sovereignty waters all over the world in the 1960s. The Spanish fleet traditionally fished in international areas that suddenly became national, with the consequent restrictions and conflicts. Accepting Spain into the European Communities also meant accepting the Spanish fleet in Communitarian waters. There were other problems, such as environment, because the fishing techniques of the Spanish were considered too aggressive for the sea environment. And there were market reasons, because the preparation and competitiveness of the Spanish fleet was higher than that of the European fleet. The Spanish fish market accounted for more than half of the Communitarian market, more than half of the fish eaten in Western Europe was consumed in Spain. So other European states were interested in the Spanish market as a source for developing their own fishing industry. Also, as it was Communitarian policy, the EEC should represent the interest of its member states all over the world, and the Spanish fleet was spread around the globe. The main problems were between Spain and France, and Spain and the United Kingdom. The first conflict was linked to the sovereignty of the waters of the Bay of Biscay, where the Spanish did not respect the national waters of France, and the French naval forces had problems reinforcing its position. There were even some sad events when the French shot at Spanish fishing boats from a helicopter, and some sailors died. The UK wanted to keep the Spanish fleet outside of its waters to protect its national industry, already in a problematic situation after losing the fishing grounds of the North Sea, previously international and then under the sovereignty of Iceland. Finally, again, Stand Still clauses were accepted restricting the free access of the Spanish fleet to the Communitarian waters for long periods of time, but, it was ineffective because once inside the Community, once inside the Common Market, the Spanish companies just established themselves on, for example, British soil, using the freedoms of the market to create British companies with Spanish boats and Spanish sailors and selling their catches in Spain, avoiding the Stand Still clauses and getting free access to Communitarian waters. The Treaty of the enlargement was finally signed, and it was the most complicated treaty of enlargement in the history of European integration because of its large number of clauses, provisions, and exceptions. But it meant the incorporation of Spain and Portugal into the Communities. The benefits for Spain and Portugal were numerous, such as political support to their new democracies against any internal attempt to reverse the situation, as had happened in Spain with the military coup lead by Tejero, the modernization of the economic and social structures of both countries, and economic benefits from the European policies. Spain and Portugal have been net receivers of European funds until the present. In 2011 there was a difference between the Spanish payments to the EU and the money obtained by Spain 6 from the European Union of around 2,000 million euro. Most of the funds reached these countries via the CAP and the Structural Funds, heirs of the Mediterranean Fund created by the lobby of Papandreou. Another important industry of both countries, tourism, was highly benefited by the enlargement. The numbers of tourists grew year after year because of membership in the European Communities, with all the legal and social securities it includes 6
http://javiersevillano.es/BdEBalanceCEE.htm.
The Accession of Spain and Portugal
79
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
as being part of the same political and economic block. Just Spain during 2010 received 52.6 7 million of international tourists, mostly from the European Union. On the other hand, the European Communities obtained benefits from the enlargement as well, such as free access to the Spanish and Portuguese markets when other European companies were more competitive than the Iberians, with the consequent economic benefits, plus more international influence because of the Iberian international connections, especially with the Americas. The enlargement also reinvigorated the European dream, because both states were, and still are, big supporters of European integration and always back new treaties, 8 new policies and deeper integration in the European building process.
7 8
http://www.mityc.es/es-ES/GabinetePrensa/NotasPrensa/2011/Paginas/npfronturdic240111.aspx. David Ramiro Troitino Thesis… .
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THATCHER AND THE EU
,I
Chapter 12
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
Margaret Thatcher has been one of the most influential politicians in the European building process. Her opinions are still today supported by many people in the current crisis of the European common currency, and her participation in issues such as the Single European Act or the solution of the British question influence still the lives of European citizens. The reason to include a chapter about her and the European Union is not just to explain her attitude towards Europe and the EU, already well known, but to explain the context surrounding her decisions, and specially to explain the consequences of her actions and ideas in the current European Union. Thatcher is still a symbol for euro skeptics, a defender of national sovereignty and the independence of the member States of the European Union from the European institutions. Her basic idea was related to popular loyalty and the transfer of sovereignty from the national to the European level, a utopia according to Thatcher that could endanger European societies, liberties, and way of life. She thought that centuries of history had made the national states the natural recipient of popular loyalty, and hence the natural defender of people‟s liberties, and it would be unnatural to transfer that loyalty to an artificial upper level created in the European Communities by civil servants and irresponsible dreamers, a clear attack on federalism and neo-functionalism in their roles in European integration, and supporting Intergovernmentalism as the only responsible way to build a lasting Europe. She had a general approach similar to that of Charles de Gaulle to European construction, and Thatcher, as the French president also, was involved in Europe, and did not have the United Kingdom retreat from the European Communities. Both leaders were conscious of the benefits for their countries of membership in the EC. So neither of them wanted to destroy the European building process; they just wanted to redirect its path from a supranational movement to national cooperation and hence to control it. .
FACTS ABOUT THATCHER
Margaret Thatcher was born in October 1925 at Grantham, a small town in eastern England. Her childhood, lived in a small and religious community, could explain her conservative approach. During these years United Kingdom was still one of the major world powers, with colonies all over the world; by 1922 the British Empire held sway over a
82
David Ramiro Troitino
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
population of about 458 million people, one quarter of the world‟s population; also, more than 38 countries were included in the British Empire. Taking into consideration that during her childhood her country was the biggest in the world, it is easier to understand her pride and nationalistic approach. During the Second World War Thatcher studied chemistry at Oxford, where she became president of the student Conservative Association, linking her life for always with this political party. In the „50s she ran unsuccessfully for Parliament twice and finally in 1959 was elected. She was given a junior office in the administration of Harold Macmillan between 1961 and 1964. The next conservative government lead by Edward Heath in 1970 gave her a more important position, Education Secretary, and she obtained cabinet rank. Edward Heath and the conservatives were defeated in the elections of 1974, and Thatcher, a year later, became the leader of the conservative party. She was the first woman ever to lead a Western European political party in a major State. Some people thought of her just as a temporal substitute, a bridge towards a new leader, but she reinforced her position during the following years and won the next parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom, becoming the first woman Prime Minister of the UK. Her first term, 1979-1983, was strongly influenced by the economic crisis and its solution in the UK. The Falklands War was another main point of hers first term, winning her the respect of many Britons. The second term, 1983-1987, was influenced by a huge strike by the British Trade Unions, who were defeated, reinforcing Thatcher‟s economic reforms and determination. Many reforms were done during this time trying to achieve a more privatized economy and reducing the role of the state in the British economy. Thatcher sold state assets during this period; the privatization was looking for a more liberal economic system and set a precedent that many other countries of the world were to follow. The Irish question and the IRA were also important in the domestic agenda. Even Thatcher herself suffered a terrorist attack in October 1984. Her third term, 1987-1990, meant more reforms, especially in education, taxation, and the health system. The end of the Cold War was another milestone during these years of Thatcher as British Prime Minister. Her tough behavior, too strong personal leadership, and her ideas about Europe led to an internal revolt in the conservative party, with the result of substituting John Major for Thatcher in November 1990. After her Premiership she was a member of Parliament and made important interventions about Bosnia and about Maastricht, retiring officially from public life in 2002.
N
ov
a
MARGARET THATCHER AND EUROPE
The problematic relationship of United Kingdom with the European Communities was at its height in the „70s, when Labor‟s general election manifestos of October 1974 committed the Labor Party to allow the British citizens the opportunity to decide whether Britain should stay in the Common Market on renegotiated terms, or leave it entirely. After the elections, the new government led by the Labor party called for a referendum in 1975 to ask the Britons
83
Thatcher and the EU
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
about membership in the European Communities. The government campaigned supporting the country‟s remaining in the EC, and Margaret Thatcher, as new leader of the Conservative party, also supported the membership of the UK in the European Communities. The result of the referendum showed that 67% of voters supported the UK‟s remaining in the European Communities. The renegotiation of the terms of the membership was mainly linked with the CAP and British contributions to the European budget, higher than that of other member states in relative terms. Harold Wilson, the Prime Minister, obtained some minor reductions in the British contribution, but the change was minimal and the problem was still there. As Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in the following elections, she wanted to change this situation, arguing that the UK was spending too much money in the EC and getting so little back, so she put this issue at the top of the Council agenda. Many of those meetings, where the heads of the member states‟ governments met, faced difficult times because of the stubborn behavior of Thatcher, and her personal confrontation with Helmut Kohl and Mitterrand, leaders of Germany and France respectively. The president of the Council, who was the president or Prime Minister of the State that held the rotating presidency of the European Communities, made up the agenda of the meetings, the issues that were going to be discussed, and the British problem was often not included. Thatcher still spoke about it anyway, not respecting the established protocol. She even threatened to withdraw her country from the European Communities if the situation was not solved. As an example of these difficulties, we see the following words of Helmut Kohl: "The British prime minister, who had completely isolated herself with her position, temporarily lost her nerves and completely lost her temper with me. She argued that Germany had to support Britain because British troops were stationed here,”1 After some years of struggling, she obtained the reform, thanks to her determination and her commitment with the Communities and the future Single European Act. The system was based on a reduction of British net contribution to the European Communities of 2/3. It meant that UK still paid more than it obtained, nowadays the British net contribution after the reduction is around 5.5 billion euro. The problem of this agreement was the reduction of the European budget, because the EC were going to lose the money sent back to the UK. The discussions were focused in the negative of the German government, one of the main net contributors to the EU finances, to increase its contributions. Finally an agreement was reached, and all the member states of the EU each year paid the British rebate, in a complicated system that makes France the biggest contributor to the rebate, because France is also the biggest beneficiary of the CAP. This whole solution was the work of Margaret Thatcher, and even nowadays the system is still working. The agreement can be changed only by unanimity, and the British are not willing to do so. The problem currently is that the CAP is just 40% of the European budget, when before represented 80%. Also, the previous undeveloped British farming sector has increased and modernized, obtaining important incomes from the CAP, reducing the negative effects of this policy on the British economy in terms of financial discrimination inside the European Union, and increasing the European contributions to the UK. Also the differences of the British economy with the rest of the member states have been reduced as after the last enlargement and British economic growth, the UK is no longer a relatively poor country inside the Union. The UK was the third poorest member of the Community of 10 in terms of 1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4403002.stm.
84
David Ramiro Troitino
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
average income, but belongs nowadays to the top states of the Union. The previous president of France, Chirac, tried to adapt the British rebate to the current situation, but the British Premier, Tony Blair, rejected the reform under the unanimity required for any change.
a
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036802.stm.
The Treaty signed in 1986 was the first profound and wide-ranging constitutional reform of the European integration process since the 1950s. The SEA introduced measures aimed at achieving an internal market plus institutional changes related to these, such as a generalization of qualified majority voting and a cooperation procedure involving the European Parliament. It also provided a legal form for European Political Cooperation. Margaret Thatcher‟s idea was to have a real single market working in the European Communities, because there were still many barriers to free trade between states, but she did
ov
N
THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT
85
Thatcher and the EU
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
not think about the consequences or her action in terms of European integration, because the increased integration of the European market led finally to the common currency, and to other, minor, side effects, as the expansion of the qualified majority system and more power to the EU institutions. These reforms are a consequence of the SEA and increased European integration towards the procurement of a European state. Thatcher‟s agreement to these changes is surprising, even if she did obtain the British rebate, a minor compensation for the loss of sovereignty of the British Parliament, the legitimate source of power for her. A miscalculation of the cost meant by this treaty, or an over-calculation of her own power and ideas could explain this big mistake of Thatcher‟s betraying her own political beliefs. She also made an identification of her position with the British position, and subsequent premiers followed other positions, not using the veto possibilities that for sure Thatcher would have used, as we can see with her complaints as member of the British parliament about the Treaty of Maastricht and the Common Currency, reforms unthinkable without the Single European Act. Nevertheless, still today there are members of the British Parliament following the nationalistic approach of Thatcher in terms of Europe, and the UK‟s adopting the Common Currency is not clear; a step that can speed up after the current economic crisis if the Eurozone area achieves a higher economic growth than the UK.
GERMAN REUNIFICATION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The end of the Cold War meant the possibility for German reunification, and possible problems inside the European Union because a bigger and stronger Germany would break the balance of power between the main members of the organization, France, the UK, and Germany. Margaret Thatcher had an important concern related to a German power renaissance and its domination over Europe, and she opposed reunification.2 Her ally in this issue was Mitterrand, the president of France, formerly a declared enemy of Thatcher. Helmut Kohl convinced the French leader of committing Germany closer to the European Communities, avoiding the problems of a strong Germany outside the EC by having the country inside it, controlled by the European institutions and the qualified majority voting system. Thatcher was alone when the United States blessed German reunification, and could not prevent it happening, losing her last major battle in office. Currently we can see that the whole approach of Thatcher was wrong, because it was based on the false premise of a repetition of the German economic miracle after WW II, and German reunification created many still unsolved problems to the German state in different fields, as economy, society, and politics. Still today the differences between West and East Germany are clear, and a real reunification will need much more time. On the other hand, the agreement between Mitterrand and Kohl of tying Germany more closely to the European Union in order to avoid a strong and independent German power has been working perfectly, facts that show the mistakes of Thatcher‟s approach to European issues.
2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4403002.stm.
86
David Ramiro Troitino
IDEAS OF MARGARET THATCHER ABOUT THE EU
nc .
The main ideas of Margaret Thatcher about the European building process have been taken completely from a speech by the British Premier at the College of Europe in Bruges, 3 Belgium, on 20 September 1988.
,I
EUROPE AND THE EU
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
Margaret Thatcher thought that Europe was much more than the European Union, and complained about the identification of both. She complained about the use of the adjective anti-European for people who did not support European Integration following the model of the European Union, mainly because Europe was a wider concept, and because other kinds of Europe were also possible. According to Thatcher, Europe is its history, religion, culture, language, and politics. History: Because Europeans have had similar historical development, influencing each other, similar goals, similar threats, growing together, spreading the ideas of Europe all over the world. Religion: Because of the Christian roots of European society, because once Europe was united by a religious link which transfers to Europe the ancient wisdom of Greece and Rome, and especially because the recognition of Christianity of the unique and spiritual nature of the individual. On the other hand, this affirmation is polemic in the frame of the rejected European Constitution and the intention of some countries, especially Poland, to include in the preamble of it a reference to the Christian roots of Europe, and the supporters of secularism in Europe, plus the possible enlargement of the EU to Muslim countries like Turkey. The debate is not about the Christian roots of Europe, because it is a historical fact, but about its influence nowadays in politics. Culture: Thatcher speaks about European cultural movements that spread similar ideas and similar tastes all over the continent. It is clear that this idea of a European culture is not homogeneous, but it is real. Language: Even though Europe has many different languages, most of them come from the same family, the Indo-European, with roots in Anatolia or Central Asia, divided into five main groups: Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Romance, and Slavonic, plus other languages like Finno-Ugrian, Maltese, and Basque that belong to other families. Nevertheless, in this diversity, we find European influences that show our common roots, like Latin, once a common language for millions of people living in the Roman Empire, and still nowadays many European languages, such as French, Spanish, Italian, and others show the important influence of this language. Politics: The French Revolution, the development of the national states, the concept of democracy, are mainly European ideas not developed just in one country, but all over the continent. Napoleon spread the ideas of the French Revolution all over Europe with his wars, and even when he lost against an alliance of European powers, he won the fight of the ideas, changing Europe for always. The rise of the national state is a European creation, and with the 3
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107332.
87
Thatcher and the EU
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
expansion of Europe all over the world this idea also was adopted by other states, and even the concept of state itself is European. Many countries in Europe contributed to the creation of all these political concepts and structures that nowadays seem universal for us. According to Thatcher, the idea of Europe rest in these five main pillars, much wider than the concept of the European Union and its European building project, and being participant in these pillars means that you are part of Europe, no matter whether you support the EU or are against it. To prove it, she spoke about the links of the UK and the rest of Europe: that Celts, Saxons, and Danes, the ancestors of the current British came from Europe, as did also the Normans, the religion, the rule of law, etc. Also she thought that the commitment of the UK to Europe was also clear, with the numerous wars where Britain fought in Europe. Thatcher emphasized the role played the by United Kingdom to protect freedom in Europe against different powers that tried to conquer the continent and unite it under one sole power. Napoleon and his wars in Europe, the First World War, and the Second World War are examples of her idea. These wars devastated Europe and were won thanks to, among other factors, the help and the sacrifice of the British. Of course Margaret Thatcher, as the British nationalist she was, thought about the role of the UK as a determinate factor, but no one can deny the involvement of the UK in the European affairs as a major actor. This idea of Thatcher about the usurpation of the concept of Europe by the European Union is very clear, and was used to defend herself from the attacks by integration supporters to her policies towards the EU. But it also shows the manipulation by the European Union supporters, calling the followers of other ways of integration, as cooperation or just national supporters, anti-Europeans, when they are just against a specific model of integration, the European Union.
ce
THE COLD WAR, THE USA, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
The ideas of Margaret Thatcher about this topic made clear her position in the Cold War and her alignment with Ronal Reagan, president of the USA, and her intransigent position towards the USSR. The Prime Minister of the UK declared that the European Communities were one manifestation of the European identity, but were missing an important part of Europe that was behind the Iron Curtain. Thatcher made clear on numerous occasions that Europe was divided by force, as against the people who accepted the status quo of the Cold War and thought of Europe as Western Europe, as Charles de Gaulle, president of France, who, in his attempt to make France a third and independent power in the context of a battle between the USA and the Soviet Union, accepted the division of Europe as something natural in his obsession of distancing his country from the influence of the USA. Nevertheless, the influence of USA is clear in the creation of the European Communities and in their development. First of all, it was the American government and its intention to liberate West Germany from the occupation of the Allies that was the principal motor of the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, the embryo of the current European Union. The USA wanted to have a strong Germany in the context of the Cold War as it would be, in case of war, the first European battlefield against the Soviet Union; there was also the necessity to help the Germans to have economic development strong enough to block the
88
David Ramiro Troitino
is
he rs
,I
nc .
expansion of the communists in Europe.4 In order to achieve that, the USA decided to give West Germany full control of the Ruhr area, rich in coal and steel, the basic elements for producing weapons. France was against that plan, and wanted to repeat the system after WW I, international rule over the Ruhr area, but after WW II the power of France had decreased. As the intentions of the USA were clear, the French government had just one option by which to control in some way the problematic area: the creation of a European Community. Also about the USA at this time of the XX Century, it is important to remark that it was the country that held the Soviet Union in its position, keeping free France itself, as well as the rest of Western Europe. So, these historical facts, plus the traditional link between the UK and the USA, made Thatcher a strong supporter of collaboration with the Americans. She even called the Americans the Europeans of the other side of the Atlantic, even proposing some kind of Community between Europe and the USA. It would have been difficult to have a Community between both powers in terms of equality, but the ideas of Thatcher were based more on a Free Trade Area, and political cooperation based on the same cultural values.
Pu bl
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY BELONGS TO ALL ITS MEMBERS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Margaret Thatcher was against the domination of any one state over the EU, or a privileged position of any country inside the Community. The influence of France in the Communities since their foundation was clear with decisions as to the CAP and the Lomé agreements. The first, the agricultural policy, was designed for the benefit of France, where at that moment 25% of the labor was employed in the farming sector, and the state was near bankruptcy because of the payment of huge subsidies to farmers to keep the social peace of France and avoid the movement of workers from the countryside to the cities with the consequent lack of work, social unrest, and communist movements. The second was an agreement between the European Communities and the ex-colonies of its members, France being almost the only founding member state with ex-colonies. The concept was clear: to keep the influence of France in the world using the means of the European Communities because France could not afford it alone. According to Thatcher, this was inadmissible; all the members should have the same duties and the same rights, all of them should benefit from the European organization, and all of them should have the same obligations. This thought can be linked with the discussions that Thatcher had in the meetings of the European Council, especially with the representatives of France, with the intention to increase the benefits for the UK from the European Communities, to equalize them with the benefits France was getting. On this issue it is important to point out that the influence of France since the creation of the European Communities until the present day has been decreasing with each enlargement, depending nowadays completely on its bilateral cooperation with Germany. The more countries there are in the Union, the less important is the individual position of each single member.
4
It is important to remember that after WW II there were many powerful communist parties in Western Europe, especially in France and in Italy.
89
Thatcher and the EU
THE COMMUNITY IS NOT AN END IN ITSELF
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Thatcher‟s ideas of the meaning of the organization were quite clear: the European Communities could not become the objective of an intellectual concept, a tool for the creation of the European State. The European Union should be, according to her, just a practical means for Europeans to enjoy prosperity and security in a world of powerful nations and groups of nations. It shows the practical approach of Thatcher; in improving the life of the people of Europe, the Communities have a sense of being, and the way to do it is by promoting individual initiative and enterprise, in other words, encouraging private action and reducing the role of the state to a supervisor of the system. The other two pillars of her conception of development were trade and industry. Thatcher thought that progress in Europe could be achieved just by promoting the economy to increase the wealth of Europeans. The creation of any political entity should not be the main aim in the European building process, and Europe had to focus on providing Europeans enough and fair chances to develop their private initiative. On the other hand, the issue of European security supported by Thatcher, a clear bet on a European Defense Community, but not of the kind of the „50s when France proposed a Security Defense Community among the members of the European Communities with common institutions, but finally was rejected by its own French Parliament. Thatcher believed more in a close cooperation between European states and the USA, where no common independent institutions could be found, and where the decision making would be unanimity or consensus in a way to protect both Europe from external threats and the national sovereignty from international institutions. Also, security should be a way to keep Europe independent from rising powers like China, India, or Russia, a way to have a say in the international world, and enough muscle to back European decisions.
NATIONAL POWER AGAINST SUPRANATIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
Margaret Thatcher assured that there were not substitutes for national states, and hence, Europe should be built on a union of European states, and not on the concentration of power in the European institutions. This means a clear attack on other theories of integration, mainly Federalism and Neo-Functionalism and a support of intergovernmental cooperation. The three models of integration have the same targets, avoiding wars in Europe and creating a peaceful and harmonious social system, but they differ in their way to do it. Federalism and NeoFunctionalism are based on the creation of European institutions that will outweigh national states, because the latter have proven ineffective in keeping peace and have not been able to create an international structure to keep away wars and miseries, because the essence of nationhood is building on the differences between people, emphasizing the divergence instead the common needs of people. In order to achieve a society where people can live together peacefully it is necessary to transfer the loyalty of the people of Europe from the national level to the European level. Margaret Thatcher, as de Gaulle did before her, attacked both theories of integration and actively supported the third option, Intergovernmentalism. This theory is based on agreements between states, good faith between them, common institutions as common forums, and
90
David Ramiro Troitino
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
always agreements and consensus, even unanimity. It means that there is not a voting system, there are just agreements, or, in case there is any voting system, unanimity would be required. One of her main objections to Federalism and Neo-Functionalism was based on the national state because she thought it was the only institution that really had the loyalty of the people and hence the only one keeping values as important as freedom. Thatcher also thought that a concentration of power in some kind of supranational institutions would be highly damaging and could jeopardize the objectives of the European process because the real power of European integration was the sum of the strong points of all the nationalities that took part in the process. As each nation in Europe had its own traditions, customs, and identity, it would be a mistake to build Europe on a European identity that did not exist instead of on something real, as are the nations, according to Thatcher. She was, as well, against the ideas of the fathers of Europe, and mainly the idea of the USA as a model of integration, because for her the history of the United States was different, because the USA was built on emigrants from Europe that were escaping intolerance and looking for the creation of a new society. This purpose helped to create a new unity and pride in being American, a process never developed in Europe, where the unity and pride are still united with the national state. Thatcher thought that some kind of integration was needed in Europe in order to keep some predominance in world affairs, and she wanted Europeans working in the same direction, but through national pride in each country and parliamentary powers of the states, not through the European Parliament or other European institutions. This raises the questions of the good faith of the states and their natural egoism in order to reach a solution of their own problems, as we have seen nowadays when some important countries of the EU are trying to face the world crisis with a nationalist approach, not respecting their compromise with the European Union, as the French government promoting a plan to help their car industry with the condition that the companies cannot reduce the workers on French soil, thus affecting other countries of the Union, such as the Czech Republic or Slovakia. Nevertheless, the title of the speech Margaret Thatcher gave at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium, has the illuminating title of A Family of Nations, expressing all her ideas about European integration.
Sc i
WEAK BUREAUCRACY
N
ov
a
Another point of her criticism against Federalism and especially against NeoFunctionalism was the role of civil servants. The idea of Margaret Thatcher about any kind of government, national or international, was based in supervisory powers. The state was merely a supervisor of the social and economic systems; it established the rules and looked after the social and economic agents. The state provided just the legal and social framework whereby the society could develop by itself; the state provided the structure whereby the people could develop and grow, the state was just for giving the citizens the same chances to succeed, and after that, it was a matter related to individual capacity to utilize these chances. So, the state provided security to private initiative. This idea of society is similar to the USA model, but not exactly the same, because Thatcher took power from minor institutions, as counties or city halls, to increase the weight of the British central government, something unthinkable in the USA, where the powers of the federal government and the states are more defined.
91
Thatcher and the EU
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Nevertheless, the vision of Thatcher was very different from the model of the member states of the European Communities in the „80s, especially France and Germany, where the conception of the state was very different, not as a supervisory power, but as a proper agent of the system. The State tried to provide equality, not the same chances, which meant a bigger state, more technocracy and bureaucracy, more enrollment in the system, reducing the role of private initiative and regulation of the market by itself, increasing the role of the state. The institutions of the European Communities where small in the first Community, the ECSC, but afterwards the implementation of new treaties and the inclusion of more and more policies on the European level, made the European institutions grow bigger. At the moment 5 the European Commission counts a staff of 33,000 people. In reality this is not a huge number if we compare it with the number of civil servants in the member states, as in France, where there are around 2 million, as there are in Germany. Civil servants nowadays in the United Kingdom, more than half a million, are considerably fewerthan in Germany and France, but more than in the EU. If we consider that the EU is dealing on the European level, much wider than the national level, the number of civil servants working in the European institutions does not look excessive. Nevertheless, as Margaret Thatcher was decreasing the role of the regional institutions of UK, and increasing the power of the central state, she did not like the idea of growing numbers in the European institutions because her domestic policies were boycotted on the European level. Her dislike of the European institutions was also related with her idea of the central role of the national states in the European Building process. It made no sense to give power to a European technocracy that was not elected by the European people, that did not respect national positions, and that could become an alien power to the people of Europe, forcing and leading them towards the creation of an artificial political structure. So, according to Margaret Thatcher, the institutions of the European Union should be minimal, enough to assure that the common system is working, but never a substitute of the national institutions.
en
POLICIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
N
ov
a
Sc i
Margaret Thatcher had a clear idea about which policies should be European and which ones national. The main reason for having a European policy should be the benefit of the states, and hence, the benefit of the people of Europe represented by the states. Thatcher thought that any policy that was ineffective or benefiting only a non-representative portion of European states should be at the national level. She wanted a reform in the existing policies of the European Communities, mainly the Common Agricultural Policy, that was spending most of the money of the European Union budget, transferring the money just to some countries, and of course, not to the United Kingdom. The situation was clear for her: if this policy cost the European Union a great deal of money, and the United Kingdom was an important contributor to the finances of the European organization, and the British did not get any benefit from it, this policy was wrong. According to this idea, a reform was needed inside the EU and its policies, reducing the policies included in the area of influence of the Communities, and giving back the sovereignty on these policies to the member states. Her intentions were obvious and simple: the European Union should not move towards the
5
See chapter European Commission.
92
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
creation of a supranational state, taking more and more policies from the member states as it was clear that these were not effectively managed on the European level. The European power should be just a structure to deal with the commonweal, in the policies where common agreement between governments would provide a benefit for all of them, in other words, a pragmatic union, never political.
,I
EUROPEAN MARKET
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
Margaret Thatcher wanted the European Communities to encourage enterprise to improve the economic situation of its members. For doing so, the best option for her was giving power to the market; it could develop itself in a more effective way than if it were to be highly regulated by political institutions. Her ideas about the market changed radically with the last economic crisis that Europe is still enduring. Nevertheless, from the time of Thatcher‟s governance until the present, her proposal for the economy has been the most popular and also important, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the lack of alternatives to the extreme capitalism of our days. Her main proposal for the European Union was the creation of a real interior market in Europe, to improve the effectiveness of the Common Market approved by the Treaty of Rome, that in reality was just a free trade area in industrial production and a highly regulated market in agricultural production. Thatcher wanted free enterprise within a framework of European law, a much better way, according to her, to speed up the growth of the European economy. Thatcher‟s aim was clear: deregulate and remove the barriers to trade, most of them national. The barriers built up by the member states of the European Communities in order to protect the national economical agents were numerous and were a brake to the economic development of Europe and its members. Thatcher was one of the promoters of a new treaty, the Single European Act, thinking that it would lead to a minimum legal agenda to improve economic integration and dismiss the political influence of the European institutions. It was a great miscalculation on the part of Thatcher, because what she thought would be mainly economic became eventually highly political. The Single Market approved in the Single European Act in 1986 meant, because almost all economic fields were then under the supervision of the European institutions, great powers to the European institutions, that, instead of deregulating and removing the barriers to trade, as Thatcher had thought, engendered deeper regulation of the Market to end the national distortions to it. Moreover, the Single European Act meant bigger responsibilities for the European Commission, something translated in a huge increase of civil servants working for the organization, something against the will and beliefs of Thatcher. The last consequence of the Single European Act and the creation of the Single Market has been the adoption of the Common Currency by most of the members of the European market. Thatcher in her great miscalculation did not pay attention to the consequences of her actions and the power of European integration. The Single Market was created to eliminate barriers on trade between the member states of the European Communities, the same reasoning can be applied to the creation of the Common Currency, the Euro: to eliminate any distortion in the market produced by the exchange rate of the European currencies, or the
93
Thatcher and the EU
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
uncertainty of the future rate of the currencies, something that reduces the trade between holders of different currencies, among other reasons. The British premier, after leaving office, became a bitter enemy of the Euro and the inclusion of the British currency, the Pound, in the European Common Currency. Another consequence of the Common Currency, hated by Thatcher but a consequence of her polices, is the proclaimed end of the economic integration in Europe and the beginning of political integration, another nightmare for Thatcher. The creation of the Euro meant a Common Currency for most of the members of the European Union, but the European market is not fully integrated, in some sense the market is still divided into national markets, with some economies more integrated, and others much less so. This means a great danger of an asymmetrical crisis, as Europe is facing currently, a crisis that could affect just a part of the market, but not spread to all the members of the market. In that case the European Central Bank establishes a monetary policy for the majority of the system, not helping the affected economies, because doing so could damage the rest of the European economies. The problem is the loss of sovereignty in the monetary field of the member states of the euro zone, reducing the number of tools to be used in case of a national crisis. The next logical step in the European building process will be the creation of some kind of European economic government, a step closer to a European state. It is clear that Thatcher did not want that when she supported the Single Market, or that the Euro and a possible European federal government is not only a consequence of the Single Market, but the SEA can be considered a basic and necessary step in order to achieve European political integration.
EUROPEAN DEFENSE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Margaret Thatcher thought that the European Communities should focus on two main points, economy and security. The UK has one of the main armies of Europe, and its role in a future European Union army would be predominant. Margaret Thatcher, a great supporter of a close alliance with the USA, also thought of the idea of the European Army, but controlled, of course, by the national states; for her it would have been unthinkable that someone in Brussels could send British soldiers to fight, and maybe to die, in an external war. She proposed to develop the army through the Brussels Treaty, signed in 1948 between the Benelux countries, France, and the UK as an expansion of the Treaty of Dunkirk signed the previous year between France and the UK. Originally this was a defense Treaty against possible aggression by Germany, but as the Cold War intensified, it became an instrument against Communist expansion. The parties of the Treaty decided to create the Western Union Defense Organization. Its main institutions were a Committee at Prime Ministerial level, and a WU Combined Chiefs of Staff committee, including all the national chiefs of staff, which would direct the operative organization; clearly an inter-governmental organization where collaboration substituted for integration, as Thatcher liked. In 1954 other countries, West Germany and Italy, joined the organization that was renamed the Western European Union. Its main institutions were a council and an Assembly. The most powerful institution and leader of the organization was the Council of Ministers, assisted by a Permanent Representatives Council on the ambassadorial level. Again, we can see that no supranational institutions were created, and the main role was
94
David Ramiro Troitino
is
he rs
,I
nc .
played by the states. Social and cultural aspects of the Brussels Treaty were handed to the Council of Europe to avoid duplication of responsibilities within Europe. The Assembly was just an advisory organ, without any real power. This organization was fully acceptable to Margaret Thatcher and her ideas, because developing a European army through the Western European Union and not through the European Communities would prevent any control by any supranational body, such as the European Commission, and would keep all this process under the supervision of the national states, plus resolving the problem created by some members of the EU that were neutral and did not desire to develop any defense policy. The difference between Thatcher and other supporters of the European Army is the relation with NATO and the USA; Thatcher imagined WEU as a complement to NATO, and never as a tool against the predominance of the USA in the world. Nevertheless, the idea of Thatcher is still alive, and the WEU is getting more attention from some states of Europe as the best way to develop the European Army and the common defense.
Pu bl
RELATIONS BETWEEN EUROPE AND THE USA
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Thatcher was a supporter of a close alliance between both sides of the Atlantic, between the Europeans of Europe and the Europeans of the other side of the Atlantic. For her, one of the most important issues in the political agenda of the European Communities was keeping the traditional ties between the USA and Europe. She clearly disliked the idea of building Europe against the power of America in a futile attempt to become the next world power. Margaret Thatcher was a loyal ally of Ronald Reagan, and supported fully his approach against the Soviet Union, his far from mild positions. She was thankful for the effort of the USA in defending Europe, and thought the roots of American values were European. So, the similarities between both areas were much more numerous than were the differences. Many Europeans, especially in Western Europe, wanted to build Europe as a power balance to the USA in the world, an alternative, complaining about the unilateralism of the American government, and a unipolar world where the USA decides and Europe has no influence; France has been a champion of this vision, starting with de Gaulle until almost nowadays, with the politics developed by Chirac. Meanwhile in Central and Eastern Europe, the views about America are different and friendlier. These differences were clear in the last war in Iraq, when many countries of Western Europe, like France and Germany, were against the war, and new members of the EU and the UK supported the Americans. These differences can be explained by the fact that the new members of the EU achieved their independence thanks to the USA, because of its victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The UK, before Thatcher and after her, has had a special relationship with the USA, sharing language, cultural aspects, economic similarities, military cooperation, and a constant transfer of people and ideas between both sides of the Atlantic. It was even one of the reasons given by Charles de Gaulle to reject twice the intention of the UK of joining the European Communities. Thatcher, following with this tradition, supported the creation of a European
95
Thatcher and the EU
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
defense system, but working closely with the USA, never as an antagonist. This debate is still alive in the European Union.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT
,I
Chapter 13
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The situation of the European Communities in the „80s was difficult because of the different crisis inside the European building process. The British problem was solved 1 temporally with an agreement in Fontainebleau where the British Rebate was agreed upon. The problems with Greece also were resolved with the creation of the Mediterranean Fund thanks to the open approach of the German chancellor Kohl. But both situations, and previously the empty chair crisis, showed the necessity of a reform in the decision making of the European Communities because it was easy for one member to blackmail the rest of the partners of the Community in order to obtain whatever was wanted with the threat of unanimity. As most of the policies of the Community were decided by unanimity, just one single member state could paralyze all the activity of a growing Community. More European countries were joining the organization, as Spain and Portugal, and there were more possibilities of a collapse of the system induced by the negative behavior of any member state, no matter its population, economy, or size, just its condition as a member state of the organization, as unanimity was required for most of the decision making process. Also, the enlargement to Spain and Portugal meant a big change in the Community, and it needed to readapt to this new situation. The negotiations were very long and full of obstacles because of the complexity of the situation of both countries. As many reforms were needed in the Communities, and the previous example set by Greece showed the difficulties of new member states, there was some urgency to finish the new Treaty before the enlargement to Spain and Portugal, because it would be easier to reach an agreement between fewer member states, and mainly because then Spain and Portugal could not influence the new Treaty as they were not members of the organization, and hence would have to accept the conditions of the states already members. On the other hand, the relations between the European institutions were not peaceful, with numerous problems between the European Parliament and the Council. This was a fight about power and control over the process of integration, originally completely in the hands of the Council, or the member states. The Parliament was acting as a consulting assembly at the beginning of the integration process, but its power was growing step by step. The main power of the Parliament before the SEA was the control over the ratification budget of the Community, but this power was shared with the Council, and disputes over the limits of the 1
See chapter Thatcher.
98
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
budget and its chapters arose frequently during the years previous to the creation of this new Treaty. The confrontation between both Communitarian institutions was tough and even sometimes illegal as they took unilateral decisions against the provisions included in the Treaties. A new framework was needed in order to accommodate the wishes of the Parliament and its role in the integration of Europe. Another important problem was the Common Agricultural Policy, because it was becoming too big in terms of budget and influence inside the Community. Some changes were needed to make more effective this policy that was growing uncontrolled and using almost all the budget of the European Communities. There was a need for giving the Community a wider spectrum than an agricultural community, and hence a new treaty was essential. During the „80s there was an economic crisis all over the world that hit the European states hard. The simplest option, but not the most effective one, was to fight the crisis with national individual solutions. The European states had a nationalistic approach during the economic crisis of the „80s, trying to solve individually the effects of the crisis over their own states, instead of working together for a better European solution. This economic crisis made clear the necessity of deeper integration to avoid these kinds of problems, and tie the member states closer to each other in order to become stronger. Reform was needed and the discussions for a new Treaty were started, firstly with different proposals for reforming the organization, and later with proper negotiations between the members of the Community, and finally with the Single European Act, which started working in 1986.
PROJECT SPINELLI
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Altiero Spinelli has been an important person in the European building process because of his vision about a united Europe. This Italian, 1907-1986, was involved in politics since his early years, joining the Italian Communist party fighting against the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. He was arrested in 1927 because of his activities and spent 10 years in prison and afterwards 6 years in a confinement that he spent with 800 other political prisoners on the island of Ventotene. There he changed his political beliefs going away from communist ideas to an approach based on European federalism because of his concern about the policies of 2 Stalin. During his time on the island, he and a fellow prisoner wrote a manifesto for a Free and United Europe when the victory over the fascist powers was not still clear and Europe was fighting for its freedom. He was an active leader of the federal movement of Europe from a different position until he became one of the most influential leaders of the European Parliament. He and other federalists created a very active group inside the European Parliament called the Crocodile group after the name of the restaurant where they had their first meeting. The group became stronger and pushed for a mandate from the Parliament to draft a reform treaty. A special committee, with Spinelli as chairman, was created inside the Parliament, and in the „80s started to draft the treaty establishing the European Union, also known as the Spinelli project.
2
http://www.altierospinelli.it/altiero_spinelli/index.php.
99
The Single European Act
he rs
,I
nc .
The work proposed the creation of a European organization based on integration rather than in Intergovernmentalism, the decision making using a majority instead of unanimity. It presented a detailed plan for these reforms, with the European Parliament as the central 3 institution of the Union. The plan was approved by a vast majority in the European Parliament, and presented to the member states of the European Communities. Those soon rejected the idea, even when some national parliaments voted on it and passed it, but the majority of the member states of the Community were still not ready to take such an important step in European integration. The real value of this draft was triggering a debate to reform the European Communities that afterwards became one of the most important treaties in the European building process, the Single European Act. This and later treaties entailed some of the ideas drafted by Spinelli, who in reality did not achieve anything in his aim for the creation of the European state, but is known as a father of Europe because of his contributions in terms of ideas and his fervor towards European integration.
is
GENSCHER-COLOMBO REPORT
ce
Pu bl
The member states of the Communities asked the Foreign Affairs ministers of Germany and Italy for a draft for reforming the European Communities. Hans Dietrich Genscher was in 4 the front line of German politics from 1974 to 1992, with a break of two weeks in 1982. His 5 long term relationship with Chancellor Kohl made him a respected and powerful man in the Communities. His Italian colleague, Emilio Colombo, was an active politician, even being Prime Minister of Italy from 1970 till 1972. He also had other important public jobs in Italy, as Foreign Affairs minister. He was active in European politics, being president of the 6 European Parliament from 1977 till 1979. So, it was another case of a well-respected politician. Both men drafted a reform for the EEC emphasizing three main points:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
1. The reform of the decision making of the Communities. They proposed to make over the previous system based mainly on unanimity, towards a more flexible and easy decision making based on a qualified majority, where different states had different votes according to different measures, as size, population, economic power, etc. 2. The second pillar of their report was based on a closer union between political and economic cooperation. The European Communities were so often linked just by economy, with politics being a residual part of it. The report proposed integration in politics to accompany the economic integration. Because otherwise the economy would collapse because it was not protected by a legal and political network on a European level. 3. Finally, they included security and defense policies in the integration process. After the failure of the EDC and the EPC, it was a risky movement to include in the European integration any issue related with defense and with little support between the members of the European Communities. Even the United States, traditionally a
3
http://www.spinellisfootsteps.info/treaty/ http://www.genscher.de/11998.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*val* 5 See chapter Kohl. 6 http://www.emiliocolombo.it/ 4
100
David Ramiro Troitino supporter of deeper integration in Europe, distrusted this plan because in the context 7 of the Cold War it could mean dissension among the Allies.
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The draft was not adopted by the member states of the European Communities, but as the plan presented by Spinelli, it made clear the necessity for reform within Europe, and gave interesting ideas about the path integration should follow. Another institution, the European Commission, also presented a plan for reforming the organization. Under the direction of its new and energetic president, Jacques Delors, it presented a plan which included 279 legislative measures needed to complete the Common 8 Market. It put forward a schedule and proposed a deadline of 31 December 1992. Hence, the three major institutions of the European Communities presented their own plans for advancing in European integration. The three plans were different, but also linked on many issues. The „80s were also a time for changes in the political arena in Europe; new leaders came into office, with new ideas, willing to improve European cooperation, the three main characters being Francois Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl, and Margaret Thatcher. The French president was a socialist and brought fresh air to the relations between the European Communities and France. His ideas about the Communities were more open than the ones of his previous colleagues, opening the possibility for a new treaty. His approach towards the Community can be summarized in the following points:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
1. Rejection of any reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. During the „80s there was an extended idea of reforming this policy because of the high financial cost it has. But as France was the main beneficiary of this policy, the French Premier was against any change because it could harm the agricultural sector of France, still big and an important source of votes. 2. He was more open to increasing the multinational power of the European institutions in some fields, but as a minor negative effect. The French economy could get many benefits from an expansion of the Common Market and the Communitarian rule over it, more important at that time than the negative side effect, the loss of French autonomy. 3. He believed in the cooperation between France and Germany within the European Communities as the most effective weapon of France to increase its power in Europe and in the world. He revitalized Franco-German relations to a higher level than ever before, including the relationship between de Gaulle and Adenauer. As both states were, and are, the most powerful states in Europe, their cooperation in European affairs is needed in order to advance integration. 4. Mitterrand had some dreams about Africa, and the role of France as the senior leader in this part of the world. He included the Communitarian relations with Africa in his political agenda, using the Communities as the most effective way for France to 9 influence Africa. This policy was also developed by de Gaulle before him and by Sarkozy afterwards.
7
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/1_1_2_en.htm. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_singleact_en.htm. 9 http://www.historiasiglo20.org/europe/biografias.htm. 8
101
The Single European Act
nc .
Helmut Kohl was Prime Minister of West Germany, also a new leader for a new era, and his contribution to the European building process has been huge because of his sympathy to integration and because the power of the country he represented. His ideas about Europe were based on:
he rs
,I
1. A profound trust in the positive effects of integration. 2. A central role in the process for France and Germany. His personal relation helped to develop an obvious matter already mentioned by Churchill right after WW II. 3. His idea about Europe was closer to a federation, and it was crucial for the further 10 development of the European Communities.
Margaret Thatcher was the last of the trio who dominated European politics during the „80s. She was a conservative British politician who had a bad relationship with her counter partners, but was very active in European affairs. Her ideas about Europe can be briefly summarized in two points:
Pu bl
is
1. Deeper integration in the economic field with less control from the states. Here she thought of the Common Market as an area lowly regulated and supported it. Afterwards, when she saw the consequences of her actions and the power gained by the European institutions, she complained. 2. Less integration and more cooperation, as she believed in the role of the member states as the center of the European institutions and the main decision making 11 body.
Sc i
en
ce
The confluence of facts, in the „80s, as the economic crisis, the problems created by Greece, the enlargement to Spain and Portugal, the British rebate, the problems between the European Council and the European Parliament, the problems of the Common Agricultural Policy, the federalist approach taken by the European Parliament after the draft of Spinelli, the contribution of Genscher and Colombo, the white paper of the Commission, and the arrival of new leaders as Mitterrand, Kohl, and Thatcher, made possible the elaboration of a new treaty in the European Communities that changed the way Europe was understood before, and influenced the further development of the process, the Single European Act.
THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT 1986
N
ov
a
This Treaty meant deeper integration in Europe as a way to solve the previous problems of the organization and to fulfill the needs of the member states. It had many contributions from different places, but essentially was focused on the creation of a single market in Europe. The Common Market had been a failure in terms of integration, because there were still many obstacles for trading inside the Communitarian area. This Treaty intended to solve these problems and hence create a real common area in Europe.
10 11
Ver capitulo de Kohl. Ver capitulo de Thatcher.
102
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
The meeting of the European council in France in 1984 created a committee to discuss the different proposals drafted and recommendations to reforms for the European Communities. The committee was chaired by an Irish man, Dooge, and its conclusions were 12 the basis for the new Treaty and the creation of the European Single Market. The final report of the committee identified the main obstacles to creating a real European market, as:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
1. Technical problems: There were different pieces of legislation all over Europe that had a restrictive effect on trade. According to the national legislation of the member states, a product could be legal in one state but illegal in another state with different national legislation. The legal requirements were different, and it was big barrier for a common economic area. The solution was obvious and easy: to elaborate common legislation all over Europe. But the problem was how to do it. 2. Free movement of people: There was no cooperation in important fields as security, delinquency, or immigration in an area that wanted to abolish borders inside the Community. The creation of a common economic area also meant the free movement of products and economic agents, companies and people. Criminality also could move freely inside the area. Increased cooperation in these fields was needed before creating the common area. Borders were also a problem, because previously, with the Common Market created in the „50s, people did not have free movement and control over borders still existed. The previous common area was mainly for goods, which could pass borders without major controls, but afterwards were checked in the city of arrival. The Schengen agreement, included in the Treaty of Amsterdam, was also a consequence of this problem, because it ended permanent controls in the inner borders of the Union, with some exceptions because of security reasons. 3. A common economic area needed a common currency to increase and facilitate commercial exchanges. The problem was pointed out in the „80s as a consequence of the Single European Act and the creation of the Single Market. Afterwards, the Euro was created and most of the members of the Union shared their currency, eliminating hence another barrier to Communitarian trade. 4. A common area also needed common access to the sources of energy. There were no European webs in electricity and gas, and the markets were still national with almost no connections between the member states. As energy is a very important input in any industrial and commercial activity, the access to it should be similar in all the common area in order to get similar conditions for production. Otherwise, a cheaper or better access could mean a distortion in the market with artificial competitiveness of the companies of one state. The creation of the European webs in gas and electricity have been a priority for the European Union since the Single Market, but they are still developing, and will be one of the main challenges of the organization in the near future. 5. Fiscal Barriers. The problem of a Common Area with different tax systems was a distortion to the market. One of the four freedoms of the Single Market was the free movement of capital, but it is still not achieved fully because the money would probably go to the countries where fewer taxes are paid, as Luxembourg, with the
12
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_singleact_en.htm.
103
The Single European Act
is
he rs
,I
nc .
consequent lost for the original country. Also, the tax system is important in the market because different levels of taxes have an influence in the competitiveness of companies and their geographical location. If taxes are lower in one state and we have a common area, the companies of this state will pay less and hence they can sell their products more cheaply and succeed among consumers. On the other hand, if the economic area is common, without borders, the geographical position of companies inside this area is irrelevant, because once inside they can move their production freely in the whole area. If one state has a lower level of taxes for corporations and companies, probably the big companies will move to this country in order to save money in taxes, as the case of Ireland showed us. Also the indirect taxes, as the VAT, have a big influence on the free movements of goods, as the states have different rates. So, some kind of harmonization is still needed, but the states are afraid of losing sovereignty in this field, because it is essential for them to keep their social systems and other state policies. It will also bring the European state closer, because some kind of common institutions should be in charge of the common taxes. So, as a consequence of the Single Market, the debate on taxes in Europe started, and will be important in the future middle term in European integration.
Pu bl
The creation of a real common market and the solution of all its problems and distortions can be achieved with two different kinds of measures:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
1. Positive actions: Legislation on a European level, harmonization of the different situations and legislations all over Europe. The European Communities could launch their own legislation in the field of the Single Market after the creation of the SEA. If the member states share the same legislation, and it is above the national legislation, the restrictive effect of the national legislation on trade will disappear. If the Community or the Union launches any legislation, automatically it becomes legislation of the member states and any national legislation in conflict with the European legislation should be derogated or changed to follow the European standards. The legal activity of the European Communities after the SEA increased enormously to avoid national barriers to trade. 2. Negative actions: The European institutions can forbid actions against the spirit of the Single Market. These actions are mainly prohibitions of state actions with a restrictive effect on Communitarian trade. Normally these measures are consequence of the litigation between different parties and the judgements of the European High Court of Justice.
SINGLE MARKET
The single market is the main creation of the SEA, a European market without restrictions or discriminations between member states. The idea is very simple; previously, the member states had national markets, with common national rules, and freedom for the economic agents to act in the whole state. The European market pretended to do the same but on a European level, where the origin of the economic action inside the market would not
104
David Ramiro Troitino
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
make any difference. To create an internal market, first it was needed to define what a good is, in order to know what can be traded in the common area. According to the definition accepted in the European Communities, a good is a product valuable in money and used for trading. This definition is very wide, and includes almost everything in society. It is also the greatness of the SEA, because almost everything in Europe became Communitarian, and ever since, the influence of the European building process in the existence of European citizens is continuous. After defining a good, it was needed to clarify which goods could enjoy the internal market and move freely all over Europe. It was decided that the goods produced in a member state, the ones which suffered a big transformation in a member state, and foreign products after customs taxes, could enjoy the internal market,. The most problematic was the second category, the goods that after a big transformation inside the common area can move freely, because it could happen that while bringing some product in pieces from abroad and assembling them inside the territory of the Community, they would then enjoy the Single Market. The European Communities specified clearly that a big transformation was needed in order to avoid this kind of conflict. The next step was how to reach an internal market; the first measure, already included in the Common Market, was abolishing customs inside the Communities and having common borders for products from outside the common area. The main challenge of the SEA for the creation of the internal market was abolishing the measures of equivalent effect to customs. They could have different names and shapes, but they had a similar effect of customs over trade. Mainly they were discriminatory internal taxes that protected the national production against the competition of other European companies. The main problem here was when the products were similar but not exactly the same, and whether they competed between them or not. Finally, to reach an internal market fiscal cooperation was needed, but this last part is still under construction and will be one of the main steps in European integration in the coming years.
en
FREE CIRCULATION OF GOODS
N
ov
a
Sc i
For the free circulation of goods, some basic requirements already included in the Common market were needed, as the common customs, plus the agreements of the European Communities with the GATT and the World Trade Organization. The end of the internal barriers was more complicated because, as we have mentioned before, there were, and in some fields still are, other national barriers to trade. The negative actions here are mainly prohibition of customs and monetary barriers to import-exports inside the territory of the common area. They are very easy to recognize, and hence no major problems were found here. The payments of equivalent effect were much more problematic, and were not defined in the treaty of the SEA. According to the High court of Justice of the European Communities following a judgment of 1969 about the diamond fund in Belgium, a payment of equivalent effect is:
105
The Single European Act
he rs
,I
nc .
1. Payment in money. The amount does not matter. 2. Imposed by one state. Here the state is understood in a broad way, including all the institutions of it, and all its levels, from national level, regional level, and local level. 3. Obligatory. The economic agent has to be forced to pay it. Here there was a controversial issue in the „80s about exporting books. The person doing it had to pay to get the documents filled and went to the High Court of Justice arguing it was a payment of equivalent effect. Anyway, the Court ruled against him because, even though it was complicated, he could have filled out the documents by himself. So, it was not an obligation. 4. The denomination of the payment does not matter, nor whatever name it has. 5. It works when you cross a national border inside the European economic area. 6. It does not have to have a discriminatory effect or be protective of the national industry.
is
Discriminatory internal taxes are another obstacle to the free circulation of goods. They are forbidden and their definition is found also in the judgements of the High Court of Justice. In order to find a discriminatory internal tax, some conditions need to be fulfilled:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
1. It has to affect to the same kinds of goods that should have almost the same taxes. It is accepted when there are different taxes, but not with big differences. The reason, among others, is that national authorities can control national production more effectively. An example of this is the Bresciani judgement. 2. In the case of similar goods, they should have similar taxes. Here the problem is finding when goods are similar, and, following the definition of the High Court, products are similar when they have similar characteristics or fulfill similar needs, as wine and beer, or bananas and apples. The case of beer and wine is very clear. The northern countries of Europe do not produce wine because of their weather conditions; instead, beer is locally produced. Both products are not the same, but they are similar because they fulfill the same need of consumers. So, depending on the prices, consumers will have beer or wine. These northern countries usually had high taxes for wine, and lower for beer, and hence they were protecting the national industry with the introduction of a discriminatory tax. Nevertheless, most of the time, to find out if some products are similar, customs classifications are checked, and if they are in the same category they are considered similar goods. The main problems here could be different times for paying the taxes, because it could be that nonnationals need to pay the tax in one day and nationals in one year. So this is a discrimination that helps nationals to compete under better conditions. The second main problem was a link with fines, when other Europeans got bigger fines than nationals. The different amounts were accepted, but with some limits, because it was more difficult to control the fraud of European companies and hence the possibilities of finding wrong practices were lower, and hence the fines were bigger. But this difference had to be proportionate and be applied as a punishment, never as a way to protect the national producers.
Indirect taxes are another issue with a big influence in the free circulation of goods, because states can use the indirect taxes to promote exports if the countries play with the
106
David Ramiro Troitino
he rs
,I
nc .
different rates to apply. As an example, in the car market we see that in a country called A the final price of a model of a car is 10,000 euros. It includes different taxes, as the VAT at 16% and the road tax of 10%. The price of the car without the indirect taxes would be 7,936.50 euros. In another country of the European market, called B, the price for the same model of car is the same, 10,000 euros, but with different indirect taxes, VAT at 19% and road tax at 5%; the price without indirect taxes would be 8,064.50 euros. If someone from country B buys a car in country A, he will pay the indirect taxes in his own country, so it will make a price of 7,936.50 plus 19% (1,269.76) plus 5% (339.80) making a final price of 9,604 euros, thus making it cheaper to buy the car in another country than in his own. On the other hand, if a consumer from country A buys a car in country B, the price will be 8,064.50 euros plus 16% (1,290.40) + 10% (806.40) paying finally 10,160 euros, more expensive than buying it in his own country. The consequences of this system are:
Pu bl
is
1. Country A cars are better for exports in the internal Market and better for the factories located in this country because they get some kind of subsidy for exporting with its tax system. 2. The car industry in country A is more competitive in its national market, so it will sell more cars because the imports will be smaller. 3. The government of country A gets more money via indirect taxes because it charges 26% compared with the indirect taxes of country B, 24%. 4. The European Union gets less money from country A, because a standard percentage is levied on the harmonized VAT base of each EU country. The VAT resource 13 accounts currently for around €14bn.
TECHNICAL BARRIERS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The problem can be solved in a very easy way, by just paying the indirect taxes where the car or any other product is bought, independent of where it is going to be used inside the Communitarian area, as is done inside the member states‟ national markets. If you buy a car in Paris, you pay the indirect taxes there, even if you live in Lyon and you are going to use the car there, but the difference is that France has a central state that collects the money and manages it for the benefit of all French citizens. As there is not a European government, the issue is very delicate: who is going to get the money of the indirect taxes, and how are they going to use it. The necessity of an European economic government has been discussed lately in the context of the crisis of the euro; this new institution could be in charge of managing the revenues of the indirect taxes and investing them in European projects for the benefit of the European people. But it seems a long term step because it will be very close to a European government, something still too advanced for current Europeans.
Another problem of the internal market was the technical barriers to trade because different legislation could make trade between the members of the common area difficult. The 13
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/financing/fin_en.cfm.
107
The Single European Act
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
SEA tried to harmonize them by pointing out their negative effect on trade and the necessity of overriding them. As with previous problems, the Treaty is very vague, and a more exact definition is given by the judgements of the High Court of Justice. A technical barrier can have an influence on imports and exports, and both are treated differently, accepting national discrimination over national exports, but not on European imports. Quantity restrictions were forbidden, but they created few problems because they were very easy to recognize and hence to abolish. In the case of imports, a measure of equivalent effect is a measure of one state, understanding the state in a broad way. As an example, we see two judgements of the European Court, Buy it Irish and Strawberries. The first one was a campaign launched in Ireland to promote Irish products, and hence discriminating the European. The entity in charge of this campaign was a private foundation, but it was proved that the Irish state was funding this foundation, and hence it was considered a state campaign and consequently was forbidden. The case of the Strawberries is related with France and Spain; when the Spanish were exporting their agricultural production to the rest of Europe, the French farmers were blocking the roads on the borders between Spain and France, stopping the trade on these products. French farmers did so because they could not compete with Spanish production in a free market, because the Spanish produced more cheaply. As the roads were blocked, the rest of Europe was buying French agricultural products. The European tribunal said it was a measure of equivalent effect made by the French state because the French police did not stop the blocking of the roads, so it was a State measure because of the omission of its duties. As we can see, the concept of measure of a state is really broad. These actions of the states had to have a restrictive effect on trade. Some companies went to the European tribunals, but their claims were not attended because the measures of the states had a neutral effect on trade, as, for example, about opening hours in France on Sundays. Some companies complained, but the answer of Europe was that it had no effect on trade because on Sundays there was no trade for anyone. The measures identified with restrictive effects on trade were divided in two groups: measures applied in the same way to nationals as to other Europeans, and measures applied in different ways to nationals and to other Europeans. For states to use their legislation with a different application for nationals and Europeans is forbidden in most cases because it is discrimination against the other members of the common market. IN a case called Conegate in 1986, where an importer of love dolls from Holland to the United Kingdom was banned from his imports, the case ended up in the European courts. The British government defended using the social protection of British society for the ban because this trade was against morality. But at the same time, the production of these items in the UK was not forbidden. So, the European Court decided that it was a measure of equivalent effect, with different application to nationals and other Europeans, and against free trade. The British government had to change its position and respect the free trade in the Single Market. On the other hand, we see another case in Denmark. The Danish government made a law about recycling and forced the companies to have warehouses on Danish soil to manage the products for recycling. There were some complaints because it was restrictive in terms of trade. The European tribunal judgement made clear that it was a measure from one state with restrictive effect on trade and differently applied to nationals than to other Europeans, because the national producers already had stores or offices in Denmark, and the Europeans were force to open them, with a consequent lost in competitiveness. The Danish government
108
David Ramiro Troitino
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
defended its case using environmental reasons, and this exception was accepted by the High Court of Justice. It means that some exceptions are accepted for national barriers to trade when there is an important reason for that. Protections of the environment, of consumers, or security reasons are among the most important exceptions. The measures that are applied in the same way for nationals and other Europeans created more problems, because there was no discrimination, but many times they were providing a market advantage to the national producers. If there is European legislation in a specific field, these measures are completely forbidden, and if they have a restrictive effect on trade also, unless there is an important reason for it. In Germany in the case of Cassis de Dijon, a popular drink in France, the beverage was illegal in Germany because, according to German legislation, it did not have enough alcohol content to be sold as an alcoholic drink and it had too much to be a non-alcoholic beverage. The company went to the European Courts and started a process. The German government defended this measure because the German consumers were used to alcoholic drinks with a minimum percentage of alcohol, and selling Cassis de Dijon would be like cheating them, so because of the protection of consumers, this rule was legal for the German government. The High Court ruled against Germany, because even though the German defense was accepted, it was considered not proportional. The German government could force the French company to write down the alcoholic content clearly on the labels of its products. So, afterwards, the tribunal always looks for the less restrictive way for trade if there is an exception. Another example is a judgement about vinegar and Italy, where the national laws forbid the commercialization of vinegar made of products other than wine. The Italian government used the same argumentation as Germany, the protection of consumers because traditionally vinegar is made of wine in Italy, but the tribunal ruled against it because this goal could have been achieved in a much less restrictive way, just writing on a label that the vinegar was made from another product. Also there was a similar case between margarine and butter in France, with the same argumentation and the same conclusions.
en
IMPORTS TO THE COMMON MARKET
Measure from one State
Sc i
↓
N
ov
a
Neutral
Restrictive effects- Measure of equivalent effect ↓
↓
↓
↓
Measure differently applicable
Measure Indifferently Applicable
In the case of exports, it is a bit different, because the actions that discriminate in favor of the nationals are allowed. For example, in the case of vinegar, the Italian government could forbid the export of any vinegar if it was not made from wine. It means that selfdiscrimination is legal in the case of exports to other areas of the European market.
109
The Single European Act
EXPORTS OF THE COMMON MARKET
nc .
Measure from one State ↓ Restrictive effects on trade ↓ Restrictive effects ↓
↓
Quantities
Measure of equivalent effect ↓ ↓
↓
Measure
Pu bl
(Forbidden)
↓
is
Measure Differently applicable
he rs
Neutral
,I
↓
Indifferently Applicable
(Legal)
ce
The solutions for all these problems, which were, and to some extend still are, affecting the free movement of goods in the Single Market of the European Union are basically two:
Sc i
en
1. European legislation: When we have European legislation no exceptions are allowed and all countries have to respect it because it is over the national legislation. 2. Information of the legal measures to the Commission: Each time that a member state is going to start a legislative process in any field that could influence European trade and the European market, it has to inform the European Commission, which will study whether this measure could have a restrictive effect on trade before giving its approval, and avoiding the introduction of new legislation against the ideas of the Single Market introduced by the SEA.
a
FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS
N
ov
The SEA meant a big development in the free movement of persons inside the territory of the European Communities and also was the precursor of the Schengen agreement signed years after. There were three main ways of enjoying the free movement of persons after the SEA:
Signing a work contract: All nationals of any member state could move to another member state to work in the context of the Single Market. It meant that doing an
110
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
he rs
,I
economic activity in a company in another member state was easier and increased the mobility of European workers, increasing hence the possibilities of the workers to find a better job for their career and providing the European companies a wider spectrum from which to choose the best option for fulfilling any vacancy. Services: Any European could move to another European state inside the common area for an economic activity related with services. This area works in the short term when the person provides a service outside of the territory of his national state. Creating your own business: Europeans could start their own business anywhere in the territory of the Community without restrictions based on nationality, with some exceptions. Hence, the Europeans could live legally in the country where they started their own economic activity, increasing the mobility and the competitiveness of the European economies, and providing also an easier legal framework that increased this kind of business activity.
Pu bl
is
After the SEA there were still some problems in the free movement of persons in the European area, because this freedom was basically linked with economic activity, and many Europeans who were not active economic agents could not enjoy it. In order to solve these problems, new ways for enjoying the free movement of people were developed:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
1. Legislation about retired people and the handicapped: These were people who had stopped their economic activity and wanted to live in another state inside the European Communities. As they did not work anymore because they were retired or handicapped, they could not enjoy the free movement of persons in the context of the Single Market. This piece of legislation solved the problem, but some requisites were needed, as health insurance. It could be a private insurance or just the social security of their origin countries. Also they had to prove enough economic income, like a pension, to show that this person was not going to be a problem for the country where he was going to live. First, these persons got a residence permit for 5 years, and after that period for always. Here it is important to underline that the right of residence was not given by the document, the residence permit just proved it. So, in case of any problem, a person without the paper, but with the permission, could just be issued an administrative fine, but never expulsion from the country. 2. Legislation about the right of residence: This was for people who were not doing any economic activity and were neither pensioners nor handicapped, just citizens from any member state who wanted to move to another country inside the territory of the Community to live. As in the previous case, the main concern of the member states was the economic cost it could have for them in accepting citizens from other member states into their territory, for example, the unemployed or potential receivers of social funds. It was solved with the inclusion of some requirements, as health insurance and proof of economic resources. Once these papers were presented and it was clear that the residence of a person who was not active in the economic area was not going to cost anything to the state, permission was given. 3. Legislation about residence permission for students: This was an important group who was not doing any economic activity, was neither pensioner nor handicapped, and did not have enough personal income for a long term. This was also strongly link with the Single Market, as students are the basic future workforce for the European
111
The Single European Act
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
companies, so a common area of education was needed to increase the knowledge of the students and their work capacity. Students who may move inside the territory of the Community have to fulfill some requirements, as a health insurance and a paper showing the economic capacity for living in the country,as we have seen before, something to show that the students would not become an economic burden for the countries. This permission for students was valid only during the time they were studying. The only condition was being matriculated in a center for professional education, and it was accepted in a broad way. The judgements of the High Court of Justice are important for knowing the limits. The case Gravier, where a student who was a national of a member state, had a charge, a registration fee, as a condition of access to vocational training, and the same fee was not imposed on students who were nationals of the host member state, constituted discrimination on grounds of 14 nationality, and hence was forbidden. The case Blaizot made a limit for vocational studies included in the free movement of students. The case is about a person who was studying theology, and the High Court of Justice considered it as a personal wish for learning without any link with the Single Market, and hence outside this freedom 15 because it had no link with any future economic activity. So, the students had to be registered in vocational studies for a future economic activity, not just studies for personal purposes. Finally, the case Humbel did not included general studies in the school in this freedom because of the same reasons already mentioned, lack of 16 vocational background. But this was not very important because normally children or teenagers do not move because of educational reasons without their parents. And if the parents had the residence permission, the children had the right of no discrimination because of their nationality, and hence education on the same terms as the nationals of the host state.
Vote and be elected in the local elections in the place where they live. The people who reside in other places in Europe can vote to choose his local authorities and even become one of them because the decisions taken at the local level have an influence on the lives of the local residents. Vote for the European Parliament. The Parliament is for all the Europeans, no matter where the European citizens live. The members of the EP are chosen by all Europeans. The concept of European identity here is very important because, as it is a European institutional body, and the different member states have different rules for the election of the members of the Parliament, the nationality does not really matter once you hold European citizenship.
Sc i
en
The Treaty of the European Union included the notion of European citizenship. It comprises all the people who hold citizenship of a member state and gives also rights in terms of the freedom of movement of persons. The main rights of European citizens are:
N
ov
a
14
http://www.cvce.eu/obj/judgment_of_the_court_of_justice_gravier_case_293_83_13_february_1985-enb5332b8c-3a58-4e40-b731-b1aa47b2038d.html. 15 http://ec.europa.eu/education/yom/wpguidance_en.pdf. 16 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61986J0263:EN:HTML.
112
David Ramiro Troitino Diplomatic protection in any embassy of a member state in a third country if there is not representation of the national state. This is especially important for nationals of small and medium sized states, because normally the financial possibilities of these states are lower and they do not have embassies all over the world. It provides the same level of protection for all Europeans. Following the development of the European building process, one of the reforms in terms of integration for the future will be the creation of European embassies in the world, substituting for the current national embassies on diplomatic issues. The different proposals here mention the option of keeping the current embassies working on just national cultural issues, leaving all the political issues for the European Union. It will make the international presence of Europe more effective, logical, and economical, but the main problem is that there is not a European state to be in charge of the diplomatic relations. As the CFSP will develop further, some previous steps are needed and some kind of political integration is required in order to have European embassies.
he rs
,I
nc .
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
4. Right to ask for information about any European issue. When a European citizen wants to know something related to the work of the European institutions, he has the right to write asking about it in his own language to the institution in charge, and to obtain a response in a sensitive period of time. The idea here is providing information to European citizens and hence linking them with European integration. The distance between the citizens and the political development is a big problem in the European building process, because there is a lack of identification among the actors involved in European integration, and the European people look at integration as something decided by obscure civil servants based far away in Brussels. This initiative tried building a bridge between European citizens and European institutions. 5. Right to go to the European ombudsman. As the measure above, this is an initiative for uniting the people and the European process. Any European citizen who feels harmed by any European legislation or action can apply for protection from the European ombudsman. This is very important a link with European activities, but all national situations are not included if they do not have a connection with the Union. 6. Freedom of residence with the exception of people without economic resources and without any economic activity and people excluded because of public security, public health, etc.
a
SPHERES OF APPLICATION OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE
N
ov
Material sphere: In order to be included in the free movement of people, there should be economic activity, some action for an economic agent and remuneration for it. Here again, the borders of what is an economic activity and what is a remuneration are very wide, and they 17 are defined in the judgements of the High court of Justice. A judgement about a Priest who was working in a church without any remuneration makes clear that not all activities are 17
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=788.
113
The Single European Act
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
included. This case was about a person who was preaching in a church and hence wanted to be included in the free movement of persons, but the High Court dismissed his claims because his activity was not considered economic because he did not get any remuneration from his activity. On the other hand, we have a case of a woman helping in a church doing staff work such as cleaning or changing the candles. She did not have any contract or any monetary remuneration, but the Court supported her claims that she was doing an economic activity because she was doing work, cleaning and taking care of small details in the church, and she got a spiritual remuneration from the church. So, as we can see, the concept of economic activity and remuneration is, after this judgement, very wide. In 1974, there was another 18 important case called Walrave where professional sport was included in the material sphere of application of the free movement of workers. It was a case based on a claim against the dispositions of a cycling competition where two cyclers ride a bicycle together, and both had to have the same nationality. It was a clear obstacle to the free movement of persons and discrimination because of nationality. Anyway, most professional sports were working with their own rules against the free movement until another case in 1995 forbid this obstacle 19 based on nationality with the Bosman judgement. Here the problem was similar; a professional sportsman who found an obstacle to following his profession inside the territory of the Union because of his nationality because the European football federation, the UEFA, had a rule where the teams had a limit for non-nationals. It was clearly against the European Single Market, as football players are economic agents, they do an economic activity and the get remuneration for it. Since that, there are no limits for European football players inside the European territory, with the exception of the national teams, where the nationality is in the interest of the competition. Soon afterwards this decision was applied to the rest of professional sports on European soil. Personal sphere: The persons who can enjoy the free movement of persons are limited by their nationality, because just citizens of member states and citizens of third countries, along with their relatives and families, with agreements with the EU can enjoy this freedom. The role of the member states is important here because they decided who holds their nationalities, and hence who is a European citizen. The main problem is the cases of double nationality, as we see in the case Micheletti. In this case, an individual with dual Argentinean and Italian nationality arrived in Spain wanting to exercise his right to freedom of establishment and to practice as an orthodontist. He was refused a residence permit by the Spanish authorities because in such instances Spanish legislation refers to the last or effective residence, which in this case was Argentina. The ECJ ruled that nationality of one of the member states was sufficient and that a citizen does not have to choose between the two nationalities. In fact, this judgment has dramatically influenced nationality law at the EU and national levels. The ECJ highlighted that this competence must be exercised in conformity with EC law. It also emphasized that another member of the Union that imposes additional conditions on the recognition of such a nationality in order to exercise the fundamental rights provided by the EC Treaty may not restrict the effects of nationality being attributed by one 20 member state. 18
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/emint12&div=27&id= &pa ge= 19 http://www.liv.ac.uk/footballindustry/bosman.html. 20 http://www.eucaselaw.info/micheletti-1992/.
114
David Ramiro Troitino
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Territorial sphere: The free movement of persons and its rights exerting an economic activity are an inseparable link with the Community. It means that all the national situations 21 are not included, as the case of Lopez Brea shows us. Lopez Brea wanted to work in the real estate business in Spain; according to legislation in other parts of Europe, he could do it, but he did not fulfill the Spanish requirements, and hence was not allowed to work as a real estate agent. He complained to the HCJ, but his claim was dismissed because he was Spanish, trying to work in Spain, so there was no link with the Communities, it was an internal situation and the free movement of persons did not apply in these situations. Another similar case was a 22 link with Belgium and the right of using French and Flemish. A complaint was sent of a person who wanted to use one of these languages in Belgium because of some kind of discrimination because of nationality. The judgement was again clear about this matter: it was an internal situation where the Belgian authorities were to decide because there was no link 23 with the Community. On the other hand, we have the Knoors case where a man from Belgium went to work in Holland. There he was a plumber for many years until he decided to go back to Belgium. Then the authorities did not allow him to work as a plumber because he did not fulfill the Belgian requirements to work as a plumber. He went to the European Court to complain, and the HCJ ruled supporting his claims because there was a European link, the years he was working as plumber in Holland, so it was not just an internal situation between 24 the government of Belgium and a citizen of Belgium. Finally the judgement for Prodest shows clearly the Communitarian link. Mister Prodest was working in a French company and was not French but had the nationality of another member state. He was sent to work outside the Communitarian territory, but he did not get the same working conditions as the French citizens. He went to the HCJ, and the tribunal agreed with him that there was discrimination because of nationality. The work was out of the Union, but the link with the Community was that the company was French.
en
BASIC RIGHTS OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS 1. No Discrimination Because of Nationality or Principle of Equal Treatment
N
ov
a
Sc i
Europeans have equal access to any work inside the common area, and equal conditions in the work. Any restriction is not acceptable because of nationality, nor lower payment or other basic rights linked with the economic activity. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions in some public positions, as judges, army, police, or diplomacy. Basically jobs linked with public sovereignty, with the power given by the citizens to the states, and jobs important for the safety of the state. These exceptions have created some problems in the Community because of the interpretation given by some member states. For example, Spain and Belgium tried to include the private security firms in these exceptions, but the HCJ ruled against them. Also, Luxembourg and Greece said that their respective postal services were public positions, and again the HCJ ruled against them because there is not sovereignty involved in postal
21
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61990J0330:EN:HTML. http://www.kluwerlaw.com/McmsTemplates/resources/SampleIssuesPDF/268.pdf. 23 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/docs/infringements/art43_en.pdf. 24 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61994C0214:EN:HTML. 22
115
The Single European Act
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
services. The most problematic fields have been telecommunications, gas and electricity, and education, and the exception most used is national security.
Source: Eurostat tec00114. Volume indices of GDP per capita, 2010 (EU-27=100.
116
David Ramiro Troitino
2. Principle of Free Circulation
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
European citizens can move freely to another member state under many circumstances in looking for a job. In this case they have a residency right for 6 months, but they have to prove that they are actively looking for a job. Also they can move to another member state if they have a work offer, even before signing the contract, just with the offer. Also they may work on their own, with freedom of establishment, mainly in the liberal professions. Free movement is also included in the three pieces of legislation about pensioners, the handicapped, and people with economic means. Here it is important to point out that nationals of any member state who have been working in another state of the Community have the right to stay in the host country when they retire. The restrictions have generated many problems, because the interpretation of the states about the exceptions sometimes is not appropriate. As an example, we can see the case 25 Adoui/Cornvaille against the Belgian state. These two women were prostitutes working in Belgium but citizens of another member state. They were expelled from the country because of their profession. The government of Belgium gave security reasons for this action, but the HCJ ruled against them because prostitution was legal in Belgium, so it was discrimination on grounds of nationality because women from Belgium could work as prostitutes but other women from the Community did not have this right. If prostitution is legal, it is an economic activity and evidently included in the Single Market. The situation would have been different had prostitution been illegal, as it is in many countries of Europe. In this case there would be no discrimination, because the activity would be forbidden for both nationals and other Europeans. The following step in European integration in the field of the free movement of people was the Schengen agreement. Originally it was an international agreement between France and Germany for the free movement of people, but it was delayed because of German reunification. The French government was afraid of movement of people from East Germany to West Germany for work, taking the work places of Turkish people in the West. Hence it could mean a movement of these workless Turks to France. As this never happened, soon the agreement started functioning, and more and more countries of the Union joined it. The agreement abolished internal controls and reinforced external controls. The treaty of Amsterdam included the agreement in the Communitarian sphere and hence became a part of European integration, with some exceptions for different countries, as the UK and Ireland, and Romania and Bulgaria. The UK wanted to keep control over its borders so opted to stay outside the agreement, and Ireland did not have much choice as the country has a free movement agreement with the UK that is very important for the Irish economy. The country had to choose between the rest of Europe or the UK, because joining Schengen would mean the end of the bilateral agreement with the UK because if Ireland could not control its external borders, people could travel freely to the UK via Ireland. The case of Romania and Bulgaria 26 is based on security reasons, but soon these two countries will join the Schengen area. The Schengen agreement is a clear example of European integration developed outside the European institutions, on the international level and afterwards integrated into the Union 25 26
http://www2.wlv.ac.uk/sls/Law%20of%20the%20EU.pdf. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_ immigration/l33020_en.htm.
117
The Single European Act
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
when most of its members accepted it. It could be an easier way to increase integration because it could allow the member states interested in deeper integration to advance in the process without the constriction of those states that are reluctant. On the other hand, it gives too much power to the most important states as international negotiations are not under the surveillance of the European Union rules of equality and no discrimination. It means that Germany and France could impose their position on other members without the restraint of Union rules. The Single European Act was an important treaty because of its implications in the economic field and the consequences to the everyday life of the European people. As almost everything can be trade, and daily life consists of buying or selling products or services, the impact of the SEA on the European population has been enormous. The European Commission published a report about the impact of the internal market on the European 27 economy, known as the Ceccini report, where the provisions were very positive. It was thought that the Single Market could mean an economic growth of 4% of the Gross Domestic Product of the European area, two million new jobs and a downward tendency of inflation of almost 6 points. This report was too optimistic, because later reports have decreased the benefits of the Single Market, but have always pointed out positive effects. The four basic freedoms of the Single Market, the free movement of goods, free movement of services, free movement of people, and free movement of capital have not been fulfilled, but there has been important progress in the first three. The free movement of capital is presenting more problems as there is not a European tax office, and the different taxation systems in Europe will lead to financial transfer to countries where fewer taxes are applied, as Luxembourg. The solution in the long term will be, first, the harmonization of the tax systems in Europe, against the will of countries as Luxembourg or Ireland in the case of company taxes, via a reinforced cooperation between the member states more eager to integrate this field, as France and Germany.
27
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Cecchini%20Report.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
,I
Chapter 14
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The Commission is an important institution in the current European Union as it works as an executive branch for the benefit of the whole of Europe without, at least theoretically, any national influence. The first European Community, the ECSC, had institutions similar to those oft the EU but with different powers and tasks. The High Authority played the role of the Commission, but it had more power than the current institution. According to different theories of European integration, especially neo-functionalism, the integration process needs institutions to protect the integration already done, lead further integration in the right direction, and push for more integration. As Jean Monnet, one of the architects of the institutional framework of European integration, was the first president of the High Authority, he pressed for this way for having a strong institution without influence of the member states. The High Authority was by far the strongest institution in the ECSC. The Council, the institution that represented the member states, played a minor role. Nevertheless, during the negotiations for the creation of the EEC and the EURATOM, France wanted to change the model, giving more power to the Council, to the member states, taking away many functions from the previous High Authority or the new European Commission and giving them to the Council. France was also against Jean Monnet as president of the new Commission because of his fervent support to European integration. This veto meant the withdrawal of the candidature of Monnet and the nomination of Walter Hallstein as the president of the new European Commission. Hallstein was the head of the German delegation negotiating the Schumann plan, had a strong relation with the German Chancellor and used both for developing the European Commission, providing it with respectability and a technocratic approach. His international representation of the Communities in trade negotiations, under the power of the new Commission, gave international presence to the European institutions. But the problems with France, and especially with de Gaulle, about different European issues weakened its position. The French Premier used to attack Hallstein calling him an orient monarch sitting in his throne without any touch with reality, without any power, just acting as the premier of a 1 non-existing country, the United States of Europe. Finally, Hallstein withdraw in 1967 . Anyway, his determination and enthusiasm were crucial in speeding up integration, especially in the Common Market, and in giving shape to the organization. 1
http://www.historiasiglo20.org/pioneers/hallstein.htm.
120
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Currently the European Commission is organized with a presidency, a college of Commissars, and more than 40 Directorates-General (DGs), similar to the ministries of the states as they are organized by different policies. At the moment there are four main groups of DGs: Policy DGs, External relations DGs, General Service DGs, and Internal Service DG, entailing all the policies under the power of the European Commission. The Commission has 27 Commissioners, one from each member state, working together, including the president and seven vice-presidents. Each Commissar has a specific area of influence, and it can entail one or more DGs. Traditionally some citizens of member countries held portfolios important for their national interest, as France did with Agriculture and Rural development, now in the hands of a Romanian, Dacian Cioloş, or Germany with the Internal Market, now under the power of a Frenchman, Michel Barnier. But in both areas, most of the civil servants working for the Commission belong to France in Agriculture, and to Germany in the Interior Market, and hence the influence of these two countries over these policies is still very important. The reasons are obvious: the importance of Agriculture for French farmers, as France is the main beneficiary of the CAP, and Germany as the leading trading country of the Union in the Interior Market. It raises the question of the independence of the Commissars and the staff of the Commission. Nowadays, nationals of the bigger countries of the Union acting as Commissars hold important policies of the Union, and the smaller states hold other policies with less power, less budget, less staff, and less influence in the developing of the Union. The current Commission is a good example, with a French citizen in charge of the Interior Market, one of the most important fields in European integration, a German, of Energy, a priority for the German government nowadays because of its influence in economic productivity, a Brit of foreign Policy, and an Italian, of Industry. On the other side, the Commissars from Malta, or Cyprus, or Bulgaria are in charge of minor policies. It means that the influence of the member states is very important in the composition of the European Commission, and national interest is still an important fact in the designation of the Commissars. The Commission is elected in such a way that the influence of the member states is fundamental. The presidents or prime ministers of the member states negotiate among themselves as to who is going to be the president of the Commission. The way that they choose the president is a mystery, without any voting system, without any clear procedure, without any public control, just secret negotiations between the most influential members of the Union. According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the president should be chosen by a qualified majority of the Council, but normally before any candidate is presented, the secret negotiations of the member states have already decided on a candidate for the post. This procedure has been highly criticized by the European Parliament for not being democratic, 2 and not respecting the Treaties, but not much has been done to improve this situation. Also, the Council should take into consideration the result of the latest European elections, and normally the president should be chosen from the same political family that won the latest elections in order to implicate more the election of the president of the Commission with the European reality. It could give a more democratic background to the Commission. The presidents of the Commission who are nationals from France and Germany have been more influential in European integration, as the German Hallstein or the French Delors, because they have more influence over and links to their national governments, leaders in the 2
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/alphaOrder/view.do?id=1308&language=EN.
121
The European Commission
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
European building process. On the other hand, we have presidents from smaller countries, like currently Barroso from Portugal, who has no strong links with the national governments of the main states of the Union, and hence his influence and capacity are smaller. After the president is chosen by the Council, he has to obtain the approval of the European Parliament, and then, collaborating with the council, make up his team of Commissars. Then the whole Commission goes to the European Parliament, which can approve or reject the whole Commission. On different occasions the member states did not nominate very appropriate people to the Commission in terms of professional capacities or nominated people who were under national controversy, and hence the Commission became somehow a graveyard of national politicians. This behavior came to an end after the reform that gave power to the Parliament in the appointment of the Commission. In the recent years we have seen how the threat of the Parliament has led to the withdrawal of inappropriate candidates, as the case of the Italian candidate, Rocco Buttiglione, as commissar of Justice, Freedom, and Security, who did not hide his negative opinions about homosexuals and 3 women. Finally the Italian government presented another candidate for the post because otherwise the whole Commission would have been rejected by the Parliament. The way that the president and the commissars are chosen has created a big debate about the democratic grounds of the institution. As the Commission has a big impact in the lives of European citizens, the people should have some say in the procedure. Different proposals have been made, as European elections for the president of the Commission. It will be difficult because there are not really European political parties, just political families, and the participation in the European elections is very low compared to national elections. On the other hand, if the elections would be more interesting, with different candidates and different programs for the Commission, Europeans could feel closer to the Union and participate more in the elections. Another possibility is that the president of the Commission could be chosen just among the members of the European Parliament. As the members of it have been chosen by the Europeans, it will have a more democratic background than the current system. But it is also unlikely to happen in the short term because the member states would lose the control they have presently on the nomination of the president of the Commission, and would give more power to the Parliament, an institution that is also having some problems with 4 democracy and representation of European citizens. The reform is probably far off, but as integration increases, and the power of the institutions also grows, and they get closer to some sort of European government, the people will want to participate in the election of the president of the Commission; and the second option, to choose a member of the Parliament, will probably work in the middle term. The Commission works as a whole, as a group, where all decisions are taken by the whole team of commissars, and hence they are responsible as a whole for the decisions taken. This collegiate system does not mean that there is no debate inside the Commission, or that the commissars always agree on everything, but the debates and dissensions are close to the commissars and the president of the Commission, and when they reach an agreement, all the members have to support it. This working system means that the Commission is united for good or for bad, and the whole Commission is responsible for the actions of all its members. Hence, as we have been shown in the procedure to elect the Commission, the European 3 4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3718210.stm. See chapter Parliament.
122
David Ramiro Troitino
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Parliament can just accept or reject the whole team, not just accept some commissars and reject others. Also, the Parliament has some control powers over the Commission, and can dismiss the whole Commission, but never just a commissar, as happened in the case of the mismanagement of funds by the commissar Cresson and the fall of the whole Commission 5 under the presidency of Santer because of the pressure of the European Parliament. As Mario Monti, commissar of the Santer‟s Commission said "This Commission has collectively resigned, I believe, not because of collective responsibility but because certain members of it 6 preferred not to take their own individual responsibilities." Nowadays the Commission is still working with this system, but the enlargements have meant more and more commissars, reaching 27 members of the Commission, so it is difficult to maintain the collegiate system, and currently Barroso has a more presidential style. The European Commission has its own staff, around 33,000 people, working in the different services of the institution. The size of the Commission has been often criticized because of the great numbers working there, but if we compare it to the civil servants working in the member states and the citizens they have to deal with, the European Commission is a really small institution. The 33,000 staff of the Commission work for a European population 7 8 of almost 500 million. On the other hand, France has more than 2 million civil servants for 9 a population of 64 million people, so the size of the Commission is not as high as the critics of the institution point out. The main critics of the size of the Commission come from the times of the British Premier Thatcher and her beliefs in reduction of the size of the state and trust in the market as a regulator of economic agents, and hence the citizens. Anyway, Thatcher reduced the numbers of civil servants in the local and regional institutions of the UK, but increased them in the central government; and in her battle with European integration, she wanted to decrease also the influence and the numbers of the European 10 Commission. Traditionally these critics have come from British soil. The services of the Commission with highest numbers of civil servants are the DGs of Development Aid (12%), the Join Research Center (8.3%), and the translation service (7.3%); on the other hand, the services with the fewest people working there are the BEPA or policy advisers (0.1%), the JAS (0.3%), and CLIMA (0.4%). About the internal composition of the Commission, it is remarkable that there are more women (54.5%) than men (45.5%) working there, so there are no major gender equality problems. The countries with the most nationals working in the European Commission are Belgium (18.3%), Italy (11.1%), and France (10.2%); the geographical localization of the Commission with its main center in Brussels explains the high number of Belgian citizens working in the Commission and the high number of French and Italians is explained by the size of both countries. Anyway, here the surprise is the comparatively low number of Germans working for the Commission (6.9%) because Germany is by far the most populous country of the Union. Also, the UK presents a low rate compared with its population (4%). The countries with the lowest presence in the 5
N
ov
http://www.eu-facts.org/en/scandals/index.html. http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/article.asp?id=8627. 7 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-09-031/EN/KS-QA-09-031-EN.PDF. 8 This number is an estimation of the French civil servants in all the levels of the state, as central, regional, and local institutions. So, it cannot really be compared with the European Commission, as it is just one institution of the Union, even when it is the largest. 9 http://www.service-public.fr/langue/english/. 10 See chapter Thatcher. 6
123
The European Commission
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Commission are Cyprus (0.4%), Malta (0.5%), and Estonia (0.6%), a normal situation 11 according to the size and the population of these states.
Source: European Union civil service department.
en
The European Commission.
N
ov
a
Sc i
Originally the High Authority was located in Luxembourg, but the concerns of this country about the new European institutions and the impact of the civil servants of the Commission in the reduced population of the country led to a new location for the European Commission. Belgium, because of its central location and because of the multinational composition of the country, was selected to be the new headquarters of the new institutions. The primary development of the Commission centralized most of its services in Brussels, with the exception of the ECSC, which is still located in Luxembourg. The location in Brussels has created some problems because the EU was accused of imitating the most centralized states. The offices of the president of the Commission and the weekly meetings of the whole Commission are also in Brussels. This critique of centralizing plus the development of the new technologies that improve so much the communications are leading to the establishment of services of the Commission in other locations, as Spain, Denmark, or Finland. Also, the external services of the Commission and its representation in other states accounts for a big share in the European Commission. So, the workers of the Commission are 11
http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/docs/hr_key_figures_en.pdf.
124
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
located in Brussels (65.7%), Luxembourg (11.9%), other member states (10.8%), and territories outside the Union (11.6%). The powers of the Commission are mainly executive power, legislative initiative, and enforcement of legislation. Executive power is shared in the European Union by the Commission and the Council. Until the Treaty of Lisbon, executive power was in the hands of the Council, and this institution delegated it to the Commission. It was a clear movement from the member states‟ controlling the Commission because in case of any big clash between both institutions, one representing the interest of the member states and the other representing the interest of Europe, the Council could withdraw this power from the Commission. It never happened, but it was an option to enforce the position of the Council. Nevertheless, after the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission holds executive power by itself as it is included in the treaties, but not all executive power, as the Council still holds the executive power in such important areas as Foreign Policy or the executive power of the common currency in the hands of the European Central Bank. The executive power of the Commission is more restricted than most national executives, but it is very important on the European 12 level, equating the Commission with some kind of government of Europe. The legislative initiative is one of the most important powers of the Commission. It means that this institution is the only one that can start legislation in the Union. The procedure starts with the consultation of the Commission with different groups of independent experts, and the debate and reform of this legislation in the different services of the Commission related to the field, until final approval by the college of commissars. Then the proposal escapes the influence of the Commission and depends on the Council and the Parliament for approval, including amendments to the original proposal of the Commission. Nevertheless, at the early stages of the process the Commission can withdraw its proposition for new legislation if the Council and the Parliament completely change the spirit of the proposal. The main reason to give this power to the Commission is based in the neo-functionalist theory of European integration, where an independent institution is needed in order to push the integration in the right direction without the influence of the member states. The power of legislative initiative of the Commission will lead integration according to the European interest, and hence without the influence of national groups. Nevertheless, the Council and the Parliament can ask the Commission to start the legislative process on anything they considered is needed, and the Commission can refuse, but normally always accepts. Also European citizens (At least one million) can ask the Commission to draft new legislation, but the petition is not binding. There are some fields where the Commission does not have the power of initiating legislation, as with the Common and Security Policy, where the member states reserve this power for themselves. Finally, there have been critics of this monopoly of the Commission because of the poor democratic record of the institution, as it is elected by the Council and the Parliament without any link with European citizens, and hence the Parliament would like to have this power, or at 13 least share it with the Commission. The Commission also initiates the procedure of creating the new budget of the European Union each year. As with the rest of the legislation, the draft
12 13
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/activitybased/index_en.htm. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/staticDisplay.do?id=55&pageRank=13&language=EN.
125
The European Commission
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
budget created by the Commission is transformed by the different amendments introduced by the Council and the Parliament. The other most notable power of the Commission is controlling the good implementation of European legislation in the member states of the Union. Also the Commission is in charge of the implementation of the European budget. Normally the Commission uses the institutions of the member states to control that the implementation is correct, but also uses some of its own agencies. It is important to remark that the Commission does not have the right of punishing what is considered by the Commission itself as bad implementation of European legislation. The Commission normally tries to point out a deficiency to a member state, and normally the anomaly is solved. If the state does not share the opinion of the Commission and does not apply any change to the observations, the European Commission cannot sanction the state, but can send the case to the High Court of Justice, the institution that will decide and sanction, if such action is relevant. The European Commission acts as the Guardian of the 14 Treaties. The Commission also has other and different powers besides these three main ones, highlighting the international representation of the Union in world trade organizations, as trade policy depends on the Commission because it has influence on the European level, 15 surpassing the national sphere. The most important presidents of the European Commission have been Hallstein, Delors, and Santer. As the president of the Commission sets the agenda of the institution, and his personal influence is broad, the personality and the attitude of the president are very important for the achievements of the organization. Hallstein developed the organization, while Delors gave a big impulse to European Integration, giving the Community a sense of direction and dynamism pushing for more integration in the Single Market and the creation of the monetary Union. Santer is the most negative figure because his Commission had to step down because of financial mismanagement. The current president of the Commission, Barroso, is a minor character in European integration as his actions are mild and the 16 institution has lost presence in leading the European building process. The European Commission has been criticized as the European citizens see the Commission as something alien, as something located far away in Brussels without being in touch with the reality of citizens, and as having huge salaries. The Commission is trying to solve this problem with more transparency in the working system of the Commission and 17 with active press action to bring the institution closer to European citizens. Also, the role of the Commission in pushing for deeper integration is seen as an attack on the national states and the liberties of citizens, as for example the support of the Commission to the enlargement to Turkey when many European citizens are against it, or at least wanting to have a say on this issue. The Commission is always going to push for deeper integration because it is one of its most important roles in the architectural framework of the European building process; it is its duty, and sometimes this approach does not match the will of the European people, more prudent in terms of integration. But to avoid a dictatorship of the Commission, the rule of
14
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2001:046E:0077:0078:EN:PDF. See chapter Trade Policy. 16 http://www.cvce.eu/obj/presidents_of_the_european_commission-en-a6242195-6d03-4a00-9a49-f0681e0a bbf6. html. 17 http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/European_Commission_-_Criticism_of_the_Commission/id/1372433 15
126
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
technocrats, there are other institutions in the European Union to deal with this problem who have stronger links with the European people, as the European Parliament via the European 18 elections, or the Council, via national elections where the national governments are chosen. The future of the Commission will be linked with the speed of integration in Europe. As currently it seems that the priorities are focused on the common currency and the possibility of creating an economic government in the Union, it seems unlikely that the Commission will be in charge. The most feasible solution will be the creation of an economic government under the umbrella of the Council, and hence total control of the members of the Eurozone. Then the duality of two executive bodies, the Commission and the Council, will be reaffirmed and developed. This, plus the attitude of the Council, which seems unwilling to yield the power of the Common Foreign and Security Policy to the Commission, will seat this duality in the Union. The Commission, anyway, will try to influence the process and share some of the power of the Council as the democratic background of the Commission grows and its relation with European citizens increases. The next wave of integration is likely to deepen the role of the Commission as more policies will be included in the sphere of influence of this institution.
18
http://www.mondaq.com/x/150636/Antitrust+Competition/The+European+Commission+reacts+to+ Criticism+ New+Best+Practices+on+the+Conduct+of+Antitrust+Procedures+published+Emphasis+on+ Transparency+and+Procedural+Rights.
nc . he rs
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
,I
Chapter 15
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The European Parliament started with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. The first European Community had similar institutions to the current institutions of the European Union. A High Authority, similar to the European Commission, but more powerful; a Council, where the member states were represented but was less important than the current European Council; a Court of Justice; and a Common Assembly, the modern European Parliament. The members of the Assembly were chosen by the national parliaments, and normally according to the internal composition of the national parliaments. So, if a national parliament was composed 40% of socialists and 60 % conservatives, the same percentage was sent to the Common Assembly. This system also worked for the Common Assembly of the European Economic Community, but with some exceptions. For example, the Italians did not send Communists to the Common Assembly, and hence were not respecting the composition of their national parliament. The creation of this Common Assembly was clearly a sign given by the architects of the 1 Communities of the nature of European integration, the future State of Europe. According to their political beliefs, all political structure should have a Parliament as the expression of the democratic will of the European people. So, it was important to create a Common Assembly as an embryo for the future European Parliament, even when the power given to the new institution was merely of a consultancy nature. Further integration would give more power to the institution, step by step, until the creation of a full parliament, with powers similar to 2 those of the national parliaments, as the major institution of the European state. This slow process is still presently half way to its goal and has been working well in the sense that the current European Parliament has much more power, and has become one of the central institutions of the Union. Nevertheless, it has created confusion and distrust among European citizens. The role of the EP has changed from former emptiness to current importance, but it is still not as powerful as the national parliament, and many Europeans think that it is useless, just another institution for bureaucracy with no real power in their everyday lives. This situation could change by providing more information to the European people about the nature of the European building process and the role of the Parliament in it. Even though the 1 2
See the Schumann declaration. Mainly following the neo-functionalist theory of European Integration.
128
David Ramiro Troitino
is
he rs
,I
nc .
study of European integration reveals the clear target of the creation of some kind of European state as the more likely future scenario, it seems forbidden to say so to European citizens, maybe because they will reject it, but will accept, on the other hand, smaller movements, smaller steps, towards integration. It has become common practice to bring to European public opinion the new achievements in integration as a means in itself, and not as what they really are, further steps to the real means, the European state. It makes the resistance smaller and smoother; it clearly helps the idea of a European state, but it also creates problems of information. One of the biggest problems of the Union nowadays is the lack of information and understanding on the part of European citizens about the European institutions. The European Union is seen almost as an alien power located in nebula Brussels, far from citizens and their day to day problems and worries. It is clearly a dichotomy: not all the information can be given in order to advance integration, but at the same time more information is needed in order to bring the European Parliament closer to European people. Both necessities should be balanced, and the European Parliament could then become the central institution of the Union, or at least the key democratic institution of the European Union with influence over the organization and over European citizens.
Pu bl
THE FIRST EUROPEAN ELECTIONS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
After the years of a powerless Common Assembly with more consultative powers, the member states decided to increase the role of the Assembly with fully democratic European elections to choose the representatives of the European people. The first European elections took place on 1979. They were seen as a great step in European integration because it was the first time that people got involved in the process, besides the enlargement referendums. It was the time when the Parliament became an active institution with members who were really believers in European integration, as Spinelli and his Crocodile group of federalists. The influence of the members of the Parliament who were actively looking for deeper integration and the consecution of the European state was huge in this first Parliament, as we see when the plenary session voted to support the Spinelli plan for accelerating integration and hence 3 supporting the creation of a European state. This influence can be felt still today, as the Parliament is an active institution in terms of integration, pursuing more power, as it sees itself as the central institution of the future state of Europe. The first president of the European Parliament after the elections was Simone Veil, a French survivor of Nazi concentration camps and the first woman to hold the presidency of 4 the European Parliament. The elections increased the role of the Parliament in European society, as it became a more well-known institution because of the first political campaign on a European level. Participation in the first European elections was the highest in European history, as 61.99% of the voters participated. But soon afterwards a big deception was felt by the European population with the Parliament, as the role of the EP was minor in the working system of the Union, and the federalists lead by Spinelli soon clashed with the Council and lost their credibility as a real alternative to the power of the member states in the Union. Also, 3 4
See Chapter of European Theories of Integration. http://www.wic.org/bio/sveil.htm.
129
The European Parliament
Country
Have you ever heard about the European Parliament? Oct. Nov. 1978 Belgium 49% Denmark 60% Germany 51% France 57% Ireland 48% Italy 49% Luxembourg 49% Holland 48% United Kingdom 44% Euro barometer N.11, May 1979, P.5.
is
he rs
,I
Apr. 1979 65% 76% 60% 65% 73% 77% 76% 76% 55%
nc .
nationality was still important within the Parliament, as was shown in one of the first problematic issues dealt with in the EP, the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, where all the French members of Parliament, independent of their political affiliation, voted against it.
1981
1984 92.09 52.38 56.76 47.56 56.72 82.47 88.79 50.88 32.57 80.59
1987
1989 90.73 46.17 62.28 68.28 48.8 81.07 87.39 47.48 36.37 80.03 54.71 51.1
ce
1979 91.36 47.82 65.73 63.61 60.71 85.65 88.91 58.12 32.35
81.48
68.52 72.42
1994 90.66 52.92 60.02 43.98 52.71 73.6 88.55 35.69 36.43 73.18 59.14 35.54
1995
1996
41.63 67.73 57.6
1999 91.05 50.46 45.19 50.21 46.76 69.76 87.27 30.02 24 70.25 63.05 39.93 38.84 49.4 30.14
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
BE DK DE IE FR IT LU NL UK EL ES PT SE AT FI CZ EE CY LT LV HU MT PL SI SK BG RO EU total
Pu bl
European Elections
2004 90.81 47.89 43 58.58 42.76 71.72 91.35 39.26 38.52 63.22 45.14 38.6 37.85 42.43 39.43 28.3 26.83 72.5 48.38 41.34 38.5 82.39 20.87 28.35 16.97
2007
29.22 29.47 61.99
58.98
58.41
56.67
49.51
45.47
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/archive/elections2009/en/turnout_en.html.
2009 90.39 59.54 43.3 58.64 40.63 65.05 90.75 36.75 34.7 52.61 44.9 36.78 45.53 45.97 40.3 28.2 43.9 59.4 20.98 53.7 36.31 78.79 24.53 28.33 19.64 38.99 27.67 43
130
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
After the euphoria of the first elections, participation in European elections has been decreasing, with 58.98% in 1984, 58.41% in 1989, 56.67% in 1994, 49.51% in 1999, 45.47% in 2004 and 43% in the last elections of 2009, showing an important decrease of people‟s interest in European elections even when nowadays the EP is more powerful after the different European treaties approved since 1979. The new member states of the Union normally have higher participation than the older members, as their interest in the Union is higher, as in the case of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, with the exception of Sweden, where the society was divided about the benefits of joining the Union. On the other hand, it is worrisome how low the participation of the new members from Central and Eastern Europe was. It shows a lack of interest in European affairs in these countries and could have a negative effect of slowing the path of integration in Europe. The highest participation belongs to member states where voting is compulsory, as Belgium or Luxembourg, and the lowest to Central and Eastern European member states, as Lithuania, Slovakia, or Rumania, with lower participation even than the UK, a traditionally more skeptical country in European integration terms. The Federalists group in the Parliament after the elections of 1979 was pushing for deeper integration, as they saw the Parliament as the only institution in the European Communities able to lead the process of integration because it was the only European institution chosen by the European people. The already traditional confrontation of the EP with the Council to increase the powers of the institution and decrease the rule of the member states in the organization started at this moment. During many years the political fight was centered on the budget of the Union because it was one of the few areas were the Parliament could influence European integration. The creation of the annual budget was based on a system where the three main institutions of the Communities collaborated to draft and approve the annual budget of the Union. The first draft was done by the European Commission according to the normal expenditures of the organization and the expectations for the following year, and this draft was passed to the Council and the Parliament. The agreement of both institutions was needed in order to approve the new budget. If they disagreed, the budget of the previous year was applied until both institutions finally reached an agreement. The Parliament traditionally has pushed for increasing the Union‟s budget against the will of the member states represented in the Council. The Parliament argued about the increasing role of the Union, as more policies where included in the area of influence of the Community, especially after the development of the Single Market, but at the same time the economic resources of the Union were growing very slowly, with more policies and almost the same money. The Council, on the other hand, supported an idea of less growth in the budget because the Union already had enough income to fulfill its needs. But in reality, it was a political struggle about who will control the Union, as money will define the possibilities of integration, and controlling the budget meant controlling the organization. The conflict was important in the beginning of the „80s as the Parliament was trying to ensure its position in the Communities against the influence of the Council, and in some years there was no agreement about the budget, creating problems for the organization. After 1988 some reforms were introduced, but the problems still persists today, always with the Parliament 5 demanding more money for the Union and the Council decreasing these aspirations.
5
http://www.socialistgroup.eu/gpes/media3/documents/3624_EN_budget_en_100509_2.pdf.
131
The European Parliament
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The power of the EP changed after the inclusion of the co-decision system in the Union and its expansion to most of the policies of the European Union. Previously, the Parliament had no more power than control of the budget, but as integration increased, it was necessary to link it with democracy, and hence with the Parliament. Previously, most of the decisions had been taken under other procedures where the EP was just advising the Council with nonbinding reports; but since the Treaty of Maastricht, the Parliament stands on equal footing with the Council in the legislative process, and an agreement of both organizations is needed 6 in order to approve any legislation under the co-decision procedure. Since this reform the European Parliament has grown in power after each treaty, and its influence is huge in European integration and in the current duality of the organization, as the Council stands for the national interests of the member states and the Parliament for the European interest, giving to the Union its special shape of a supranational organization, where there is an equilibrium between the national and European interests. Still, nowadays the power of the member states is bigger than the power of the Parliament, plus the fact that normally the national governments are the expression of the majority of their citizens, and hence the political party in the government is also the most represented in the Parliament, controlling many decisions of their members through their political party discipline. The current German government belongs to the CDU, and this 7 political party has 17 members out of the 50 representing Germany in the Union, and it is not likely that they will adopt decisions against their political party in charge of the German national government. Similar proportions are found in the rest of the member states, so the balance of power tilts toward the member states, but the tendency is leading to a stable balance of power between both institutions in the future European state, creating a new political system in the world based on both organizations plus a stronger Commission.
THE POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT
en
The European Parliament has broad powers in the Union, and its role is increasing after each treaty. The main areas of influence of the Parliament are:
N
ov
a
Sc i
1. Constitutional type powers and powers of ratification: Since the Single European Act, new enlargements and association agreements need the approval of the EP. Also, international agreements with important budgetary implications need the approval of the Parliament. This gives an important international dimension to the EP, because most of the international actions of the Union are focused on enlargements and international agreements. There have not been major conflicts in this area, as the EP is keen on accepting more members into the Union, sometimes against the will of the people they represent, as we see with the strong support forTurkish enlargement from the European Parliament, when an important part of the European population is suspicious about it. 2. Participation in the legislative process: There are different procedures where the Parliament intervenes in the legislative process of the Union, from merely advisory
6 7
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/codecisionprocedure.htm. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/search.do?country=DE&language=ES.
132
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
powers to equal footing with the Council. Nevertheless, the growing number of policies under the co-decision system, and hence under the influence of the Parliament, is remarkable. The procedures are: Co-decision: New legislation is started by the European Commission, and afterwards there is a first and a second reading in the Council and in Parliament, where amendments are introduced. Both institutions have to agree after the first or second reading to pass the legislation. If they do not, there is a conciliation procedure, or third reading. This means that if there is disagreement between the Council and the Parliament after the third reading, the legislation will not be approved. For the period 1999-2004, we see that 28% (115 pieces of legislation) of new legislation under the co-decision system was approved after the first reading, 50% (500 pieces of legislation) after the second reading, 22% (84 cases) after the third reading or conciliation procedure, and just two cases were rejected. There were 1344 amendments approved by Parliament in the second reading, and 23% (307) were passed under the conciliation procedure without changes, 60% (809) were approved after some modifications, and 17% (228) were withdrawn in the conciliation procedure. All this date gives us a look at the co-decision system and its implications for the Union and makes clear that the system works because most of the legislation initiated by the Commission is passed after negotiations between the Council and the Parliament. With the Treaty of Lisbon in force, the co-decision procedure is the ordinary legislative procedure. More than forty new policies are subject to this procedure, for example, freedom, security and justice, foreign trade, environmental policy, and the CAP. Consultation: Here the Parliament needs to be consulted about different legislation, but its opinion is not binding, and the Council can take or leave the opinion of the Parliament. This produce was more important before, but as more policies are included in the co-decision system, consultation just applies in policies where the member states do not want to share their sovereignty with the European institutions. The consultation procedure continues to apply in taxation, competition, harmonization of legislation not related to the internal market, and some aspects of social policy. The procedure previously applied to the new 'framework-decision' instrument created by the Amsterdam Treaty under the third pillar for the purpose of approximation of laws and regulations. Cooperation: The cooperation procedure was introduced by the SEA and extended under the Maastricht Treaty to most areas of legislation where the Council acts by majority. This procedure obliges the Council to take into account at a second reading those of Parliament's amendments that were adopted by an absolute majority, in so far as they have been taken over by the Commission. This marked the beginning of real legislative power for Parliament. Its importance has been diminished by the general use of the co-decision procedure under the Amsterdam Treaty. It survives only in four provisions of the Economic and Monetary Policy, but with the Treaty of Lisbon it is abolished. Assent: The Council can adopt any legislative proposal of the Commission if Parliament gives its consent, but the EP cannot make amendments, just accept it
133
The European Parliament
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
or reject it. Anyway, there is a conciliation committee where some negotiations can be done in order to influence the process. Since the Maastricht Treaty, the assent procedure applies to the few legislative areas in which the Council acts by unanimous decision, limited since the Amsterdam Treaty to the Structural and Cohesion Funds Under the Treaty of Lisbon.Some new subjects fall under this procedure, now generally named consent, such as measures to be adopted by the Council when action by the Union is considered necessary and the treaties do not provide the necessary powers. Right of initiative: The treaty of Maastricht gave this power to Parliament. This does not mean that the European Commission has lost the monopoly of starting new legislation, but now the EP can ask the Commission to start new legislation if it considerers it necessary. 3. Budget power: Parliament stands equally with the Council in elaborating the budget. The first draft is done by the Commission, then the Council and the Parliament, in different readings, introduce amendments, and both institutions reach an agreement. The Parliament also monitors implementation and gives a discharge on implementation of the budget. 4. Control over the executive: Parliament has different ways of controlling the European Commission. It basically comes from the democratic roots of the Parliament and the technocratic or political essence of the Commission. So, it means a democratic control over the executive of the Union. Investiture of the Commission: Parliament participates in the process of electing the Commission. Its power is smaller than the Council‟s, but lately has been increasing its muscle, forcing the member states to choose adequate candidates for the Commission, and hence taking it more seriously than before. Motion of censure: Parliament has this power since the Treaty of Rome, and it is another way to control the Commission. Parliament can force the Commission as a whole, never just one or more Commissars, to step down if it lose its confidence in it. There have been 8 motions of censure, but none of them have been adopted. Anyway, the Commission of Santer just resigned when it was clear that Parliament was going to approve a motion of censure. So, even if it has never happened, it is an important tool to influence the Commission and control it. Parliamentary questions: The EP can ask information of the Council or the Commission, and both institutions have to reply to the petition. Committees of inquiry: The European Parliament can start a temporal committee to analyze alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law. Once they reach a result, their conclusions will pass to the plenary session of Parliament and the institution will take the appropriate measures. Control over Common Foreign and Security Policy: Parliament is entitled to be kept informed in these areas and may address questions or recommendations to the Council. It must be consulted on the main aspects and basic choices of the common foreign and security policy. Implementation of interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management has also
134
David Ramiro Troitino
is
Pu bl
he rs
,I
nc .
improved CFSP consultation procedures as far as financial aspects are concerned. After the Lisbon Treaty‟s coming into force, almost all aspects of police and judicial cooperation as well as other policies in the area of Freedom, Justice and Security are subject to the procedure of co-decision. As to foreign policy, the creation of the new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy enhances Parliament's influence because she is also vice-president of the Commission. But anyway, the influence of Parliament in this field is minimal because the states are not willing to lose control over a policy that is still developing and needs much more integration before it is an effective policy. Under current conditions, the CFSP is just an agreement of minimums between the member states, and hence the influence of Parliament is much reduced also. Appeals to the Court of Justice: The EP has here similar powers to the rest of the European institutions. Parliament cannot decide by itself if there is any action against treaties, but can go to the Court, and then has to accept the ruling. Petitions: European citizens have the right to make petitions on a subject related with the activity of the Union. The citizens address these petitions to the president of the Parliament. Appointing the Ombudsman: The Parliament elects the European ombudsman, who investigates complaints about maladministration related with the EU institutions. It is the person who defends European companies and citizens if 8 their rights are not respected by the EU institutions.
ce
THE COMPOSITION OF PARLIAMENT
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
There are currently 754 members of Parliament, who are elected every 5 years. They belong to the 27 member states and are chosen by direct democratic elections all over Europe. But according to the Treaty of Lisbon, the limit is 751 members, and hence Germany will lose 9 3 members of Parliament in the next elections of 2014. The number of members of Parliament is decided by the population of the countries, but the Treaty of Lisbon established a maximum of 96 and a minimum of 5 members of Parliament per each member state. It raises the question of Turkey: if the country finally joins the European Union, it will have the same number of members of Parliament as Germany. At present the German population is bigger than the Turkish, but the demographic growth of Turkey is much faster, and the Turkish population is younger than Germany‟s. As we can see in the table below, most of the member states of the Union are likely to reduce their population, with the notable exception of the UK and France. It will close the gap between Germany and France, and will make easier the non-written rule of the Union about the equal standing of both countries within the Union. On the other hand, the Turkish population growth is bigger than that of any other member of the Union, and it is likely to be the most populated country of the 28 states before 2025, and then it will have the same number of members in the EP as Germany if Turkey 8 9
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/displayFtu.do?language=en&id=73&ftuId=FTU_1.3.2. html. http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/11/25/union_europea/1322256016.html.
135
The European Parliament
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
finally joins the Union. On the other hand, we see how some countries will lose representatives in the EP as their population has negative growth, especially Italy, leaving the big four of the current EP, Germany, France, the UK, and Italy to become just three main countries in terms of population in the Union.
http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm. Co-decision system.
136
David Ramiro Troitino
Total Population: Various EU member states and candidates, and total EU 25, EU 27 and EU 28; UN estimates 2003-2050
,I
nc .
2050 737 1022 525 855 527 494 6423 7914 981 758 4487 1695 3300 902 1806 494 3733 870 6616 9775 43124 45455 55231
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
(Thousands) 2003 2015 2025 Austria 811 805 797 Belgium 1031 1047 1051 Bulgaria 789 716 660 Czech Republic 1023 1007 980 Denmark 536 544 546 Finland 520 528 528 France 6014 6284 6416 Germany 8247 8249 8195 Greece 1097 1094 1070 Hungary 987 932 886 Italy 5742 5550 5293 Netherlands 1614 1679 1712 Poland 3858 3817 3733 Portugal 1006 1003 983 Romania 2233 2164 2080 Slovakia 540 544 539 Spain 4106 4116 4036 Sweden 887 898 905 UK 5925 6127 6328 Turkey 7132 8215 8899 Total EU 25 45418 45687 45442 Total EU 27 48441 48569 48183 Total EU 28 55574 56784 57083 (Including Turkey) Turkey as % of EU 28 12.8% 14.4% 15.5% Source: UN World Population Division: World Population Prospects: the 2002 Revision.
a
Sc i
Parliament has a president, and 14 vice presidents, plus the MEPs. The president is elected for a two and a half year term and represents the EP in the international arena and leads the relations of Parliament with the other European institutions. He is assisted by the vice presidents organizing the internal life of Parliament. The members of the EP unite according to their political beliefs, and not because of their nationality, in political groups, as the Conservatives in the European People's Party and the Social Democrats in the Socialists & Democrats. Currently there are 7 political groups in the EP, and normally they vote together after internal deliberations, but the internal cohesion sometimes is broken because of national issues. There are 20 parliamentary committees on different matters that prepare reports for the plenary session of Parliament, as Budget, Environment, or the Internal Market. They are really important because they control what is presented to the plenary sessions of Parliament, and hence they control the agenda of the institution. The EP has 41 international delegations for conducting its international relations, especially with candidate countries, countries with association agreements, and other important international partners of the
ov
N
17.7%
137
The European Parliament
he rs
,I
nc .
Union. Finally, the internal composition of the EP counts, with the secretariat, some 4,600 10 officials who work for the institution. The plenary sessions are in Strasbourg, the committees meet in Brussels, and the secretariat is located in Luxembourg and Brussels. The institution thus has three locations, plus the constituencies of the MEPs. It makes 4 different working places for the MEPs, an irrational organization. It has its explanation because the ECSC community had its institutions located in Luxembourg, a country that rejected the new institutions of the new communities created by the Treaty of Rome, that were then allocated to Brussels and Strasbourg. Parliament has its general meetings in France, but as they need to work closely with the European Commission, the committees meet in Brussels and the most important work or the real center of the EP is Brussels.
PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE FUTURE REFORMS OF THE EP
Pu bl
is
As Parliament is becoming a more important institution after each reform or new treaty, its role in European integration is bigger, but the European people do not feel it in the same way, as participation in the European elections is very low, and most of the Europeans cannot even name their representatives in Strasbourg. The EP should have a stronger link with the people in order to get their loyalty, and hence facilitate a deeper transfer of power from the member states to the Union. In order to achieve this, Parliament should be reformed to be the real representative of Europeans in European issues. Here we provide some ideas:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
1. Currently the EP is located in three main locations, confusing for European citizens, plus inconvenient for the MEPs who have to travel constantly. Luxembourg and France are not willing to give up on this issue because of the economic and political benefits they get for having the EP on their soil, and unanimity is required in the Council, but it would be much more logical to have just one location, and in 11 Brussels, the real decision making center of the Union. 2. The elections of the European Parliament are done according to national rules, and it creates distortions in the system, as for example the age of voting, 16 in Austria and 18 in the rest of the members. There are some common rules, but national differences are still big. If the EP is chosen by the European people, and it represents the people of Europe, it should have a common procedure in its elections. Nevertheless, the Council needs unanimity to implement a single electoral system in Europe for the European elections, and this could not be achieved because of the reticence of some member states. Unless Europe has the same system, the elections are likely to be 12 defined by national patterns, against the idea of the EP itself 3. Creation of European political parties. At the moment there are just political groups that are created by the political affinity of the MEPs, but the European elections are dominated by the national political parties, and hence the discussion during the campaign is more about national issues than European problems. As the member
10
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=45&pageRank=8&language=EN. http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-parliament/index_en.htm. 12 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/displayFtu.do?language=en&id=73&ftuId=FTU_1.3.4. html. 11
138
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
states are already represented in the Council, the EP should work according to the European interest, and hence European political parties are needed. It should be done in such a way that any political party concurring to the European elections should be present in at least 40% of the territory of the Union, or in areas where more than 40% of the European population lives. It will force the creation of European political parties on the basis of the national ones, but their perspective would be much more European, focusing on European issues, and more independent from national problems. 4. In order to have European political parties, there should be one common language. Europe, and specially the EP, are afraid of having a common language because it is seen as an attack to the national differences in the Union. But society has already chosen English as the lingua franca of Europe. The reform will just be the representation of the reality. Having a common language, as English, will help communication between the MEPs and simplify the current system. The European Parliament is distinguished from other international organizations by its obligation to offer full multilingualism. Parliament works in all the official languages of the European Union – 23 since Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU and Irish was recognized as an official language of the EU in 2007. All documents dealt with in plenary must be translated into 22 of these languages. A partial exception currently applies to the Irish language – only legislative documents have to be translated into it. The European Parliament also provides an interpretation service, so that every Member is able to speak in his/her mother tongue. This makes the European Parliament the world‟s largest employer of interpreters and translators, who account 13 for one third of the institution‟s staff. Protection of the national languages of the Union is gratifying, but in practical terms it reduces the efficacy of communication between the MEPs, the debates, and the working system of the organization. English is already widespread in Parliament, but it lacks official recognition. The introduction of one common language would mean reform in the national states, making English co-official. Of course this initiative will have many enemies, mainly from nationalist grounds showing it as an attack on the national identity, but it will be just a complement to the national identity, creating a European working system in the 14 already international language of the world, English. The main resistance comes from the French speakers, who have seen a diminishing the role of their language within the European Communities. It also will require a big investment in education to give the same opportunities to all European citizens, and its implementation should be gradual. It will help to make the EP a real European Parliament and to defeat the most nationalistic forces that stop European integration. 5. European referendums about EU issues under the control of the European Parliament. It is strange that many measures are not discussed on a European level when they have an influence over the citizens of the Union. If the EP could organize European referendums, people would feel the presence of this institution much more, and that their opinion is represented. It would help the EP and the Union as a whole. As national states organize referendums on national issues, the EU should be able to
13 14
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=45&pageRank=8&language=EN. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/8041916/English-becomes-Europes-second-language. html.
139
The European Parliament
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
do it as well on European issues. As the EU is not a national state, the European referendums should be more restrictive and respect the balance of power of the European institutions, and hence the approval of the Council should be obligatory. 6. End of the corruption and maladministration in the EP: The MEPs are famous all over Europe for their perks and benefits. If the EP wants the loyalty of Europeans, it should be an example of good manners. There many examples of MEPs taking advantage of their privileges, as, for example, in the case of travel allowances. The MEPs need to travel very often because of the different locations of the EP and also because they need to go to their own electoral base. Previously, they got free plane tickets, and most of them travelled in first class; when they got an amount of money instead of the tickets, suddenly most started traveling in tourist class. There have also been some scandals with the personal staff of the MEPs, who used to hire relatives to keep the money, or the fact that the most applied for committee is that of international affairs, because the MEPs travel around the world. Nevertheless, the main corruption cases have been related with the co-decision voting system, where the EP stands equally with the Council, and can make amendments to the European legislation. Big companies and lobbies have paid MEPs to make changes in the legislation favoring them, and it makes the citizens doubtful of the power of the EP, because it makes no sense to give it more power if it is corrupt. For example, Ernst Strasser, MEP from Austria, had to resign in 2011 because of one of these cases, and 15 did other MEPs, as the Spanish Pablo Zalba, or Severin and Thaler. The salary of the MEPs is around 6,000 euros net a month, plus 4,000 euros in different concepts, so citizens have problems understanding these cases of corruption. The situation does not help for the identification of the people with the EP, for if the MEPs themselves do not take their work seriously, the people will not do so either. At the end of 2011 a new rule was approved to forbid the MEPs accepting presents of more than 150 euros, along with other measures to avoid corruption in Parliament. 7. Spread the EU via Education. There should be one subject in the European schools about the EU paid for by the Union under the supervision of Parliament, and explaining to the European people what Parliament does. It is difficult because it will interfere with national policies of education, but the benefits in terms of integration will clearly surpass the political effort. At the moment, the educational measures are done via the national institutions, which produce very differing results in terms of the perception of European people about the EU and the European Parliament.
15
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/03/21/union_europea/1300707528.html.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EU
,I
Chapter 16
ce
Pu bl
is
There are two institutions representing the member states in the Union, the European Council, where the heads of the member states are represented, and the Council of the European Union, where the national ministers in charge of different areas sit together. Of course, the first institution is more powerful because it is where the Prime Ministers and Presidents meet, and they are the heads of the national governments, and the ministers follow the commands of their governments, but in the working system of the Union the Council of the EU holds, at least nominally, most of the power. On the other hand we have a third institution called Council of Europe linked with human rights protections that has nothing to do with the EU, but its name leads to confusion as to who is who among these three institutions.
THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
Since the creation of the first European Communities, there have been meetings of the heads of governments of the member states to negotiate and develop European integration. At first, these meetings were informal reunions outside the framework of the European institutions, and hence out of the control of the European Communities. It was a faster way to take decisions, without any voting system, just by unanimous agreements. Nevertheless, it was during the presidency of de Gaulle when these meetings became more official, in an attempt to dwarf the European institutions and give a more international character to 1 European integration according to the ideas of the French Premier. Another French president, Giscard d'Estaing, formalized the meetings, and in 1975 the first official meeting was held in Dublin in order to give a political push to integration in Europe. Nevertheless, the institution was not included in the Union until the Treaty of the Single European Act in the „80s and the Treaty of Maastricht entailed the role of the institution in the Union. Finally, the status of this European institution was included in the Treaty of Lisbon, formally separating the European Council from the Council of the European Union. Nevertheless, it has been the 1
See chapter De Gaulle.
142
David Ramiro Troitino
,I
THE POWERS OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
nc .
leading force in the Union since the first Community until the present, even if it was not an official institution. The main change with this recognition is related to the voting system, before consensus, and after the Treaty of Lisbon some decisions can be taken by qualified 2 majority, giving more power to supranational Europe.
COMPOSITION
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
This institution is the political leader of the Union, and hence its main power in leading European integration. It acts as a forum where the member states meet and discuss the next step in integration, the next policy to be included in the treaties, and the further development of existing policies. As the member states hold sovereignty in all national policies outside the Union, they are the ones to decide about sharing the powers given to them by their own citizens with the other members of the organization. The Council will analyze the benefits and the losses of sharing new policies in the context of the Union, and hence push for deeper integration in the fields where they think it is needed. The decisions in the European Council are taken by consensus, and in some cases can be taken by unanimity or qualified majority if the treaties of the Union allow it. The main difference between unanimity and consensus is that in the first there is voting, and in the second just informal discussion until all the member states agree on any issue. The development of any new policy in the Union starts in the European Council by consensus; once it is established, the voting system is unanimity until the member states assure that the new policy is working properly; and, afterwards, the European Council passes the decision making to the other European institutions and opens the possibility of a qualified majority voting system. So, the European Council can be considered the motor of the Union, the leading force in terms of deepening integration. As it is composed of the executive powers of the member states, it has a big influence on different policies of the Union, especially the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It also has some executive power in the Union, appointing some key persons in the Union, such as its own president, the president of the European Commission, the person in charge of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the president of the European Central Bank. The influence of the European Council over the Council of the European Union provides it with an important influence over the legislative process in the Union, even though it is an informal power.
N
ov
The European Council consists of the heads of state or government of the member states, plus its own president and the president of the European Commission. The latter can attend meetings but cannot take part in voting. His role is mainly to keep in touch with the member states and inform them about the situation of the Union from a European perspective, often different from national opinions. The European Council meets twice every six months,
2
http://www.european-council.europa.eu/home-page.aspx.
The European Council and the Council of the EU
143
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
normally in Brussels, convened by its President, but in case of any urgent matter it can have special meetings. Usually in the meetings each state has two representatives, the head of the state or the head of the government, or a national minister if needed. The President of the Commission can also attend the meetings with another member of the Commission. The president of the European Council chairs the meetings and drives forward its work. He ensures the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council. He also endeavors to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council and presents a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council. Moreover he, at his level and in that capacity, ensures the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to 3 the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council elects its President by a qualified majority for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. He must report to the European Parliament after each European Council meeting, being a link between both European institutions. The Secretary-General of the Council can also attend the meetings on most occasions, and normally is a key figure in the meetings, because he is a person who has been attending the meetings of the Council for a long period of time, and his expertise and the experience accumulated by the officials working for him are used to solve conflicts within the European Council. The Secretariat-General of the Council is a body of civil servants constituted to help in the meetings of the European Council, and is divided into different areas, including the most important policies of the Union, such as agriculture or environment. It also has a legal department to give legal advice to the European Council and a private office for internal 4 affairs. All the heads of state also have different teams made up of national experts, normally national civil servants, who are not members of the European Council staff but play a significant role in the preparation of meetings, discussing with their counterparts and providing information needed to the members of the European Council for their meetings.
FUTURE
N
ov
a
Sc i
The European Council has been often criticized because of its obscure working system, where most of the decisions are made in private meetings between the member states rather than in the negotiation room. This makes it difficult to understand how and why decisions are taken. Also, the alignment between France and Germany has determined the direction of European integration. If both countries arrive to the meetings of the European Council with a common position adopted prior to the summit, the other countries have much less opportunity to influence the process, and hence the bilateral meetings between France and Germany have been seen as a way of keeping the influence of both states over the Union. The election of the first president of the European Council pretended to give one face to Europe, ending the rotation system where each member state held the presidency for six months. It was done because with a Union of almost 30 members, each member state would 3 4
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/111298.pdf. http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=idea.hierarchy&nodeid=4553.
144
David Ramiro Troitino
he rs
,I
nc .
have held the presidency each 15 years, a long period of time and unpractical in terms of efficiency. Anyway, there was a big debate about the personality of the new president, whether it should be a strong and influential personality or a grey and docile personality. This discussion was a link with the power of the new position and its relation with the rest of the members of the European Council. As Herman Van Rompuy, from Belgium, was elected, the European Council made it clear that it did not need any leading force besides the member states, and the role of the president is more one of an intermediary between the different positions of the member states than a leading force within the European Council. The problem here is that the president represents the Union internationally, and if his position inside the European Council is weak, he is going to have a low profile in the international arena, weakening the positions of the European Union in world affairs. So it is necessary to give more importance to the presidency in order to secure his international respectability.
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
This is one of the most important institutions in the European Union because it is the representative of the member states in the working system of the Union, more involved in practical matters than the European Council, and with an almost omnipresence in the Union. At the beginning of European integration, in the ECSC the Council existed but its power was more limited, with a High Authority being the dominant institution. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Rome established a Council with more power in order to secure the control of the Union and the process of integration to the member states. After this Treaty the Council became the most powerful institution of the Union, and the key force in the legislative process. The Council is composed of twenty-seven national ministers, one from each member state. The internal composition depends on the topic discussed, for example if it is agriculture, the 27 national ministers of agriculture go to the meeting; if it is environment, the 27 national ministers in charge of environment in their respective countries go the meeting. In general meetings normally include the foreign affairs ministers of the member states. The Council also has a rotating presidency of six months among the member states according to an established order. It plays a vital part in the organization of the work of the institution, notably as the driving force in the legislative and political decision-making process. The president has to organize and chair all meetings and work out compromises capable of resolving difficulties. The decision making in the Council is mainly by qualified majority, with some cases where unanimity is required, mainly in the fields where the member states have an important national interest, as Spain with the Cohesion Funds, or France and Germany with the free movement of workers. Nevertheless, the qualified majority is mainly used as a tool to reach a consensus within the Council, because most of the decisions are taken after an agreement among the representatives of the member states. The qualified majority was an exception at the beginning of European integration in the Council, when unanimity was the common rule, but after each treaty the majority system was spread to the decision making and became the main procedure in the Council little by little. It shows the cautious approach of the Union to this voting system because it means sharing sovereignty among the member states, when one member state can be outvoted and forced to
145
The European Council and the Council of the EU
,I
nc .
accept a decision of the majority against their national interest, just because it is better for the whole Union. Normally new policies of the Union are decided by unanimity, and once the main problems have been solved and the member states feel secure and sure about the right working of the policy in the European Union, the voting system can change to qualified 5 majority. It has been a pattern of integration in the whole history of the Union: first the member states want to keep control over newly integrated policies, and afterwards, when the policy is already working well and without major problems, the states transfer control of the policy to the European institutions, mainly the Council and the European Parliament.
First half-year Second half-year 2010 First half-year Second half-year 2009
Hungary Poland Spain Belgium
is
2011
he rs
Rotating presidency of the Council
Pu bl
First half-year Second half-year http://www.consilium.europa.eu/council/presidency-websites?lang=en.
Czech Republic Sweden
Distribution of votes for each Member State
Sc i
en
ce
Germany, France, Italy, United Kingdom Spain, Poland Romania Netherlands Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Finland Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia Malta TOTAL http://www.consilium.europa.eu/council?lang=en.
29 27 14 13 12 10 7 4 3 345
N
ov
a
The qualified majority has had many different shapes since the Treaty of Rome in the „50s, and currently under the Treaty of Lisbon there is a weighting of the votes that each member state holds, plus a system of double majority. The distribution of the votes for each member state depends on different matters, as population or economic power, but in contrast with the EP, there is equality between the main countries of the Union, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Basically the unwritten rule of equality between France and Germany, as the motor of the Union, has been respected here. The maximum number of votes for each member state was established at 29, and hence no state will have more than this 5
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/nice_treaty/nice_treaty_majority_en.htm.
146
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
amount. Also, member states have to cast their votes en bloc. It means that a member state may not split its votes and hence, the number of votes rather describes the weight of a member's single vote. The double majority system is based on the majority of the votes in the Council plus:
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
1. A majority of the member states. If the proposal comes from the European Commission, a minimum of 55% of the member states is required. If the proposal comes by a different path, the percentage increases to 72% of the member states. This is clearly a measure to protect the medium and smaller member states that could be outvoted by an alliance of the big countries, and hence forced to accept something against their will. If the proposal comes from the Commission, it means it comes from an institution whose interest is Europe and has no major influence from the member states, and hence the majority percentage of the states is not as high as if the proposal comes from a member state, for example. 2. A majority of the European population. If some member states representing at least 62% of the European population are against any proposal, even if the proposal has been back by the majority of the Council, the measure will not be adopted. It is an action to protect the big countries from being outvoted in the Union, and avoiding a situation where the majority of the member states representing a minority of the 6 European population could decide the future of the Union.
en
ce
In addition to these main conditions, there are minority block systems, where the power of the big member states is bigger. Nevertheless, as has been said before, the normal procedure of the Council is based on agreements and consensus among the member states, and the voting system is basically used to force the consensus or, in exceptional cases, when a member state does not want to reach an agreement. For example in 2008, 128 out of 147 Council decisions were unanimous.
WORKING SYSTEM IN THE COUNCIL
N
ov
a
Sc i
The Council depends mainly on the work of the national civil servants to get the information needed to adopt decisions. At the beginning of the process, the member states meet in different working groups for an early discussion. The working groups are formed by national civil servants who are specialists on the topic being discussed; for example, in justice, high ranking national civil servants of the national ministries of Justice will meet in 7 accordance with the sphere of their work. The working groups discuss mainly the proposals of the European Commission, but they can also meet if the Council requires it because of other reasons. Mainly the work at this level is more technical, and the different representatives from each member state give their opinions and work together in order to achieve a common position. They make reports when the working groups agree on any issue or find problems to discuss further. In any case, they pass their report to the COREPER, or 6 7
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/nice_treaty/nice_treaty_council_en.htm. http://www.just.ee/7741.
The European Council and the Council of the EU
147
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
committee of permanent representatives. If the working group agrees on a common position, normally the COREPER just agrees on it also, but if the working group finds any problem, further discussion will be done in the COREPER. This early stage of the discussion is very important because it influences further agreements and discussion within the Council, and here is where the influence of the bigger states can be felt more, because normally the bigger states have more civil servants and experts than smaller states, and hence can influence the discussion more. It is obvious that the capacity of a country like Germany in terms of experts and civil servants is much higher than the capacity of a state like Malta, where there are not experts in all the fields discussed in the Council and their expertise is normally lower. The COREPER is the permanent representative of the member states in the European Union; the main mission of the COREPER is to prepare the agenda of the meetings of the Council and oversee and coordinate the work of the working groups. It is divided into two main committees, COREPER I, where the deputy heads of the national missions meet to discuss mainly social and economic issues, employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs, competitiveness, transport, telecommunications and energy, agriculture and fisheries, environment and education, and youth and culture. COREPER II is where the heads of the national missions with the rank of ambassadors meet to discuss mainly political issues, but it also includes financial and foreign policy issues. The COREPER gets the information from the working groups and normally takes decisions without debate if there was already agreement in the working groups. If the working groups send a report to the COREPER where some problems were not solved, the COREPER holds debate and tries to reach agreement. After the COREPER makes its own reports on the issues discussed, it sends them to the Council for the ministers to approve them or for further discussion at a higher level. It makes three different proposals for the agenda of the Council:
Sc i
en
ce
1. I Points: Information for the ministers that does not need any decision. 2. A Points: These are the proposals where an agreement has been reached in the COREPER and there is no necessity of further debate in the Council, and normally the Council just approve them. 3. B Points: No agreement has been reached in the COREPER and the issue is sent to the Council for further discussion. The Council will negotiate until they reach an agreement. Normally these are sensitive issues for some member states, important for their national interest, where they try to get the best conditions for their respective states.
N
ov
a
The Council in its highest expression, the meetings of the ministers, normally deals just with a few problematic but important issues, because normally there has been agreement in the working groups or in the COREPER, and hence the Council can focus on the most important proposals for their own states.8
8
http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=idea.hierarchy&nodeid=3760.
148
David Ramiro Troitino
SECRETARY OF THE COUNCIL
Organize and coordinate Council work Legal advice Political advice to the presidency
he rs
,I
nc .
This is a service from the Union to assist different European institutions, as the Council of the European Union, the Council Presidency, the European Council, and the President of the European Council. It is composed of around 3,500 civil servants, and comprises a legal service, eight directorates-general, and a private office split between departments answering directly to the Secretary-General of the Council and the High Representative for the CFSP 9 and departments answering to the Deputy Secretary-General. Since the Treaty of Lisbon the 10 Council decides on the organization of the General Secretariat by a simple majority. Its main tasks are:
Pu bl
is
It is an important part of the Council because it has had presence in the meetings for a long period of time, far from the temporal assistance of the national ministers that depends on the national elections, and hence can provide a wider perspective in discussions in order to unblock the complicated debates. It also can advise the ministers in solving different situations using the experience gained in previous discussions, giving examples to the Council about similar problems in the past and how these situations were solved.
COUNCIL HEADQUARTERS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The Council is in a situation similar to that of the European Parliament, with different locations as the consequence of the previous communities and treaties, but its main seat is located in Brussels. Most of the services of the Council, as well as the General Secretariat, are also located in Brussels. Nevertheless, as the Council of the ECSC was located in Luxembourg, it was decided that the meetings of the Council during the months of April, June, and October are to be held in Luxembourg. The location of Brussels was decided upon after the merger of the existing communities because the European Commission and some parts of the European Parliament were located in Belgium, and hence communication between the European institutions would be easier if they were located in the same place. This logical decision was denied to the European Parliament, which still has some offices in 11 Luxembourg. The Council extraordinary can also have its meetings in its higher form in other cities, but only under extraordinary circumstances.
9
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/european-union_157/eu-in-the-world_1491/common-foreign-and-securitypolicy_5463/operation-of-the-cfsp_5467/the-main-bodies-specific-to-the-cfsp_5472/the-general-secretariat-ofthe-council_8755.html. 10 http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/General%20Secretariat. 11 See chapter EP.
The European Council and the Council of the EU
149
THE POWERS OF THE COUNCIL
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The Council acts mainly in three fields: foreign affairs, where it is the central institution, legislative procedure, and budgetary authority, where it shares control with the European Parliament. The role of the Council in foreign affairs is crucial, and it is the major European institution in this field. The decisions here are mainly taken by consensus or unanimity, because the external interests of the member states are different and often a common agreement is very difficult. Anyway, the decision to adopt any measure related to the CFSP is taken in the Council. It also has a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This post combines three functions: the EU‟s representative for the CFSP, the President of the Foreign Affairs Council, and a Vice-President of the Commission. At the 12 moment, this post is held by Catherine Ashton. Her designation was controversial because she is a low profile politician with no political stature. It means tighter control by the Council over this newly created position. If the Council would have wanted a strong CFSP, a strong position in the external world, it would have chosen a candidate with more experience and greater initiative. The legislative power of the Council is mainly shared with the European Parliament via the co-decision system, where both institutions need to agree in order to adopt new legislation for the Union, and this works in most of the European policies. Anyway, there are some areas with different procedures where the Council holds the responsibility for approving new legislation. Mainly these are areas where the member states are afraid of losing control, as justice and home affairs or fiscal aspects of other policies. Here the Council decides about the new legislation according to its internal rules. Both procedures make the adoption of new legislation in the European Union impossible without the consent of the Council, and hence without the consent of the member states, making the Council a central institution in the context of European integration. The budgetary authority of the Council is also very important, but has decreased over the years. Previously, the Council had control over the most important part of the budget, the money for the obligations of the Union, and it shared budgetary power with the Parliament in the rest of the budget, but these limitations have been erased and now the Council and the Parliament stand equally in negotiations for the EU budget. If both institutions are not able to reach agreement, there is a conciliation committee where this can be discussed further. It works in a way similar to the co-decision system. In addition to the budget, the Council coordinates the economic policy of the member states of the Union.
12
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/policies/foreign-policy?lang=en.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES
,I
Chapter 17
ce
Pu bl
is
The institutional framework of the Union is completed with other different institutions with different tasks and powers in order to broaden the presence of the Union and complement the work of the main institutions, the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission. Most of these institutions were already present in the first European Community, the ECSC, but their power has changed with the deepening of integration and the constant reshaping of the integration model. Other institutions were created afterwards, as more integration was developed and new needs arose in the Union. These new institutions are an answer to these new needs. It means that the central institutional core of the Union is already defined with the Communitarian triangle, but the power of these institutions is still developing, and its final shape will not be defined until the political integration process is completed. Afterwards, minor changes will be made in the institutions as a way to answer the needs of European society, and hence new institutions will also be created during this process.
en
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
N
ov
a
Sc i
There are different tribunals in the European Union whose main activity is overseeing respect for European legislation, with constitutional, civil, administrative, and arbitration functions. According to different issues, member states, other European institutions, European companies, and European citizens can ask the judicial system of the Union to act in cases related to European legislation, and the judgements of these courts have to be accepted by all these agents. This is a unique case in integration models all over the world, where the institutional, economic, and social agents share their sovereignty in a supranational court. The first European community, the ECSC, already had a tribunal, but the creation of new treaties and the advance in European integration increased the necessity for judicial institutions: the European Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance, the EU Civil Service Tribunal, the European Court of Auditors, and the EFTA Court. The tribunals are located in Luxembourg as a consequence of their original seat in the ECSC. These tribunals have jurisdiction only over the issues included in the European treaties under the Communitarian actions. Hence, European issues not dependent on European supranational institutions are not included in the sphere of influence of the European judicial system, as for example issues related to security and common defense, included in the treaties but left for intergovernmental cooperation.
152
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
David Ramiro Troitino
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/editorial/abc_c03_r1.htm. European Institutions.
N
ov
a
The ruling of the European tribunals has to be respected by the national judicial system of the member states, and their collaboration is essential for the Union, as the national courts act as a part of the EU judicial system. The effectiveness of the European Court depends on their relation with the national courts, and just the Court of First Instance is available for direct litigation for private agents. Normally the national courts deal with private litigation until they appreciate a link with the Communitarian legislation and then they rule according to the judgements of the European tribunals or send the issue to the European Courts. The judgements of the European tribunals have precedence over the judgments of national judicial
Other Institutions and Agencies
153
en
Requests for a preliminary ruling – when national courts ask the Court of Justice to interpret a point of EU law Actions for failure to fulfill an obligation – brought against EU governments for not applying EU law Actions for annulment – against EU laws thought to violate EU treaties or fundamental rights Actions for failure to act – against EU institutions for failing to make decisions required of them Direct actions – brought by individuals, companies, or organizations against EU 6 decisions or actions
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
institutions in European matters, and hence it applies uniformity in the whole territory of the Union on European issues. The Court of Justice also acts as a motor of European integration because of the power of 1 its jurisprudence, helping to develop treaties and deepen integration. Normally the interpretation of the treaties is broad, opening the way for profounder integration. As an example of the power of the European justice system, the Bosman case changed the way European football was organized, after many years of having breached the Communitarian law. The jurisprudence of the European Courts is very important because they have 2 established clearly the direct effect of European legislation, the supremacy of European 3 4 Union law, and the recognition and incorporation of human rights. The judgements of the European Courts respect some basic principles, as the rule of reason and of proportionality; these cases implied acceptance of the powers of the European Communities. The European Court of Justice is the highest judicial institution in the European Union and is in charge of the main problems related to interpretation of treaties and the application of Communitarian law. It also deals with problems between member states and the European institutions, and protects the economic and social agents against any harm inflicted by the European institutions. It is composed by one judge per member state plus 8 advocates-general chosen by the member states of the Union whose main task is preparing preliminary reports 5 about cases. The main cases of this tribunal are:
Sc i
The Court of First Instance, or General Court, is an independent tribunal but its decisions can be appealed to the European Court of Justice. It is composed of one judge per member state nominated by them, but acting independently. The growing number of cases brought to the European Court of Justice threatened to collapse the judicial system of the Union, and hence this new tribunal was created. Its main tasks are:
N
ov
a
1
Direct actions brought by natural or legal persons against acts of Community institutions (addressed to them or directly concerning them as individuals) or against
http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/4/81.full.pdf+html. Sentences Van Gend en Loos, Ratti, Von Colson, Marshall or Marleasing. 3 Sentences Costa v. ENEL or Simmenthal. 4 Sentences Internationale Handelsgesellscaft or Nold. 5 http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_6999/. 6 http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice/index_en.htm. 2
154
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
,I
he rs
a failure to act on the part of those institutions, for example, a case brought by a company against a Commission decision imposing a fine on that company Actions brought by member states against the Commission Actions brought by member states against the Council relating to acts adopted in the fields of state aid, „dumping', and acts by which it exercises implementing powers Actions seeking compensation for damage caused by Community institutions or their staff Actions based on contracts made by the Communities which expressly give jurisdiction to the Court of First Instance Actions relating to Community trademarks 7 Appeals, limited to points of law, against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The European Union Civil Servant Tribunal oversees problems between the European institutions and their staff. It is a consequence of the large number of conflicts involving the staff of the Union and the necessity of having a flexible system. It is composed of seven 8 judges chosen by the Council, and its judgements can be appealed to the General Court. The Court of Auditors was set in 1975 as the budget of the Communities was growing and some cases of mismanagement related to Communitarian money arose. Its main function is auditing the accounts of the Union, improving financial management, and reporting on the use of public funds. It has no legal powers of its own, so if the Court of Auditors finds any problem in the public finances of the Union, it sends the case to the European Anti-Fraud Office. Its remarkably important annual reports, sent to the European Parliament about the use of the budget, are essential for parliamentary final approval of the budget. This Court and its auditors can investigate the European institutions, member states, or European companies 9 receiving EU aid. It is an independent tribunal with one judge per member state chosen by the Council plus a staff of 800 people to help the tribunal. It is important in the role of the auditors, who work in audit groups to carry on investigations and prepare reports for the 10 tribunal. The EFTA Court is a consequence of the agreements between the Union and the former member states of the European Free Trade Association. As these states, currently Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, are members of the internal market, but not of the Union, the problems linked with the EFTA, mainly infringement actions brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against an EFTA state, are ruled by this tribunal. It follows the Communitarian legislation and is composed of three judges, one per each member state. The European Court of Justice rules for the members of the European Union in the same issues, but as this court cannot rule over states that are not members of the Union, the EFTA Court 11 was created. Currently under discussion is the creation of a new tribunal in the Community, the European Union Patent Tribunal, as a direct consequence of European integration in the field of patents. Other tribunals will be created as a result of economic integration and the common 7
http://www.eubusiness.com/topics/eulaw/court-first-instance/. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/T5_5230/. 9 http://eca.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eca_main_pages/home. 10 http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-auditors/index_en.htm. 11 http://www.eftacourt.int/index.php/court/mission/introduction/. 8
Other Institutions and Agencies
155
,I
EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
nc .
currency that will include just some members of the Union, the members of the Eurozone. As we can see, the judicial system of the Union has not reached its final shape, and that will depend on the way European integration is done, and the fields left for the member states. New policies and new issues under European power could mean the creation of new tribunals or a change in the powers of the current tribunals.
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
The ECB is located in Frankfurt, Germany, and is the consequence of the creation of the common currency, the Euro. This institution follows the German model of the Bundesbank, and hence it is an independent body without influence of European politicians other than the nomination of the board members and the president. This independence has created problems with some members of the common currency when their presidents have tried to influence the decisions of the ECB because of political reasons, with no success so far because of the strong opposition of the ECB and Germany. The European Central Bank is in charge of managing the Euro and the price stability of the Eurozone. It is also responsible for framing 12 and implementing the EU‟s economic and monetary policy. In order to achieve its objectives, the ECB works closely with the central banks of the member states of the European Union together forming the European System of Central Banks. The collaboration of the ECB and the national institutions is crucial for the proper 13 working of the monetary system. Again we see how the European institutions merge with the national institutions into a whole that cannot be understand without each other, as in the Communitarian judicial system, or the work of the European Commission, or other European institutions. There is a close link between the national and supranational level, and the institutions of the Union are supported by the national institutions. The European institutional framework would be worthless without the essential collaboration of the national institutions, and, hence, it makes the EU unique, above any international organization, above any federal political structure, being a supranational organization where different levels mix in order to achieve a common goal. The main tasks of the ECB are:
N
ov
a
Sc i
1. Setting key interest rates for the Eurozone and controlling the money supply 2. Managing the Eurozone‟s foreign currency reserves and buying or selling currencies when necessary to keep exchange rates in balance 3. Helping to ensure that financial markets and institutions are adequately supervised by national authorities, and that payment systems function smoothly 4. Authorizing central banks in Eurozone countries to issue euro banknotes 14 5. Monitoring price trends and assessing the risk they pose to price stability
12
http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/ecb/index_en.htm. http://www.ecb.int/home/html/index.en.html. 14 http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/ecb/index_en.htm. 13
156
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
David Ramiro Troitino
http://www.ecb.int/home/html/index.en.html. The European System of Central Banks.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The internal organization of the ECB is based on three principal structures: the executive board that includes eight members and manages the daily work of the bank, the Governing Council in charge of the monetary policy of the Eurozone where all the presidents of the member states‟ central banks are present, and the General Council, coordinating the accessions of new members to the common currency while also advising the ECB on monetary questions. It entails all the presidents and vice presidents of the central banks of all the members of the European Union. The Euro is the common currency of only some members of the European Union, but the economic integration created by the internal market between the member states of the Union makes the common currency influence all members of the EU, and hence the inclusion of all its members in the General Council makes sense. Fiscal integration in the EU will alter this situation with deeper integration between the member states of the Eurozone and hence wider powers of the ECB. A fact united with the independence of the European Central Bank will lead to the creation of new institutions in the Union, some sort of economic government for the Euro states, the creation of Eurobonds, and hence deeper political integration in order to lead economic integration.
Other Institutions and Agencies
157
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
This is a consultative body of the Union, created already with the first European Community, the ECSC, in 1958. It is a consequence of the neo-functionalist approach to European integration taken at the beginning of the process. As European integration needs to encourage the loyalty of the social and economic agents in order to generate deeper integration, this committee was designed to link integration with employers, employees, and representatives of other interest groups, especially the liberal professions, farmers, and consumer groups. This institution is located in Brussels in order to associate the civil society with the main institutions of the Union, the Council, the Commission and the EP, and hence influence the legislative power of the Union. At the beginning of the integration the role of this Committee was more important than nowadays, drafting more influential reports when the European market was still being shaped, but currently its influence is reduced, even though the Treaty of Maastricht gave a wider spectrum of actuation to it, enlarging its domains to social policy, social and economic cohesion, environment, education, health, customers‟ protection, 15 industry, Trans-European Networks, indirect taxation, and structural funds. The EES committee acts as a forum on the European level for those involved in integration but not in decision making, and its main task is drafting reports about the issues stipulated in the EU treaties, or by their own initiative. Afterwards, the other institutions involved in the decision making can follow the recommendations of the committee or not. The real influence of the EESC can be felt at the early stage of European legislation, influencing the legislative process at the beginning, mainly even before there is a final proposal by the Commission. On average, the EESC delivers 170 advisory documents and opinions a year. All opinions are forwarded to the EU decision making bodies and then 16 published in the EU's Official Journal. The EESC currently has 344 members, but it can increase to 350 with further enlargements of the Union. Its members are decided upon according to the political, economic, and demographic size of the member states, plus a division among the representatives of each state into three groups: employees, employers, and interest groups. It has a president and two vice presidents in charge of the institution and working with the 17 different sections of the Committee, helped by around 800 civil servants. The EESC is currently a minor institution in the Union, and its advisory role has been decreased by the numerous advisors of the institutions involved in the decision making of the Union. Some members of the European Parliament have even asked for abolishing this Committee as its utility is doubtful nowadays. The EESC played an important role in developing the Common Market, but nowadays its role is much reduced and its existence is a consequence of a prior importance, as a relic of the past. There have been many proposals about the future of the Committee, but it is more likely to merge with another advisory institution, the Committee of the Regions, and then focus on the elaboration of advisory reports on any kind of European issue related to integration.
15
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.home. http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/ecosoc/index_en.htm. 17 http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.about-the-committee. 16
158
David Ramiro Troitino
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
This is the EU‟s assembly of regional and local representatives. It was established in 1994 as a consequence of the subsidiarity principle of the Union as a way to create a bridge between regional and local authorities and the European Union without the filter of the central governments of the member states, and hence is located in Brussels. The proximity of the regional and local authorities to European citizens is also important in order to associate European citizens more closely with European integration. Anyway, the real role of the Committee of the Regions is minor inside the EU, and its objectives based on subsidiarity and proximity are a failure because the central institutions of the member states still play the main role in European development and European citizens do not feel closer to the Union because of the work of this committee. The Committee of the Regions works as a consultative body in the Union; the Council, the Parliament, and the Commission have to consult it when treaties stipulate so, mainly when there is a local or regional influence in a new proposal, but its reports are not binding. The Commission and the Parliament can consult the committee if they consider it worthwhile. Finally, the committee can draft reports unilaterally with the hope of being included in the 18 European agenda. The committee has 344 members elected from the member states according to their economic, demographic, and political importance, and there is a limit of 350 members in case of further enlargements of the organization. Each member state choose its representatives respecting the regional and local composition of their own states. It also has a presidency, vice presidency, a secretariat, and other internal divisions. The working system of this institution is based on commissions divided according to their main topics of discussion:
ce
Territorial cohesion Economic and social policy Education, youth, and research Environment, climate change, and energy Citizenship, governance, and institutional and external affairs 19 Natural resources
en
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
N
ov
a
Sc i
The organization has been accused of duplicity with other European institutions, overlapping their work, and its drafts or advisory powers do not add any value to European integration. As the principles of subsidiarity and proximity are not working, and its work is a replica of other advisory powers in the Union, the existence of the Committee of the Regions is being discussed because of the incapacity of the institution to respond to its original challenges. The most likely solution will be the integration of this committee with the European Economic and Social Committee, as both institutions work closely on numerous occasions, and their main task is producing reports in order to advise the European institution implicated in decision making. European Investment Bank This is the European Union's financing institution, and its shareholders are the member states. It was created in 1958, with the first European 18 19
http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/HomeTemplate.aspx. http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/cor/index_en.htm.
Other Institutions and Agencies
159
nc .
Community, as a financial tool to increase integration in Europe. It invests its money mainly in infrastructures, a costly venture difficult to afford for private companies and necessary for the integration of the continent. The creation of the Common Market made this institution more important, as the needs of integration were wider after the approval of a common economic area. The priorities of the EIB within the Union are:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
1. Small and medium-sized enterprises: stimulating investment by small businesses 2. Cohesion and convergence: addressing economic and social imbalances in disadvantaged regions 3. Fight against climate change: mitigating and adapting to the effects of global warming. 4. Environmental protection and sustainable communities: investing in a cleaner natural and urban environment 5. Sustainable, competitive and secure energy: producing alternative energy and reducing dependence on imports 6. The knowledge economy: promoting an economy that stimulates knowledge and creativity through investment in information and communication technologies, and human and social capital 7. Trans-European networks: constructing cross-border networks in transport, energy, and communications
http://www.eib.org/about/key_figures/index.htm. Breakdown of the EIB‟s capital as 1 April 2010.
160
David Ramiro Troitino
EIB Activity
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
20
http://www.eib.org/about/index.htm.
,I
83 277 72 834 10 443 71 760 62 974 8 786 58 745 52 328 6 417 67 024 55 667 11 357
he rs is
Pu bl
European Investment Bank Activity in 2010 Projects approved European Union Partner Countries Signatures European Union Partner Countries Disbursements European Union Partner Countries Resources raised (before swaps) Core currencies (EUR, GBP, USD) Other currencies Situation as at 31.12.2010 Outstandings Loans disbursed Loans to be disbursed Financing from budgetary resources Borrowings Own funds Balance sheet total Net profit for year Subscribed capital of which called up European Investment Fund Activity in 2010 Signatures Venture capital (39 funds) Guarantees (22 operations) Situation as at 31.12.2010 Portfolio Venture capital - assets under management (351 funds) Guarantees - positions (193 operations) Microfinance (6 opérations) Accumulated signatures Venture capital (351 funds) Guarantees (197 operations) Own funds Balance sheet total Net profit for year Subscribed capital of which paid in
nc .
The EIB focuses its activity inside the territory of the European Union, some 88% of total 20 EIB financing of EUR 72 billion went to projects in the EU. But it acts also in over 150 countries of the world.
360 553 90 551 8 145 358 009 40 128 419 826 2 117 232 393 11 620 2 839 930 1 909 20 078 5 367 14 701 10 6 057 15 339 1 044 1 196 7 3 000 600
Other Institutions and Agencies
161
,I
Loans: granted to viable capital spending programs or projects in both the public and private sectors. Recipients range from large corporations to municipalities and small businesses. Technical assistance: provided by a team of expert economists, engineers, and specialists to complement EIB financing facilities. Guarantees: available to a wide range of bodies, e.g. banks, leasing companies, guarantee institutions, mutual guarantee funds, special purpose vehicles, and others. Venture capital: requests for venture capital should be addressed directly to an 21 intermediary.
he rs
nc .
The EIB borrows money in the international capital markets and then provides access to financing with a low interest rate to European projects inside the Union or in other states where the Union has some interest. As it is a non-profit organization, it transfers the financial conditions of the money it borrows to the money it lends, providing access to financial resources with very good conditions. The main services of the EIB are:
Pu bl
is
The EIB also controls the European Investment Fund, created in 1994 to help small business to face growing competition inside the Union and globalization in the world.
EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
en
Unfairness Discrimination Abuse of power Lack of or refusal to provide information Unnecessary delays Incorrect procedures
Sc i
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
ce
This institution was created because of the worrying gap in European integration between the process and the citizens of Europe. The European Ombudsman‟s main task is protecting citizens from any harm they could suffer from the European institutions. It investigates complaints against EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, and provides assistance to citizens, companies, and organizations. The most common cases are related to:
N
ov
a
The European Ombudsman is chosen for a period of 5 years and is located in Strasbourg, France. He is elected by the Parliament and acts independently of any institution of the Union, and can even start an investigation without any complaint, by his own initiative. This office cannot investigate national issues related to national institutions, and hence is not above the national ombudsmen. Also, it is not allowed to investigate any harm produced by any company or private person, focusing its activity on the maladministration of the European
21
http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/eib/index_en.htm.
162
David Ramiro Troitino 22
institutions. Each year the institution receives around 400 complains, mainly linked with the European Commission.
Cases closed in 2010 following inquiries Average length of inquiry Cases closed within 3 months Cases closed within 12 months Cases closed within 18 months
nc .
Cases of the European Ombudsman 2010
Source of complaints leading to inquiries closed in 2010 Companies and associations 22% (72) Individual citizens 78% (254) http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/activities/annualreports.faces.
he rs
,I
9 months 52% 66% 82%
ce
Pu bl
is
The European Ombudsman is an initiative copying existing institutions in the member states to solve European problems. It creates a new level of protection for individuals and private associations on the European level, but its accessibility is not very good, as the number of cases shows; it is much higher for any national Ombudsman than at the European level, even when the number of possible victims is much higher. It is also interesting to see that in countries with higher euro skepticism complaints received by the European Ombudsman are significantly lower, a clear sign of mistrust in the value of the European institutions. Anyway, the Ombudsman was created by the Treaty of Maastricht, and started working in 1995, so it already has had enough time to become known by Europeans. As that did not happen, the institution should be reformed in such a way as to bring it closer to Europeans, more accessible, more transparent, more known in European society.
en
Results of inquiries closed 2010
Sc i
Settled by the institution or friendly solution agreed (179)
No maladministration found (55)
Other (23) 1.0
2.0
Results of inquiries closed 2010
N
ov
a
0.0
22
http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/ombudsman/index_en.htm.
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
nc . ,I
Chapter 18
he rs
THE ENLARGEMENT TO SWEDEN, AUSTRIA, AND FINLAND
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The end of the Cold War was important for the European Communities because it changed the internal situation of Europe and the status quo established after WW II, where Europe was divided into two main parts, the West and the East, with a buffer zone including the neutral states of the Cold War. The European Communities were seen by the Communists as a weapon of the USA to fight against the workers of Europe, and hence an enemy of the Soviet Union, the selfproclaimed protector of the workers of the world. As European integration started working primarily in the field of economy and the development of a common market in coal and steel, and afterwards in other products, it was clearly a capitalist organization, enemy of international communism promoted from the Soviet Union. Also the doctrine of Birkelbach and the emphasis on democracy were seen as another clash between the Communities and the Soviet Union, democracy against the dictatorship of the communist party. The important role of the USA in the creation of the first European community, the ECSC, and the later support of the Americans to further integration in order to have a strong Europe able to face the communist internal and external threat, made the relations between both areas even more difficult. Some of the most important leaders of Western Europe, as de Gaulle or Willy Brandt, had relations with the Soviet bloc, as they tried to build a third way in the dual confrontation of the Cold War, but it did not have any influence on the relationship between the European Communities and the Soviet Union. So, these two blocks had bad 1 relations and belonged to two different worlds, two different sides in the Cold War. The European Communities were not the only attempt in the field of integration on the European continent because the communists launched another community based on communism, the Comecon. It was a Soviet dominated community created in 1949 as an answer to the Marshall plan and the beginning of European cooperation in the West in the economic field. This organization was led by the USSR and decision making was officially based on consensus, but in practice was based on the will of Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the organization included the Eastern bloc, plus other partners in the world, and was based on cooperation of the different national policies of the member states.
1
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1457&context=iclr.
164
David Ramiro Troitino
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Decisions were taken in common and afterwards the states had to apply them by their own means in their own countries, without any power for the common institutions. The situation of some countries of Europe with both blocs was complicated, because they belonged to the Western world, but their status after the Second World War was that of neutrality, so they could not join any of the parties involved in the confrontation, the European Communities as a part of the capitalistic world supported by the USA, or the Soviet Union and all the countries under its influence. This was the case of Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, and Lichtenstein. The other important European association at that time was the European Free Trade Association, promoted by the UK as its main leader, but as it was just a common area for trade based on industrial production, without any political cooperation or integration in any field, it was seen as a neutral association under the prism of the Cold War, and hence these neutral countries joined it without breaking the equilibrium established after WW II. At the end of the World War, Finland signed an agreement with the Soviet Union in which was included the neutral role of the country in relations between East and West. The Soviet troops were in a hurry to reach central Europe to implement the Soviet domination over the area. As the areas liberated by the USA fell under its influence, the Red Army could not lose precious time in Finland because otherwise the resistance of the Finnish people could have meant months of delay. Austria was occupied by Soviet and American troops, and they withdrew with the condition of neutrality of the country. The integrity of the country was respected by both powers under the nonalignment of the Austrian state. Sweden was a neutral country even before the war and the beginning of the conflict between communism and capitalism, and wanted to keep this status in the context of the Cold War. As Sweden and Finland are Scandinavian countries and they are in many ways linked with Norway, the enlargement of the European Communities to these states was used to influence the citizens of Norway in order to include the country in the common application of Sweden and Finland to the European Communities.
a
Sc i
The country was occupied by US and Soviet forces at the end of the war, and hence was a problematic area in the context of the confrontation between the USA and the Soviet Union. Both powers decided to give full independence to the country with the condition of its having a neutral status. The agreement was signed because of its geographic position between East and West, because it was a part of the German nation, already divided ino two main blocs, or areas of influence, plus the interest of the USA in stabilization of the area before moving the war effort to the Pacific. The situation was formally adopted in 1955 with the Moscow memorandum which expressed the neutral condition of Austria. As a neutral country, Austria could not join the European Communities, but was a member of the EFTA. But as economic relations between Austria and West Germany, especially with Bavaria, were very important for both areas, the EC and Austria signed a special agreement based only on trade in 1972. After the end of the Cold War, the country showed interest joining the European Communities, as the confrontation was finished and its status of neutrality was no longer important in the case of European integration. It was the reunification of the German nation
ov
N
AUSTRIA
The Enlargement to Sweden, Austria, and Finland
165
nc .
under the umbrella of the European Communities, under democratic rules. The collaboration of both states within the European Union has been very strong ever since. The main problems with Austria‟s joining the European Communities were based on
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
1. Environment and the traffic of heavy trucks because Austrian legislation was more developed than the Communitarian in this field, and the conditions for the circulation of heavy trucks were very restrictive in order to protect the environment. Nevertheless, it was an important obstacle to the Common Market, to the free movement of goods, because most of the transportation at that time was done by trucks, and it could have a strong influence on the transportation of products. 2. Another important problem was the transition periods for Austrian farmers and Austrian agricultural markets to adapt to the level of prices of the Common Agricultural Policy. Here the problem was basically that Austria had its own policy protecting its farmers, and joining the Communities meant joining the CAP as well. As the prices in the Austrian nationally protected market were higher than those in the CAP, the Austrian farmers were going to lose money with the integration of the country into the Community. As the candidates have to accept the whole European building when they join the Union, the main problem was the transitional periods of joining all the European Communities and policies fully, with the Austrians trying to make it longer, softening the economic damage of Austrian farmers. 3. Other important issue was the prohibition of Austrian authorities to foreigners for buying real estate on Austrian soil. There were many restrictions in that sense, but it was clearly against the principle of no discrimination because of nationality of European integration.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The referendums in the candidate countries started with Austria, where 66.6% of the population supported the accession of the country to the European Communities. Besides the problems already mentioned, the accession of Austria was very smooth and no big problems or conflicts occurred. The main concern of Austria inside the European Communities and the European Union is its strong link with Germany, and their common position on most of the issues. It means that Germany, already the strongest country inside the Union, almost always has the unconditional support of Austria in its positions. As an example, Austria is one of the few member states without sea access, but as it is a full member of the European Union, it has full presence in all the policies of the Union, as the Common Fishing Policy. As this policy also includes fishing in rivers and other variants, the country has some interest on this field, but the main field of the policy is linked with fishing in the seas. There Austria always supports the German position, even when Austria has no interest at all in this matter and could just support other positions; but no, Austria almost always gives its votes to the German proposals in this field. So, the relationship between Austria and Germany, obviously very close because of cultural reasons as both belong to the same nation, is also very important inside the European Union because it gives to Germany, already a powerful state inside the 2 Union, extra power.
2
http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/austria/index_en.htm.
166
David Ramiro Troitino
SWEDEN
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
This Scandinavian country was neutral during WW II, even though it had strong economic links with Germany and other contenders in the conflict. After the war, the country opted for keeping this status to protect itself in case of a confrontation between the Soviet Union and the USA, between Western and Central Europe, even when the model of the country was much closer to the West than to the Communist positions. The country was heavily industrialized and depended on international trade and free access to foreign markets in order to sell its production. The EFTA, as a nonpolitical association based on trade, was a good option for the country, and hence it was in Stockholm where the treaty founding the EFTA was signed. During the „60s the economy of Sweden was performing well, when in the European Communities the situation was not so virtuous, and hence there were no reasons for joining the organization and risking the neutral status of the country. The situation changed in the „70s, when the country had an economic crisis and the opinion towards Europe changed in the country. Also the personality and policies of then Prime Minister of Sweden, Olof Palme, a supporter of the integration of the country into the European Communities, helped to change the perception of the organization inside Sweden. During the „90s, after the creation of the Single Market with the SEA, the European countries inside the Communities were performing well in the economic field, and at the same time the Swedish economy was suffering. This situation, and the end of the Cold War, meant the application of the country to the European Communities in order to increase economic performance via integration into the Common Market of the European Communities. There was a referendum in the country, and 52.3% of Swedish citizens supported the accession of the country. The campaign preceding the referendum showed a clear division between rural and urban areas, between the South and the North of the country, between industry and agriculture. It was a situation parallel to that in Norway. Nevertheless, the country was not fully convinced of the benefits of integration, and has been a complicated partner in the European building process afterwards, having a cautious position always when deeper integration is discussed. The first elections for the European Parliament in Sweden meant that almost half of the Swedish seats went to anti-European parties. The reasons given at that time were basically economic, because the economic 3 situation of the country did not improve after its accession to the European Communities.
FINLAND
N
ov
a
The confrontation between Finland and the Soviet Union started even before WW II, with the Finno-Soviet war. The small country could resist the attacks from the Soviets for a long period, but finally the end of the war meant territorial losses for Finland after a peace agreement was signed, but the independence of Finland was reassured. During WW II the Finns became allies of Germany, and collaborated with them in the war against the Soviet Union in an attempt to recover the land lost in the previous war. During the last period of the 3
http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/sweden/index_en.htm.
The Enlargement to Sweden, Austria, and Finland
167
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
conflict, the Red army was interested in reaching Central Europe before the allies in order to secure their influence over the area, and hence signed a peace agreement with Finland, because otherwise they would have had to divert many troops to this corner of Europe. As Germany was collapsing between two fronts and it was clear that the war was lost, the Germans and its allies surrendered much more easily to the forces led by the USA, and resisted heavily the advance of the Soviet troops, making the Soviet advance more difficult and making it more necessary for the Soviet army to concentrate its troops to break the resistance. There were some ideas in Germany at this time about the relations of Europe and the Soviet Union linked with a clash of civilizations. For example Rommel, a well-known German officer, thought of resisting the Soviets and collaborating with the American troops 4 in the inevitable conflict between West and East that was going to follow WW II. After the war, in 1948, a treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and Finland, which included bilateral friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance, stressing the neutral status of Finland. It also meant economic relations of this country with theSoviet Union, and afterwards economic relations between Finland and Russia. Meanwhile, Finland had a cold relationship with the European Communities and became an associated member of the EFTA in 1961. After the end of the Cold War, Finland started negotiations with the European Communities and became a full member after a referendum where 53% of the population supported the enlargement. As in the case of Sweden, the main division in the country related 5 to European issues was, and in some sense still is, between the rural areas and the cities. The main problems of Austria, Sweden, and Finland joining the communities were:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
1. Neutrality: All of them had this status before they joined the European organization, and kept it after the accession. The problem comes now from attempts to develop an effective Common and Security policy inside the Union, as these countries are still neutral and are not willing to get involved in an active foreign policy. Also the much discussed European army cannot be developed inside the European framework because some of these countries are against it, because it would break their neutral status. 2. Environment: All these countries had higher standards of environmental protection than the ones developed in the Union. When they joined the Communities there were different options, as downgrading the environmental protection in these countries forcing them to adopt the European standards, or upgrading the European protection to the standards of these countries. As the first option was not popular among the citizens of these countries and could harm the environment, and the second option was very expensive for most of the member states of the Union, a third option was adopted. The EU allowed members to have more progressive legislation than the EU in the field of the environment. Hence, European legislation in the field became the minimum standard to be followed by the member states. Environment became an exception for the free movement of goods and an obstacle to the Single Market accepted by the Union. 3. Health Care: Here the situation was similar to the environmental protection problem. Health protection in these countries was higher than in the Communities, and
4 5
The Rommel papers. Erwin Rommel, Basil Henry Liddell Hart. Da Capo Press. 1953. http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/finland/index_en.htm.
168
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
Sc i
en
7.
ce
6.
Pu bl
is
5.
he rs
,I
4.
European legislation became the minimum standard, and health care became an exception to the free movement in the single Market. Here it is important to point out the importance of health care from an economic point of view as an aspect of great importance in the competitiveness of companies. Public monopolies: These monopolies are against EU rules because they are an obstacle for the free movement of goods inside the Single Market, and the candidates had to finish with this system in order to adapt their countries to European legislation. But some exceptions were accepted, as in the case of Sweden and Finland with the alcohol public monopoly. As these countries have some problems with drinking and its consequences on their population, there are some controls of the state over alcoholic drinks, but it is not an obstacle to the free movement of goods because these monopolies sell what people want, without discriminating any brand or alcoholic drink. Because of this system based on the preferences of the consumers and of reasons linked with health care, these countries were allowed to keep their state monopolies. Trade with third countries: The trade agreements signed by these countries with other partners in the world had to be readapted to the European common economic area, as no bilateral agreements are allowed in the Single Market because it might have a negative effect on trade for the whole area even if they benefit just one part of it. So the EU had to renegotiate these agreements making similar agreements between the EU and the third countries or ending them. In this case, according to the WTO, the EU had to pay economic reparation to the third countries. Agriculture: It was a big problem in the negotiations, because the three candidates had higher levels of prices in their respective agricultural markets than the European level, with some exceptions in the case of Sweden. Nevertheless, the enlargement could mean economic problems for the farmers of the candidates. The solution was paying economic compensations to the farmers in order to decrease the negative effects of the Common Agricultural Policy on the farmers of these states. Economic aid to less developed areas: This was a problem especially in the less populated areas of Sweden and Finland, in the north of both states, in Lapland and the Sami populated areas. As the states were, compared with the average of the member states, rich, they had a problem receiving the Structural funds of the Union for developing these areas, and hence the European Communities included this target, less populated areas, in the Development Funds of the Union benefiting these states. Fishing. This problem did not included Austria, because of obvious geographic reasons, but it included Sweden and Finland. The problem again, as we have seen often with fishing, was opening national waters to the European fleet. The problem was solved with a calendar specifying a gradual access to their waters by the 6 European fleet.
N
ov
a
8.
The enlargement to Austria, Sweden, and Finland in 1995 was not very problematic because these countries were already members of the EFTA and already had strong economic 6
The Experiences of the 1995 Enlargement. Sweden, Finland and Austria in the European Union. Tomasz R. Szymczynski Jaroslaw Janczak. FALTA.
The Enlargement to Sweden, Austria, and Finland
169
he rs
,I
nc .
relations with the Communities. Also, as these countries were relatively rich, it made things easier. The enlargement meant that the European group overtook the USA and Japan in terms of Gross Domestic Product, but not in terms of rent per capita. It gave to the Communities a stronger position in world affairs, especially in economic and trade international negotiations. Also these new members were net contributors to the Communitarian budget, with the exception of Finland, in the first two years after the enlargement, and hence the European Communities had more money to spend on its policies. The ratification of the enlargement Treaty was made in such a way that the countries where support to accession was higher voted earlier, trying to influence the countries less friendly to European integration to support the accession. So, the positive support to the enlargement goes down in terms of popular support in the referendums from Austria, Finland, and Sweden, ending with the rejection to the Treaty in Norway.
THE CASE OF NORWAY
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
Norway had already applied to the European Communities at the time of the British enlargement in 1973, but an internal referendum rejected the accession. At the end of the Cold War, and following the example of Sweden and Finland, the Labor party of Norway, by a small majority of delegates, voted for applying again for membership in the European Communities, and in the following two years there was a hard debate about the benefits and losses of membership for the country. In 1994, after negotiations between the Europeans and Norway were already finished, in a new national referendum 52.2% of the Norwegian population voted against membership. The reasons for the rejection were similar to those of the previous referendum, basically South against North, urban areas against rural areas, center versus periphery, and secularism against religion. The southern part of the country was more interested in trade with the rest of Europe, while the North was focused mainly on fishing and agriculture. Entry into the European Communities would have meant an economic loss for farmers, as the national protection was higher than the European, and problems for the fishing industry, as Norway would have had to grant equal access for the European fleet to the rich Norwegian waters. There were also political concerns as nationalistic forces were against the supranational organization where national sovereignty had to be shared with the rest of the members. The less populated areas where also against accession as the economic support from the Norwegian state was higher than the European fund focus in these areas. As weather conditions in the countryside areas of Norway are harsh, the discussion focused on a possible loss of population of the rural areas without the needed financial support. As Norway had strong economic links with the members of the EFTA, a new association was created to retain these relations between the remaining members of the EFTA and the European Union, where important partners of Norway were now members, as Sweden or Finland. The new entity was called the European Economic Area, and its members were 7 Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein plus the European Union. The EEA meant the creation of a single market among its members, the suppression of all barriers to trade with the exception of agricultural production, a customs union, a common trade policy, a common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs (even these countries are part of the Schengen area), 7
http://www.efta.int/eea.aspx.
170
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
and a monetary union. The situation is a bit chaotic in the sense that Norway is a part of the single market, and hence contributes to the budget of the European Union, and its representatives are in the European institutions when issues linked with the single market are discussed. But as it is not a member of the Union, when the decision making process starts, the delegates of Norway withdraw from the negotiations as they cannot vote. So the country is forced to accept the decisions of the Europeans without influencing the voting process with its positions. It is like being part of the Union, because it is part of the main policies of it, but at the same time being outside as it cannot vote because it is not a member of the organization. This system can last as long as Norway has economic resources, mainly oil, to sustain the situation, because it is expensive for the country to accept European legislation without influencing it. About the contribution of Norway to the EU budget, it is important to remark that it is very important, and in terms of population, is one of the countries of the 8 organization which pays more, around 340 million a year. At the same time, Norway does not get money back from the EU via the Communitarian policies as it is not a member of the Union, increasing the net contribution of the country. As an example, we see the European legislation concerning salmon and the different ways to grow this fish, that has a huge impact on the Norwegian economy as the main exporter of salmon, but at the same time, the Norwegian government cannot influence the European legislation in this field because the country is not a member of the Union.
THE CASE OF SWITZERLAND
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The country was interested in membership in the European Communities, but in the early stage of the process there was an internal referendum in which the Swiss people rejected the idea. The idea of the government was keeping the links with its partners of the EFTA along with enjoying the freedoms of the Single Market. Nevertheless, the opposition was strong, mainly coming from the farmers and the principal banks. Farmers were against the enlargement because the Swiss level of protection for its farmers was higher than the European one, and accession would have meant a reduction in the incomes of the Swiss farmers. The principal banks were concerned about the role of Switzerland as a tax haven. Finally, the complicated confederation system of Switzerland made approval of the referendum difficult because it is based on 26 parliaments and, in some places, direct democracy. So, any referendum needs to be passed by all the cantons and the majority of the citizens. As the country rejected the possibility of joining the European Union, it also rejected the possibility of joining the EEE because it was based only on EU legislation and did not allow members to participate in the legislative process unless they were members of the European Union. Also, there was a fear that the EEE could in reality mean the creation of a mini supranational organization, with the consequent lost in sovereignty for Switzerland. Anyway, the economic relations between Switzerland and the EU are important and they are developed
8
http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2011/05/why-britain-leaving-the-eu-for-the-eea-or-efta-will-not-solve-any-of-theanti-eu-crowds-complaints/.
The Enlargement to Sweden, Austria, and Finland
171
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
in the framework of bilateral agreements whereby the Swiss adopt EU legislation in order to 9 participate in the Single Market. It is not likely that the country will join the European Union, but a hypothetical reinforcement in the control of capital from the EU to Switzerland could affect the Swiss economy tremendously, promoting integration of the state into the European Union in order to influence the legislative process and achieve full access to the European Market and hence to European funds.
9
http://eeas.europa.eu/switzerland/index_en.htm.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE TREATIES OF MAASTRICHT, AMSTERDAM, AND NICE
,I
Chapter 19
ce
Pu bl
is
The Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, along with the following treaties, were the consequences of European development in integration, the next logical step after the Single European Act following the pattern based on the spillover effect. The SEA solved different problems, as the wrong working system of the Common Market, but also generated new problems that could be solved only with deeper integration, with a new treaty, with the Treaty of Maastricht. The end of the Cold War and its consequences in Europe, as German reunification, new democratic states in Central and Eastern Europe, or the new international situation, were also important for the creation of a new treaty. Amsterdam and Nice were basically reforms of the Treaty of Maastricht, and Lisbon was not so ambitious a step, as the so called European constitution was rejected by the citizens of France and Holland.
THE GERMAN CASE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
The first visible consequence of the end of the Cold War was German reunification, when West and East united in 1990, and it could be considered as another enlargement to the Communities because as East Germany united with West Germany, it also became part of the European Communities. The relations between West and East Germany were difficult during the first period of their constitution. Germany lost many territories after the war, and what was left was divided 1 into three parts under the influence of the UK, the USA and the Soviet Union. The western part of Germany became a democratic country known as West Germany; the Soviet Union promoted the creation of another country under its influence, East Germany. The first Chancellor of West Germany, Conrad Adenauer, did not accept this division of Germany because he thought of the country as a whole, and the postwar division as something temporary. Adenauer was an important politician in Germany. He had been against the Nazis since early times, much before WW II, and had successfully become mayor of Cologne. He also founded the Christian Democratic Union, one of the most important political parties in 1
UK share its part with France, and hence there were four powers occupying Germany.
174
David Ramiro Troitino
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
German politics in our time. Hallstein, a scholar who later became the first president of the European Commission, collaborated closely with Adenauer and developed a doctrine based 2 on no diplomatic relations with countries which recognized East Germany. Willy Brandt, also Chancellor, from 1969 till 1974, was a key person in the relations between West and East. He was member of the Social Democratic Party and also had also been against the Nazi regime, spending most of the war in exile in the Scandinavian countries. He started a new political stance towards East Germany and the Soviet Union called Ostpolitik, and at the same time supported the enlargement of the European Communities to the UK, Ireland, and Denmark. Hence, the Communities had a deeper relationship with East Germany than with any other state in the influence zone of the 3 Soviets. The end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 meant the beginning of the reunification process. It had had from the very beginning an influence in the European Communities, as for example with the Schengen agreement, because this agreement was delayed in order to study its influence on East Germany. The European politicians mostly supported the process; Delors, president of the European Commission supported reunification and the enlargement of the Community to East Germany. Mitterrand, the president of France, had many doubts about German reunification because it could tilt the balance of power in Europe away from France towards Germany, but as he had no real chance to stop the process, he thought of tying Germany closer to Europe by accelerating European integration under Franco-German leadership. This meant the creation of the Treaty of Maastricht. The position of France was clear: a strong united Germany could repeat the economic miracle of after the War and create a much bigger and stronger German state which could dominate European politics. In order to avoid an independent Germany, integration deepened in uniting Germany to its European partner and dissolving the German influence in the European framework. Nevertheless, the so called German miracle did not work in the case of East Germany, and the country had, and to some extent still has, many problems uniting East and West. Margaret Thatcher had lost the leadership of the conservative party in November 1990, and was against the reunification for similar reasons: the equilibrium in Europe could be damaged by a strong Germany. But as she lost her power in the UK, she just became a bitter enemy of reunification without real possibilities for influencing the process. Felipe Gonzalez, socialist president of Spain, was a keen supporter of German reunification and worked intensively in this direction. Reunification was finally achieved in October 1990, and the problems started for Germany and hence for the Community, as the process did not work as well as expected. The main problems were:
a
N
ov
2 3
Too high a conversion rate of the East German currency to the German Mark, one to one West Germany could not absorb East Germany, as had been initially thought; the expected new economic miracle like the one after WW II did not happen. And the process became much longer than expected, with consequent financial problems for Germany.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/adenauer_konrad.shtml. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/77739/Willy-Brandt.
The Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice
The European Communities got involved in the economic effort of incorporating East Germany to the capitalist system. The European Structural Fund helped Germany, as the new 5 German regions received a special structural fund specifically created for the German reunification, showing the solidarity of the member states with Germany. Anyway, it meant a problem balancing the European budget and less investment in other European policies.
THE TREATY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
,I
nc .
175
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
The Single European Act created a Single Market, and it meant the creation of a common economic area. One of the remaining obstacles to trade in the area was the existence of different currencies and its negative effect on trade. The logical next step was the creation of a single currency for a single area. Another fact influencing the new Treaty was the fall of the Soviet Union and a new era in international relations. Europe needed to define its own position in the new scenario after the end of an international world dominated by the USA and the Soviet Union, and hence a new treaty was needed. The European weakness during the 1990-1991 Gulf crisis, and the war of Yugoslavia showed the necessity of Europe‟s having a common position in the international arena, because individually, the member states did not have enough power to interfere effectively in international problems. German reunification, as mentioned before, was another important factor in the elaboration of a new treaty; it was needed to unite Germany closer to the Communities to avoid an independent and powerful Germany dominating European relations. Finally, the European institutions were pressing for reform in the treaties. The European Commission and the European Parliament considered the SEA insufficient because of its working system and were demanding deeper integration and more power for the European 4 Parliament. The negotiations for the new Treaty were very difficult, because the positions of the member states were very different. The United Kingdom refused any deeper integration in the European process. The position of the British was clear because, for the government of Thatcher, the SEA had been already too much, and deepening integration would have meant a new loss of British sovereignty. The inflexible position of Thatcher against this new Treaty was one of the reasons for the discontent of her government that finally meant the end of her time as British Prime Minister. Spain was afraid of losing the much needed financial support from the Communities and asked for a new Cohesion Fund as a condition for accepting the new Treaty. Also Spain, united with Portugal, asked to keep the unanimity in the decisions link with environment. They were afraid about the more developed countries in the Communities because their legislation provided higher protection for the environment, and hence extending it to the Communities could have meant problems for the economic development of Portugal and Spain because the financial cost of protecting the environment would have made their economies less competitive.
4
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSTREAT/TR3.htm.
176
David Ramiro Troitino
he rs
,I
nc .
Germany refused creating a new fund because the country considered that it was already contributing sufficiently to the European budget and a new fund could mean higher contributions to the Community at a time that German financial resources were needed for German reunification. Germany and the Benelux countries asked for federalization of the institutional system, but the other partners of the Community were not willing to advance in political integration. After hard and long discussions the final draft was adopted, but the European Parliament found it insufficient and threatened rejecting it. This European institution disagreed about the exclusion of the Common Foreign and Security Policy from the first pillar because it could mislead European citizens and the rest of the world about the essence of the Union. The Parliament argued that the division based on pillars was not democratic because the only democratic institution of the Union, the Parliament, did not have any control over the second and third pillars. The Commission, in similar terms, asked for a Treaty based just on one pillar.
is
INNOVATIONS OF THE TREATY
Pu bl
The Treaty of Maastricht introduced a new working system based on three pillars, what was called a temple approach, the pillars supporting different policies supporting the European house. The first pillar included the European Communities and was based on:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
1. Qualified majority: The decision making was based on a system where the majority of the member states, following some rules, decided about the common rules. It means a de facto loss of national sovereignty in the sense that one member state could be outvoted by the other members and forced to adopt any rule against its national interest. The idea is very simple, the states did not give away sovereignty, but they shared it in a common framework system called the European Union. The decisions were going to be taken for the good of the whole community, for the good of Europe, and not on a national basis. 2. Subsidiarity: This principle was included in the first pillar because it is linked with the European building process itself. Subsidiarity mainly means that the institution which will deal with a situation or a problem in the most effective way will act in this field. So, local problems can be solved better by local authorities, regional issues by regional institutions, national issues by national institutions, and European issues by European institutions. It is one of the main principles of federalism, and a clear concession for those who were afraid of the European Union as a strong centralized organization. 3. The previous policies of the Community were included in the first pillar where the power was divided among the European institutions, mainly balancing the power of the Council of the European Union and the Parliament under the surveillance of the High Court of Justice and the executive powers of the Commission. New policies included in the first pillar with the Treaty of Maastricht were ones such as consumer protection, culture, development, education, public health, Trans-European networks, and, under a special protocol, social policy.
177
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice
Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/droit_communautaire/droit_communautaire.htm. The Pillar System.
178
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The second pillar was the intergovernmental organization for the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This pillar depended on the member states and was out of the control of the Communitarian institutions. Only the political will of the member states was taken into consideration as a way of developing this policy within the Union. This pillar also included the possibility of developing a defense policy in the Union under the umbrella of the Western European Union. It was not the first time that coordination of the external policies of the member states was promoted, but it was the first time it was included in the treaties as a way to integrate the different positions of the member states, but almost always working with a system based on unanimity, avoiding the loss of sovereignty of the member states in such a sensitive policy. The third pillar of the structure of the Union was based on cooperation on justice and home affairs, mainly asylum, cross border problems, customs, drugs, fraud, immigration policy, judicial cooperation, and police coordination. All these problems were a consequence of the Single Market and the Schengen agreement, a common area with free movement of goods and free movement of persons with the negative side effect of free movement of illegal products and free movement of criminals within the common area. As it was necessary to control these problems from a common position, and integration was not possible because security is one of the main attributes of any state, cooperation was chosen as the means by which to eliminate these negative effects from the common area. In the future, deeper cooperation will lead to some kind of integration in this field, that being more effective for Union for solving the problems related with justice and home affairs. The member states at the moment are still not ready to take such an important step in terms of integration because it would mean the creation of the United States of Europe. The ratification of the Treaty was complicated, and the Danish citizens rejected it at first by 50.7% against 49.3% of the votes. As Denmark is a small state, not crucial in the European process, it was decided that the Treaty should not change because of Danish rejection. If any big state of the Union would have rejected it, as France did with the so called European constitution afterwards, the Treaty might have had to be reformed and changed. So, there was a second referendum in Denmark where defense cooperation, European citizenship, and the common currency for Denmark were excluded. It passed without major problems. The United Kingdom did not pass the Treaty until the resolution of the Danish problem, and opted to stay out of the social chapter included in the Treaty. France also had problems with the ratification of the Treaty, with a narrow victory of less than 2% of the votes. Finally, Germany had to wait for ratification until the German High Court gave its approval. A German citizen started the process in the German justice system because the German government pretended to pass the new Treaty in the parliament and was not planning any referendum. He argued that the parliament was just a body representing the German people, the real holders of sovereignty; and, as the Treaty of Maastricht meant a big loss in terms of national sovereignty, it was illegal to pass it just in parliament without consulting the German people. The German Court ruled against this idea, arguing that Germany was not giving away the sovereignty of German citizens; it was just sharing it, because the European Union was not an international organization but a supranational one. After so many obstacles, the Treaty was finally 5 approved and started working in November 1993.
5
http://www.eurotreaties.com/maastrichtec.pdf.
The Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice
179
he rs
THE AMSTERDAM TREATY
,I
nc .
The main problems of the Treaty were the EU‟s complexity, the impenetrable language, and lack of transparency. The problem here is that just specialists could understand it, and regular citizens could not comprehend the significance of the Treaty. It made the Union even more distanced from European people. The treaty also did not achieve one of the original targets of more democracy and more subsidiarity, and hence did not increase integration in these basic fields. The different rules on different policies about decision making made it more difficult to understand the working system of the Union for European citizens, again separating the people from a process which influenced their everyday lives.
ce
Pu bl
is
The next Treaty in the European process had already been decided in its precedent treaty, because Maastricht left some issues unresolved and the member states decided to postpone any decision about them to the following years with a new Treaty. The difficult and long process of ratification of the Treaty of Maastricht, and a growing resistance from European citizens to deepening the Union, resulted in the treaty of Amsterdam‟s having just modest provisions in order to avoid problematic situations. The main contributions of this Treaty were basically adapting the European Union for the biggest enlargement of its history to Central and Eastern Europe, and including more policies in the first pillar. It followed the European logic that when member states cooperate in some field, they solved the main problems there; they then feel sure that this policy can be managed properly on the European level, and they share their sovereignty in this field with the rest of the members of the Union in order to act more quickly and more effectively.
THE TREATY OF NICE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
The European Council had long and difficult discussions before an agreement was reached. But it was an agreement that did not satisfied most of the parties involved in the negotiations. The main target of this new treaty was the power of the states in a Union of 27 members and other reforms of the European Union in order to work properly under the new situation with so many new members. It was trying to give the Union the tools to avoid the collapse of the working system of the European institutions because they were not adapted for so many countries, so many wishes, and so many different interests. At the end of the summit, the Council reached swift agreement but pointed out a reference for a further reform, a reference to the future European Constitution proposed by Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Sweden. The Treaty was basically a revision of the Treaty of the European Union and took 11 months of negotiations for ending with a hasty agreement taken in the last days when time for an agreement was almost over. The new treaty started working in February 2003 after ratification by Ireland in a second referendum. Again, a small country rejected the treaty, and, instead of forgetting the new reform in the whole Union, the referendum was repeated until the Irish gave their consent. It would be interesting to see what the reaction of the big countries and the answer of the European Union would be if a country rejected any treaty twice. As all new treaties need to be passed by all member states, the possibilities would be
180
David Ramiro Troitino
REFORM OF THE INSTITUTIONS UNDER NICE
nc .
mainly three: expelling the country from the Union, stopping the reform in all of Europe, or starting a parallel integration including the states interested in deeper advancement. All of them would damage the European building process enormously.
is Pu bl
ce
29 29 29 29 27 27 14 13 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 4 4 4 4 4 3
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
Germany France Italy UK Spain Poland Romania Netherlands Greece Czech Republic Belgium Hungary Portugal Bulgaria Sweden Austria Denmark Finland Ireland Slovakia Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Slovenia Estonia Cyprus Malta
he rs
,I
The Treaty of Nice gave new values to the votes of the member states in the European institutions and to their representation in the European Parliament. It also changed the internal composition of other institutions, as the HCJ or the European Commission. The new values of the national votes in the European Council were:
The number of votes was decided according to different patterns, as economic importance, size, or size of the state, respecting the unwritten principle of equilibrium between France and Germany in the European Union. Also, the small countries are over represented if we compare the number of votes and the number of votes of the big countries.
The Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice
181
The Treaty also redefined the concept of qualified majority, establishing it in 255 votes of 345, adding two ways that the decisions could be blocked: If half plus one of the member states vote against any rule, it cannot be approved. It is clearly a way to protect the smallest countries in the Union, and avoid a situation where the big countries, allied and voting together, impose their decisions over the majority of the states. It does not take into consideration the population of the countries, or its size, just that they are countries. In this sense it is closer to a confederation. b. If there is an agreement among states representing more than 62% of the European population, any decision can be vetoed. This is a measure to protect the biggest states from being outvoted by the majority of the member states representing a minority of Europeans. It is an action closer to a federation, where the population matters more than other factors.
he rs
,I
nc .
a.
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The composition of the European Commission also changed. Previously, the big states had two nationals as Commissars, and the rest of the states just one. As many new countries were going to join the Union, the work of the Commission would have been very difficult with so many Commissars. Even now, when each member state has a national working as Commissar, the system is sometimes too slow and the efficiency could increase with fewer members, but all the states want to keep a member in the Commission because of its influence and national prestige. According to the internal rules of the Commission, the Commissars make an oath protecting the European interest and hence forgetting about the national interest of the countries they are from. The states should not worry about the number of Commissars or whether they have a national in the Commission if this rule is respected. Moreover, the Treaty of Nice established that after each enlargement the number of Commissars will increase. The last reform of the Commission was about the election of the president of the institution; previously he had been chosen by consensus and after the reform, by qualified majority.
Sc i
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LIMIT OF 733 DEPUTIES
N
ov
a
The European Parliament changed the number of its members, with different representation for each member state according to its population. It follows a democratic principal, because it is supposed that the EP is the representation of the European people, and hence, it should take into consideration the number of voters of each member of the Parliament. Germany, as the most populous member state of the EU, in Nice got more seats than any other country, breaking the traditional balance between Germany and France; but the small countries got more representatives in terms of population than the big states. Germany, with almost 82 million people, got one member of Parliament for each 828,000 people; France needed a similar number of people for each of its members of the European Parliament; the middle states, as Portugal, just needed half of this number for getting a member of Parliament, and countries as Malta just needed 84,000 people for each of its 5 members. This means that for election to the European Parliament, the vote of a person from
182
David Ramiro Troitino
,I he rs is Pu bl
ce
99 72 72 72 50 50 33 25 22 20 22 20 22 17 18 17 13 13 12 7 12 6 8 13 6 6 5
Sc i
en
Germany France Italy UK Spain Poland Romania Netherlands Greece Czech Republic Belgium Hungary Portugal Bulgaria Sweden Austria Denmark Finland Ireland Slovakia Lithuania Luxembourg Latvia Slovenia Estonia Cyprus Malta
nc .
Malta counted the same as the vote of more or less 10 German citizens. The protection of the small member states of the Union was clear here, but maybe the differences were too big and there was a lack of democracy in terms of equality among European citizens. Nevertheless, this was accepted by the member states of the Union, and no reforms have been planned in this matter in the near future after the Treaty of Lisbon.
N
ov
a
Other reforms of Parliament were the right to go to the European High Court of Justice and ask for the opinion of the Court about the compatibility of European international agreements with current Treaties. The European High Court of Justice also suffered some reforms by the Treaty of Nice, adopting the institution for the enlargement to East and Central Europe. The numbers of the HCJ changed and there was just one person from each member state, before the big countries had two. Also it was established that just the most important cases will go to this court in order to grant the unity and coherence of the Communitarian law and the industrial protection. The rest of the cases go to the other Communitarian courts. On the procedures there was a very important reform introduced by Nice, the reinforced cooperation. As the Union was going to undergo its bigger enlargement ever, it was thought that the operating system could not handle unanimity or consensus in many cases, and it
The Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice
183
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
could cause the paralysis of the integration process. In order to avoid a situation in which a member state uses its veto to stop any further integration even when this country was not included in it, unanimity was abolished in this kind of measure. After Nice, if a member state wants to stop any reinforced cooperation, it has to ask to the Council of the European Union, and this institution will decide by qualified majority, with the exception of cases related to Common Foreign and Security Policy. The rules to start a reinforced cooperation, to start a new policy in the Union with just some of its members when others prefer to stay aside, also changed with this Treaty, making it easier. Previously, a majority of states were needed in order to launch reinforced cooperation and start a new policy in the Union; after Nice it was established that just one third of the member states could start a new policy in the Union for themselves if the rest of the partners do not want to widen the Union. The reinforced cooperation after Nice was allowed in Foreign and Security Policy, just by unanimity, but not in the field of defence because of the fears of some member states of losing their neutral status in international relations. Reinforced cooperation was accepted and was made easier after this treaty in spite of the reluctance of some member states afraid of the creation of different levels of integration within the European Union, or what is called now a multi speed Union. The problem is the creation inside the Union of a central core of countries more integrated and that would dominate the rest of the Union. If it is going to happen, it is more likely that France and Germany are going to be members of this central part of the EU, and some new members and the periphery of the Union will be in the second group because of free choice or incapacity of their economies. Also, a multi speed Union will confuse both European citizens, already distant from the European institutions, as well as the international world. Nevertheless, there are some policies already working with this system and there are no major problems concerning these issues. For example, the UK decided to step aside in Social Europe because of free choice and fear of European interference in the competitiveness of the British economy, and nothing exceptional has happened. On the other hand, we see how states outside the common currency wanted to be in all the meetings about the Euro in the last crisis because they said that all the decisions taken there would influence the whole Union, not just the euro zone. Of course the leader of this group of countries was the United Kingdom. In the field of decision making, the Treaty also enlarged the policies decided by qualified majority, previously based on unanimity, because the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe would have made decision making in the Union, if it were based on unanimity, where all the members had to agree, more difficult and, especially, slower. Hence, 29 policies ruled before by unanimity were included in the qualified majority voting system. There were some policies were the member states still felt the necessity of keeping the national veto, or unanimity, as France with Cultural and Audio visual services, or Spain with the Cohesion Fund, or the United Kingdom with Taxes and Social Security. Another novelty of the Treaty was the inclusion of the European letter of fundamental rights in article 52.2. It has only political value, but it could be the beginning of a wider reform where the Communitarian law will be much influenced by this chapter. The rights included were rights like protection of personal information, rights of children, rights of elders, protection from being fired without reason, integration of handicapped people, etc. Finally, the treaty reformed article 7 of the TEU because of the case of Haider in Austria. This politician, who later was killed in a traffic accident, created a problem for the Union when his political party became an importance force in Austria, and even took part in the
184
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Austrian government, because of his radical right political beliefs. The Union could not stop his accession to power because there were no European tools for acting in the domestic politics of Austria. After Nice, if the European Council finds an important violation of the fundamental rights in one member state, it can suspend some of the rights of this state. It also adds to this action some preventative measures for the violation of fundamental rights. Before that, fines could be imposed only after the damage had been done, never before. In that sense, if one third of the member states, the European Parliament, or the European Commission asks for a penalty, the Council by qualified majority of 4/5 of its members with a previous agreement with Parliament can send recommendations to a member state as a warning against further actions.
nc . ,I
Chapter 20
he rs
HELMUT KOHL AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
This German statesman has been one of the most important politicians in Germany since the end of WW II. He was Chancellor of Germany from 1982 to 1998. Since the end of the war, Kohl has held the position of Chancellor more times than any other politician, almost two years more than Conrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor, from 1949 to 1963; only Otto von Bismarck held the office for a longer period. Also, Helmut Kohl was chairman of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from 1973 to 1998 and won power back for his party after 13 years out of it. The current Chancellor, Merkel, is also member of the CDU and is considered somehow the heir of Helmut Kohl. The delicate state of health of Helmut Kohl keeps him away from public life and allowed him just one brief appearance on the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and other appearances in the newspapers via articles supporting European integration in different moments of crisis and doubts. Some critics complain that he used the party as a family while obtaining formidable friendships with world leaders like Gorbachev or Bush, who later were key figures in German and European history. One of the main achievements of Kohl was making the world believe that the Germans had changed and were no longer a threat for collective security, which restored trust from the international community to Germany. German reunification had many obstacles, and most people believed it impossible to achieve; Kohl was a great advocate of it, and even more, he thought that it was a German issue that should be done by Germans. This historical role was also recognized by his successor, the Social Democrat Gerhard Schröder, who, after being elected Chancellor and finding that Kohl did not own a home, offered him, for more than a decade, the residence Kohl had occupied as head of government in Bonn, making him, in fact, a kind of honorary chancellor. In the months following his departure from the chancellorship, Kohl continued to be a real power in Germany, and international leaders who visited the country met with the following Chancellor but also with Kohl in order to discuss international and German political issues. At the end of 2000, such recognition changed when a scandal about secret donations to the CDU was discovered. Kohl had been running, outside the party's official accounting, important amounts that had been used for reunification and to remove obstacles that arose in
186
David Ramiro Troitino
GERMANY IN THE EU
nc .
the East and West. Kohl left the CDU after refusing to reveal the donors. Even today the identity of the donors is still a mystery. Nevertheless, it is believed that Kohl never kept a single euro for his private use, but his image was highly damaged.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
The beginning of European integration was the European Coal and Steel Community, according to Robert Schuman, the first step in the creation of the European State. After WW II, West Germany was occupied by the USA, the UK and by a cession from the UK, also France; and the German area of the Ruhr was still very important to control in order to prevent any German aggressive rebirth. The Americans tried to find a solution, and in the context of the Cold War they wanted a strong West Germany as the frontline of a possible European confrontation. There were different proposals and negotiations, but the French rejected them. The USA, then involved in the war in Korea, threatened to give full control over the Ruhr area to West Germany. It was the moment chosen by Jean Monnet to present his plan of a community where all members will have the same rights and duties, where they will share all production, and what is more important, the member states will share sovereignty. It meant that they could not use the coal and steel against each other. At that time coal and steel were the basic materials for weapons, so important for war. The French government accepted the plan of Monnet just because otherwise West Germany would have taken full sovereignty over the Ruhr. West Germany was keen to be included in a community with other European states after WW II as a way to rehabilitate the country. So, since the beginning of the process, European integration has been a matter of collaboration between France and Germany. In that sense, Winston Churchill, the prime minister of the UK, made a famous speech in Zurich about European integration, pointing out that it was needed to end the antagonism between Germany and France, and the wars between them, with the UK as a promoter of it, but in any case a member of the organization. Germany was the main player with France in the creation of the European Communities, and afterwards its role has just increased. The German economic miracle made the country the strongest economy of the continent and the main economic supporter of the Union. Germany also supported the newborn European Defense Community and other proposals for deeper integration. During the first part of European integration West Germany wanted to forget their past, WW II, the Nazi regime, and the best way was by joining international organizations. Normalization in external relations was a priority, and the European Communities the best way to deal on equal terms with France, and afterwards the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Rome was a clear example of this where the Germans accepted the costly Common Agricultural Policy because of diplomatic pressure from France. Nevertheless, Germany has an economy based on exports, and the common market gave the German economic actors free access to the European markets, something very important for the German economy even nowadays. Charles de Gaulle tried to create a strong relationship between France and Germany, and he signed different agreements with Conrad Adenauer, Chancellor of West Germany, but his reasons were more nationalist, because he thought that a diplomatically weak Germany would
Helmut Kohl and the European Union
187
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
stand beside France, giving more power to the French intention of becoming a third way in the Cold War. When he tried to change the Community from inside with the Fouchet plan, the Germans did not back him and the proposal was rejected. The German government did not want to deal with France outside the Communitarian rules because it was the only way to protect them from the arbitrary behavior of the French General. Nevertheless, Adenauer supported France in many delicate issues, as the veto against the UK, a personal decision of de Gaulle that without German support would never have succeed, or the creation of the Lomé agreement where the main beneficiary was France in order to keep some international influence in its ex-colonies. The relations between France and Germany were becoming stronger and were the leading force of the Community; any new measure had to be approved first of all by Germany and France, they were the clear motor of European integration. As an example, the Schengen agreement, a bilateral international agreement signed between France and Germany for the free movement of people outside the European Communities treaties or laws. Later, other countries joined the agreement, which afterwards became a part of the European Union. Mitterrand and Kohl also had a very close relationship, and their initiatives were crucial to the current shape of the European Union, the Treaty of Maastricht being the main consequence of their agreements, and hence the common currency or political cooperation. They also became allies against the pressures from Margaret Thatcher, establishing a long term relationship between both countries as the heart of Europe. Equal and peaceful relations between both France and Germany have been the most notable achievement of European integration, and the possibility of war between them seems impossible nowadays. Chirac and Schroder also had a strong partnership, and they used to meet before the European Council meetings and then present a common position there. It created some problems inside the Union, because there were some complaints because if Germans and the French agreed before the meetings and presented a common position, the rest of the members of the Council could not reject it. They urged France and Germany to discuss with all the members of the Council, without a previous Franco-German agreement, accusing them of being anti-democratic. Germany is still a leading force inside the European Union, and its relations with France are still strong. Merkel and Sarkozy are the main political leaders of the Union, and the relations of France and Germany are still the central core of the Union: most important decisions need the support of these two countries. The current role of France and Germany in the financial crisis of the Union is another example of the power of these two European giants. Nevertheless, it is dangerous to have a strong an independent Germany commanding the Union, because the economic interest of the German economy, based in exports, cannot fit with the common wealth of the whole Community. For example, a weak Euro will foster German exports to the rest of the world, but harm the imports of other members of the Union. Also, Germany needs the other members to have a commercial deficit with it; this means more public debt for the other members to pay for what they buy, and an important surplus for the German state for what they sell. It means that the best solution to avoid problems with Germany is more integration in the economic field, with some kind of European economic government to control the less disciplined members, as Greece or Spain, but also the strong states as Germany, finding the best solutions for the whole Community.
188
David Ramiro Troitino
PROBLEMS WITH GREECE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Greece has been always at the heart of Europe, even by its location in southeast of the continent. The ancient Greeks and their civilization are the cultural roots of Europe, the beginning of European civilization. Nevertheless, during the creation of the European Communities, Greece was not taken as a candidate to become a founding member because of its internal problems and the context of the Cold War. An association agreement was signed in 1962, as a step antecedent to full membership. Afterwards, a Greek military junta during 1967-1974 made it impossible for the country to join the EU because, according to the Birkelbach doctrine, just democratic countries could join the European Communities. A new democratic republican political system started in the 1975, and immediately they applied to join the European Communities. During these negotiations there were clear disagreements between the Greek conservative party and the socialist party about the conditions of the enlargement. The conservative party wanted to join as soon as possible to show the enlargement as a success of the conservative party, so their negotiation was very weak and they accepted most of the European conditions in order to achieve swift agreement before the coming national elections in Greece. The European Commission did not see the possibility of Greece‟s joining the EU in the short term, and expressed its concerns in a report, recommending patience to Greece in order to have a longer adaptation of the country to the European reality, especially in the economic field. The European Council was more interested in the political stability of Greece via EEC membership, plus enlargement to the common market. Also, for the first time a relatively poor country joined the Community. Before that, it could have been seen as a club of rich countries, but after the enlargement to Greece it was clear that being European, democratic, and with a free market were the main issues. As Greece was not a big country, the EEC could afford, without big economic problems, having it as a full member, so the political side was very important in the acceptance of the Greek application. Finally Greece was accepted into the EU against the advice of the Commission and became a full member in 1981. Problems started for Greece right after the enlargement; its economy was weak compared to the other EEC members, and Andreas Papandreou, leader of the PASOK, son of George Papandreou, a former Prime Minister of Greece and father of a Prime Minister of Greece, won the national elections in 1981 and questioned the relations of Greece with the EEC. He wanted to renegotiate the terms of the enlargement, in order to get more benefit from Greek membership. Just Helmut Kohl, new in his Chancellor‟s office, was receptive to an agreement. The German leader had to negotiate with the other leaders of the European integration and add some more money from Germany to the EEC budget. His reasons were mainly European, because West Germany had little to gain in economic terms. Mainly, solidarity and supporting European integration were his main reasons to reach an agreement with Papandreou. The situation of the Communities could have been difficult if a member state withdrew from the organization in a moment when the Community was changing its rich club status to a more European one. So, the intervention of Kohl was fundamental to solving this crisis, and he did it in order to strengthen the European dream. Finally, a European Mediterranean Fund was created and included in the Communitarian budget in order to secure funds for Greece. At that time, just Greece and the south of Italy,
Helmut Kohl and the European Union
189
SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT
,I
nc .
and some parts of France benefited from the fund. After that, the Greek economy started to develop substantially. The European Communities showed solidarity with their members, and the external imagine of the EEC improved, becoming the dream of many other European states. All of this could not have been done without the intervention of Kohl and his commitment to European integration.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
European integration was in crisis in the „80s; different issues as the British rebate, the Mediterranean Fund, or the enlargement to Spain and Portugal were solved, and Kohl was a key factor in reaching agreements and overcoming the crisis. In the case of Spain, Kohl, a conservative politician, supported Felipe Gonzalez, the socialist president of Spain, and supported the enlargement to Spain and Portugal against the negative approach of Giscard d‟Estaing first and afterwards the more neutral position of Mitterrand, both presidents of France. It afterwards meant total support from Spain for German reunification and showed the pragmatism of Kohl, establishing close relations with Gonzalez, or Mitterrand, both socialists, without fences built by ideology. Kohl arrived in the government in 1982; he believed profoundly in the idea of the European Union and gave a push to the integration process after these main problems were solved, and a new Treaty was drafted, the Single European Act, another major step in the European building process. There were three major figures in the elaboration of the Treaty: Helmut Kohl, Mitterrand, and Thatcher. The French president rejected the idea of reforming the costly agricultural policy to protect the French farmers. He was open to the idea of increasing the multinational role of the European Communities in some areas because the benefits, mainly economic, would be greater than the political losses, mostly the autonomy of France. He was also a strong supporter of French-German cooperation as the only way to increase the international influence of France. Finally, he also saw Africa as the natural area of influence of France, so the European Communities with different policies as the Lomé agreement, the commercial policy, aid development, and others, would help France to increase French influence on the African continent. Margaret Thatcher believed more in intergovernmental Europe against integration, a free market and weak intervention from the European institutions, a close relationship between the USA and Europe, and the development of a defense policy as a complement to NATO, never as a competitor. Of the three of them, Helmut Kohl was the biggest supporter of European integration. He also believed in close cooperation between France and Germany, but in a difference with Mitterrand, as the motor of integration, never as a brake to integration or a relationship led by national interest. His ideas about Europe were closer to a European federation. The main achievement of the new Treaty was the creation of the Interior Market, a real common market among the members of the European Communities. It was based on four basic rules: free movement of goods, free movement of capital, free movement of services, and free movement of persons. It meant the creation of a European market with common rules, common duties, and common rights for the economic agents within the European
190
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Communities. Different reports made by the European Commission, as the Ceccini report, outlined the benefits of the Single Market, as increasing the GIP 2% or 2 million new jobs. As Germany, the major economy of the European area, was focused on the external market, its economy benefited greatly. Kohl had to negotiate with Mitterrand, allowing the French president some minor victories, as the French influence in Africa; and, moreover, Kohl accepted keeping the CAP as it was, without further reforms. The Agricultural policy was expensive, absorbing more than half of the European budget, and Germany was the main contributor to the budget. The idea of Mitterrand was to use German money, via the European Communities, to protect French farmers. Kohl used the German contribution to bargain with Mitterrand, offering him the CAP for the Single Market. The German Chancellor had the support of Margaret Thatcher, who believed in the free market, and thought the Single Market would be more like a free trade area. The German Chancellor stressed this point to get her support. Afterwards, it was clear that the SEA was an important milestone in the creation of the European Union, and a great mistake by Margaret Thatcher. Helmut Kohl played a central role in the creation of the new Treaty, ending the crisis in the European building process and increasing the economic power of Germany. Again, he matched his European ideals with his German policy, benefiting his country and strengthening European integration.
THATCHER, BUSH, GORBACHEV, AND KOHL
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The relationship between Thatcher and Kohl was very difficult on many issues, especially with German reunification. Thatcher was clearly against it, and even tried to influence Gorbachev to stop it. Nevertheless, their relationship started earlier with a conflict about the English contribution to the European budget. Thatcher created a crisis inside the Communities because the contributions from the UK to the European budget were not balanced with investment of EU money on British soil. It was because at that time the main policy of the EU was the Common Agricultural Policy, and most of the money was spent there, and the British agricultural sector was minimal. Kohl included in the agreement about the British rebate a clause reducing the German contribution to the European budget, increased after the agreement with the UK to complete the reduction obtained by the British. Another clash between both leaders came with the Single European Act and the wish of a free trade area on the part of Thatcher, and the German approach of a Common Market with common institutions and shared sovereignty. The negotiations were difficult, but finally Kohl got the German way of more integration. A new important conflict between both leaders was about German reunification, because Thatcher was against it and tried to boycott it because the British Premier was afraid of a strong united Germany in Europe breaking the balance of power established after the Second World War. Nevertheless, the support of the USA and France made all the efforts of Thatcher useless, and left her even more isolated in the European political arena. The ideas of both leaders about European integration were radically different; Thatcher preferred a trade area without common institutions, without sharing sovereignty, and with a close relationship with the USA. Basically, Thatcher believed in the Europe of the nations, and cooperation among them, but never integration. On the other hand, Kohl supported a
Helmut Kohl and the European Union
191
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
much more federalist approach, seeing integration as something good for Europeans in general, and for Germans in particular. He argued that a federal Europe would just bring benefits for European citizens at a very low cost, some sovereignty of the member states. Kohl did not want a more united Europe just for ideals, he wanted it in order to increase the power of Europe, secure Germany within it, and increase the wefare of European citizens. The fight between these two political giants was long, as they were the political leaders of their countries at the same time from 1982 till 1990, and even later when Thatcher was just as a member of the British parliament she campaigned against the Treaty of Maastricht, an important step in European integration born from the cooperation between Mitterrand and Kohl. The main point in common between Thatcher and Kohl was their support for a close relationship with the United States because both of them could not fathom Europe without the support of the USA. Even though their ideas about Europe were very different, the role of the USA was very important in their vision. On the other hand, Kohl had his main disagreement with Mitterrand about the relationship with the USA. The French president maintained a policy much more independent of American influence, trying to follow the dream of de Gaulle of a third way in the Cold War. The support of Kohl to the policy of the USA during the end of the Cold War was an important factor for German reunification and the creation of the European Union. Henry Kissinger, US Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977, said “Kohl succeeded in carrying out his vision because of the trust that the principal international actors in this unfolding drama had developed for one another”. The friendship between Kohl and the president of the USA, George H. W. Bush, lasts even today, and the American president in a commemoration of German reunification said about Kohl that “We would not be standing here if it were not for his vision, his tenacity, his singular leadership, let me simply express my conviction that history will surely rank him as Europe‟s greatest leader in the last half of the 20th Century.”1 The relationship between Bush and Kohl was crucial in order to solve different international problems, as the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear forces in Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall, German unification, the demise of the Soviet Union, and the creation of the European Union. Helmut Kohl believed profoundly in German reunification and in European integration as parts of the same process, and the creation of the European Union could not have been done without the support of the USA, or at least the positive attitude of Washington. The European Union was also a consequence of the end of the Cold War. The relationship of Kohl with Gorbachev was also friendly and very intensive. The previous vision of the Soviet Union about the European Communities had been bad because it had been seen as a tool against the workers of the world, and so against the Soviet Union. The EEC was a tool of the USA in the fight against the USSR, and hence it was seen as an enemy. As Europe was divided into three main groups of countries, Western countries, neutral countries, and Eastern countries, the neutral states could not have joined the EEC because it would have gone against their neutrality. The relationship between Kohl and Gorbachev changed this Soviet perception about European integration and made it possible for Finland, Austria, and Sweden to join the European Union. When they joined the organization in 1995, the Soviet Union had already collapsed, but the negotiations had started before this event.
1
http://steubensociety.org/News/SeptOct06.htm.
192
David Ramiro Troitino
GENSCHER-COLOMBO PLAN
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
During the „80s the Communities were under different crises, as the British rebate or the Greek crisis, and integration was halted. There were different proposals for solving the problems of the Community and making the European Communities stronger. One of the main proposals came from the collaboration between the German and Italian Foreign Affairs ministers Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Emilio Colombo. This report was not drafted directly by Kohl, but his long term relationship with Genscher showed a strong concordance between both politicians on European issues, and Genscher could not have made this proposal without the agreement, support, and guidelines of Helmut Kohl. So, the influence of the German Premier in this plan is obvious, and the proposals endorsed in the plan expressed many of Kohl‟s views of the European building process. The Genscher-Colombo plan proposed to weaken the veto power of the national states and make political cooperation in the EU stronger in 1981. The veto power was a direct consequence of the policies of Charles de Gaulle and his particular vision of the European Communities as a Europe of the nations, where the cooperation of the different states was the key factor. It meant that cooperation was more powerful than integration, that sovereignty could not be transferred from the national level to the European level. In order to protect the national interest from the common decisions, a national veto was needed. It was used first of all by de Gaulle, and afterwards by Thatcher and Papandreou to block the working system of the Communities. It protected the national interest inside the organization but made the Communitarian system slow, because consensus was needed in any important decision, and ineffective, because nobody took decisions that could benefit the whole community if they could harm a small part of it. The German proposal was clearly a step towards a more federal Europe where the common interest was predominant over the national interest of the member states. The main problem was that if decisions were taken by the majority, some kind of common institutions should protect the members of the organization from the negative effects the decision could have on some of them. In other words, a government of Europe would be needed to avoid asymmetric crises that could affect just some parts of the organization. Obviously Germany was not proposing a federal state, but changing the voting system from unanimity to qualified majority was a step towards it. Genscher also proposed increasing the political cooperation between the member states in order to raise the international role of the organization, again, an important step toward the federal Europe supported by Kohl, a single and strong voice abroad. The beginning of European Integration in its current way started with the Treaty of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It was the first stage in the international relations of the European organization, establishing the first offices of the High Authority outside the member states in 1954 in Washington and in 1955 in London. The establishment of these offices in the USA and the UK marked the beginning of the External Services of Europe. The reason for opening these offices was mainly economic. Since then, the international relations of the EU have been based mainly on economic rather than political issues. During these first steps of European Integration, the attention of the European Institutions mainly focused on the western world because this area was the main commercial partner of the member states of the ECSC. But there were also political reasons to explain this
193
Helmut Kohl and the European Union
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
international preference in the context of the Cold War as the defense by the USA of European soil was against the threat of a communist expansion, and the USSR accused the European Communities of being a tool of capitalism against the workers of the world, an organization made by the USA to fight against the USSR. This situation meant that the international influence of the EU in the communist world was minimal until the fall of the Soviet Union with the exception of the period of Billy Brandt as German Chancellor and his Ostpolitik, which was focused mainly on East Germany. The strongest influence on international relations of the EU during the Cold War was mainly developed economically via the Commercial Policy, the Lomé Agreement, and the Common Agricultural Policy. The close collaboration of Helmut Kohl proposed to give a political dimension to the economic importance of the Community. In that sense also a closer cooperation between economy and politics inside the Community was proposed in the plan. European integration was mainly economic, and Genscher and Kohl thought that more integration in the field of politics was needed in order to avoid a mere free trade area in Europe. Finally, the report also entailed the inclusion of security and defense policies within the Communities. The previous attempt to do so was the proposal of a European Defense Community in the „50s. That proposal was accepted by all the member states, included West Germany, except France, who wanted more guarantees about the political control of the EDC. The Italians proposed a Political Community to deal with these problems, but the French parliament rejected it. That meant the end of the EDC. It was clear that a Common Defense means a common army in the terms presented, because the EDC was based on integration rather than cooperation. The problem was who was going to command the army, when was it going to be used, and who was going to take the political responsibility for the actions of the European army. As a common army needed some sort of common government, it was another step towards a European federation. The combination of internal politics, decision making reform, a stronger link between economy and politics, external politics, common positions abroad, and security and defense policies made a future European state in the European Union logical.
Sc i
THE END OF THE COLD WAR, GERMAN REUNIFICATION, AND THE TREATY OF MAASTRICHT
N
ov
a
German reunification was an important milestone in the political career of Helmut Kohl because of obvious German internal reasons, but it also had huge importance in the European Union. The role of the German Chancellor in the negotiations with the European powers was decisive and can just be understood in the context of the European Union. Margaret Thatcher and Mitterrand were against the reunification of Germany because they thought it could alter the balance of power established after WW II. A united Germany would be more populous than its partners in the EU, more powerful economically if the German economic miracle were going to be repeated, something assumed as a fact, and more influential politically because of its geopolitical position towards the ex-communist states of Central Europe. Kohl had to deal with the resistance of France and the United Kingdom to unblock reunification, but he counted on the support of the USA.
194
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Thatcher told Gorbachev that Britain was against the reunification, and she wanted the Soviet leader to stop it, she also communicated her opposition to German reunification to the American President. Helmut Kohl tried to negotiate with her, but the British Premier stood firm in her hostility, giving Kohl no other chance to outmaneuver her. Kohl, focused on Mitterrand, the French President, because counting on the USA‟s support, just needed another major leader of Europe to assent to the reunification. Previously he had won the support of other European minor players, as Felipe González, president of Spain. Mitterrand‟s fear of a strong united Germany as a danger to France was the main issue in the negotiations with Helmut Kohl. The German proposed to deeper integration in the European Union as a way to bind Germany more closely to Europe, less independent, and less capable of any aggressive policy against France. Helmut Kohl, a European federalist, the political leader who has supported European integration more strongly than any other important politician, resolved two main issues with this action. The idea was clear: with a united Germany inside a deeper Union, its national influence would be smaller, and its capacity to act independently reduced, and, more importantly, its capacity to act against France was made almost impossible. The agreement between Mitterrand and Kohl was expressed in the elaboration of a new Treaty for the European Union, the Treaty of Maastricht, in 1991. The main concerns of the French President were political and economic, for the first issue of the Treaty increased the qualified majority as the voting system in the Union, a movement to make it impossible for any important German decision to be taken unilaterally. As international political cooperation was not included in the treaties, Maastricht entailed it as a way to have a common voice in the international world, not anymore a German or French or British voice, something to hold Germany tightly to France via the European Communities. Other provisions included in the Treaty aimed towards the European Defense Community via a Western European Union, another proposal from Genscher. The idea of the French was that a common army would mean that no German national army could be built against France. Nevertheless, the provisions included in the Treaty were vague and even today the European Army seems a distant achievement. Finally, the economic power of Germany was expressed with the main role played by the German currency in the economic affairs of the continent. The German Mark was the leading currency of Europe, being the currency of reference, the real center of the European Monetary System. It could have been a dangerous weapon in the hands of a strong Germany in order to dominate the European financial world. The best way to avoid German independence in monetary issues was by creating a common currency for the European Union, the Euro. This was an action agreed upon in the negotiations between Mitterrand and Kohl, and again meant a closer step to the European Federation, closer to the idea of Europe defended by Kohl. The Treaty of Maastricht meant a huge deepening in European integration, and brought the future state of Europe closer. The reforms included there, as the creation of the common currency, the Euro, will bring deeper integration in the future because they cannot work properly without deeper integration. The current economic crisis, and the situation in Greece, makes clear that an economic government is needed in the EU, or at least among the states who are members of the Euro zone, in order to have a strong currency and solve the problems of any asymmetrical crisis. Helmut Kohl, a supporter of a European federation, made it closer by holding Germany tighter to the European Union to overcome the opposition of France and Mitterrand.
Helmut Kohl and the European Union
195
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
On the other hand, German reunification also brought many people into the Community, because once reunited, the eastern part of Germany became a part of the European Union. It brought 16 million people into the European Union, and, if we compare this with Greece, more than 9 million when they joined the Community, or Portugal, more than 10 million in 1986, it can be said that German reunification meant another enlargement in the European Union. It also changed the internal rules of the European Union, as the number of members of the European Parliament. Since the creation of the European Communities, there had been parity between France and Germany in the European institutions; both countries were similar in size and population, so Germany and France had the same number of members in the European Parliament. The reunification meant that Germany was more populous than France, and got 27 more members than France. Nevertheless, in the central institution of the European Union, the European Council, each member state has different votes weighted according to their importance in terms of population, economy, and politics. Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom have the same weight, 27 votes, in the European Council. It does not reflect the differences between France and Germany, but it reveals the parity between France and Germany, consequence of the agreement between Mitterrand and Kohl. The reunification of Germany had another consequence in the internal affairs of the EU, because Germany needed European financial tools in order to invest in East Germany. If it had done this unilaterally, it would have been against the rules of the Common Market and state intervention in the market. A new fund was created to help in the reconstruction of East Germany, and different objectives were included in the funds of the EU, as regional differences or industrial restructuring. The reunification of Germany was the master work of Helmut Kohl, and it has huge consequences for Germany and to the European Union. His negotiating skills made possible the reunification, his main internal issue, as well as the development of the European Union, his main external issue.
en
CONCLUSION
N
ov
a
Sc i
Helmut kohl is one of the main architects of the Europe. His contributions to European integration have been huge, and he has been the most important politician in terms of European integration since the creation of the ECSC up to the present. The best way to see his ideas in the European field is by examining his actions and his power. He was Chancellor of Germany from 1982 to 1998 and hence had a lot of expertise and contacts, and these made possible the difficult steps in European integration that another leader could have not achieved. He also represented Germany, one of the most powerful states in the Union, giving him more chances to reach his targets. His skills as a negotiator made possible agreements in the case of Greece and in the Single European Act, making possible a deal between positions as different as those of Papandreou, Mitterrand and Thatcher. The ideas of de Gaulle about the European Union can be understood through the Fouchet Plan because he did not make a clear speech about European integration, as Margaret Thatcher did. In the case of Helmut Kohl, we can understand his vision about Europe through the Gensher-Colombo plan, because Gensher
196
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
was his long term foreign affairs minister. It is clear in this plan that integration should be deeper in Europe, approaching that of a federal state. Also, the issue of German reunification and the treaty of Maastricht is the masterpiece of his work for Europe. He linked both as a part of the same project, providing huge benefits to German citizens, European citizens, and European economic actors. After some years, the economic profit is clear, and nobody doubts it. He also opened the gate of political integration, included in the Genscher-Colombo plan in terms of deeper political cooperation, deepening the economic integration. Finally, the role of Kohl at the end of the Cold War, and his relationship with Gorbachev and other Soviet politicians changed the vision of Europe in the Soviet Union, allowing the neutral European countries to join the organization, and afterwards the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe.
nc . he rs
EUROPEAN UNION LAW
,I
Chapter 21
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The European Communities originally, and nowadays the European Union, is a free and willing association of states. At the beginning of the process, six European states decided to join together in the field of coal and steel, but with more ambitious targets for the future development of the Community. The idea was very clear: a community where all the member states will have rights and duties. There is an important nuance in the difference between sharing and losing sovereignty, and it is where the importance of the Communitarian law lies. It is a set of rules to integrate and coordinate the actions of the member states in the same direction. It is a common rule, decided by all the members in the Council, and under the influence of the Union itself, with the Commission and the European Parliament. The rule of the law in the European Union is a basic tool for integration of the European States into a supranational organization where the members share and become stronger by establishing a legal system to rule their relations. The disparities among the different member states of the Union, as, for example, a powerful Germany and a small Malta, make the rule of the Communitarian law essential, because otherwise the powerful would rule the weak, the big the small, the rich the poor. There are obviously differences between Germany and Malta, as their representation in the European institutions or in their capacity to influence European legislation, but both states has to respect and follow European legislation once approved; both stand equally on the prism of the Communitarian law, which means the rule of law in the European Union. The Communitarian law is an independent legal system with precedence over the national legislation in order to implement a uniform legal system, and hence sometimes the member states have had to change their constitutions in order to accept this precedence. The European Union law is based on implementation, monitoring, and developing. Mainly the member states are in charge of implementing the Communitarian legislation, and the European Commission monitors for good implementation. The European Court system acts as a supreme body solving problems of implementation in case of conflict by being the ultimate source interpreting the treaties, and hence having precedence over the national court systems. Finally, the European institutions are continuously developing the legal system of the Union. European legislation has three different, but interdependent, main sources.
198
David Ramiro Troitino
PRIMARY LEGISLATION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
This is the original source for European legislation, and it is included in the European Treaties and hence has precedence over the other sources. The European Treaties are divided in two main categories: new treaties establishing new functions for the European Union and the treaties of enlargement. There have been many treaties in the European Union since the beginning of the European building process and the Treaty of the Coal and Steel Community, for example, the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Communities or the Treaty of Maastricht establishing the European Union. Basically, they are new creations and developments of the Union, from its primitive form until its current shape, and hence there will be more treaties in the future until the final integration goal is achieved. There have been three founding treaties, Paris 1951, Rome 1957 and Maastricht 1992, plus four amendment treaties in 1986, 1997, 2001, and 2007. The enlargement treaties include new members in the Union and normally do not add much legislation or power to the Union. There is a third class of additional treaties, mainly for specific issues as merging the European institutions, budgetary issues, or the democratic election of the European Parliament. All these treaties are decided directly by the member states of the Union through intergovernmental meetings, and need to be ratified in their national parliaments or in some cases by popular referendum. It means that unanimity is required, and all the members of the Union have a say in the elaboration of the treaties and can opt for rejecting it. If that happens, normally the treaties are negotiated again or the country rejecting it gets some exception clauses to keep this member state out of the new problematic policies or powers. The French Parliament rejected the Treaty of the European Defence Community in 1954, and it meant the end of the project. When the Treaty of Maastricht was rejected in Denmark in a democratic referendum, the member states agreed to grant four exceptions for Denmark, and a second referendum one year later was ratified. The Treaty of Nice was rejected by the Irish people via referendum; after some exceptions for Ireland the citizens ratified the Treaty in a second referendum. The Treaty establishing the European Constitution was rejected by popular referendum in France and the Netherlands, and the project was forgotten for the whole Union until the Treaty of Lisbon, which included most of the reforms of the previous so called European constitution, came soon afterwards and was approved by all the member states. Here it is important to point out that if a big country like France rejects a new treaty, the whole Community rejects it, but if it is a small country like Denmark or Ireland, special exceptions are included for these countries and the process follows for the rest of the member states. As the center of the community is based on France and Germany, any national rejection of any European treaty by them automatically means a European rejection of it. It could be call a predominance of these two states over the Community, but in fact it is just a reflection of the Communitarian reality. The treaties include new policies, new powers, new procedures for the European Union, and the new division of competences between the European Union and the member states, plus a definition of the role and responsibilities of the European institutions, and hence they are the primary source for European legislation.
199
en
Communitarian Law.
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
European Union Law
SECONDARY LEGISLATION
Sc i
This is based on the treaties and can take different shapes:
N
ov
a
1. Regulations: They are directly applicable and binding on all EU member states without the need for any national implementing legislation. 2. Directives: They bind member states as to the objectives to be achieved within a certain time-limit while leaving the national authorities the choice of form and means to be used. Directives have to be implemented in national legislation in accordance with the procedures of the individual member states. 3. Decisions: They are binding in all their aspects for those to whom they are addressed. Thus, decisions do not require national implementing legislation. A decision may be 1 addressed to any or all member states, to enterprises, or to individuals.
1
http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/guide/eu/legislation.
200
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
4. Recommendations and opinions: They are non-binding but are an indirect instrument direct to the member states mainly in cases of new national legislation under preparation to avoid future problems. They can also adopt different ways to express the opinion of the different European institutions on European issues.
he rs
SUPPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION
,I
Included also in the secondary legislation are the international agreements signed by the European Union, agreements between member states, agreements between European institutions, plus other conventions and agreements.
en
ce
Common to national laws: the Court of Justice identifies those principles common to all the national legal systems and which are compatible with EU objectives. For example, this is the case with legal certainty and legitimate expectation which protects an individual from unforeseeable amendments to the law. Derived from particular national laws: the Court of Justice takes inspiration from the principles enshrined in certain national legal systems only. This is also the case when the Court must name the institution responsible for harm caused by the EU and it must determine the extent of the harm. Specific to the EU: the Court of Justice identifies the principles specific to the EU even if the source of their inspiration was from national legislation. This is the case with the solidarity between member states, institutional balance, and Community preference.
Pu bl
is
This is judicial in origin and is used by the Court system of the European Union in case primary or secondary legislation does not clearly define an issue. Mainly these are general principles of law and general principles of international law. The general principles of law may be:
In the case of International law principle, the main examples would be:
a
Sc i
1. The obligation of good faith 2. The pacta sunt servanda principle (pacts must be respected - agreements are legally binding on all parties concerned) 3. Territoriality 2 4. Treaties lapse in the event of a fundamental change in circumstances.
N
ov
Fundamental rights are also an important legal source for European legislation. These were recognized by the European Court of Justice already in the „60s and nowadays are present in European legislation in three ways:
2
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/l14533_en.htm.
201
European Union Law
nc .
1. The EU‟s Charter of Fundamental Rights 2. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 3. The constitutional traditions of member states
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
This gives broader influence to the European Court system as the fundamental rights are present in most of our activities, as in the case of the right to equal protection under the law, the right of freedom of thought, the right of freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to property, etc. The European Law system gives legal basis to the Union, and is an essential pillar for the European building process, complementing and reinforcing political integration. It is a part of European traditions since Roman times and is a crucial feature of Europe. It also will give international importance to the Union, as the rule of law spreads internationally, and Europe sets an example for other parts of the world. Also, the legislation referring to the Internal Market and other economic issues is an important tool for the international influence of the Union, as the EU is the world‟s leading trade block, and the international trade partners of the Union need to follow the European legislation if they want to trade with the European Market. The future of the European law system will depend on political integration, because as more of Europe will be built, there will be a development of a truly federal system in which matters of common interest are decided by a higher authority, but other matters are left to the 3 existing member states if the problems of democratic accountability within it are solved.
3
Paul Brand. Review of van Caenegem, R. C., European Law in the Past and the Future: Unity and Diversity over Two Millennia. H-Law, H-Net Reviews. October, 2002.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE EUROPEAN BUDGET
,I
Chapter 22
Traditional resources of its own: Customs duties on imports from outside the Single Market and sugar levies. As the European Union has its own single market working on a European level, it does not matter where geographically any product enters the market because afterwards it can move freely all over the European market. In order to achieve a European market, common customs were established to avoid any trade distortion. As the customs are managed on the European level, the taxes collected are European, with the exception of 25% of the levies that the states keep to cover the cost of collection. Some states, as the Netherlands, pay an important amount in this chapter because of the importance of its ports. It does not mean that the Dutch contribution is higher, because most of the goods that arrive to its ports have their final destination somewhere else in the territory of the Union. Their own traditional resources are 14.95% of the 2012 budget. VAT: A standard percentage is levied on the harmonized VAT base of each EU country. The VAT resource accounts for around €14bn and 11.23% of the 2012 budget. The idea is based on the European economy; as the market is European, consumption is done on a European level, and hence the EU keeps a percentage. The member states are in charge of collecting the money and transferring it to the European Union. On the other hand, the European percentage of the VAT has some measures to protect the poorer states, establishing a cap of 50% of the GNI. The poorer countries normally have higher consumption in terms of national income, and hence suffer more from the tax on consumption, the VAT. There are also other
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The European Union budget is funded 99% by the Union‟s own resources; the rest comes from other sources of revenue. It has not always been like this in the European Communities, and there have been hot arguments among member states because of the resources of the Union itself. Basically, France was against it and preferred having national contributions to the Community instead of its own resources; the French reasons were based on sovereignty 1 issues and the fears of the establishment of a federal Europe. The EU‟s own resources are 127.51 billion euro in the 2012 budget, and mainly come from:
N
ov
a
1
See chapter de Gaulle.
204
David Ramiro Troitino
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
traditional liberal economies which import an important part of their consumer goods and hence are likely to pay more. Its own resource based on gross national income (GNI): A standard percentage is levied on the GNI of each EU country. It is used to balance revenue and expenditure. Although designed simply as a balancing system, this has become the largest source 2 of revenue – in the budget of 2012 it accounts for 72.6% of the whole budget. As the economies of the member states are strongly linked with the common market of the EU, it is reasonable to think that the higher economic activity they have, the higher the GNI, and the higher the benefits from the Single Market, and hence their higher contribution in absolute terms.
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/financing/fin_en.cfm#own_res.
Sc i
Own Resources of the EU Budget.
The other sources of revenue account for a small part of the European budget, around 1% and mainly come from:
N
ov
a
1. Taxes on EU staff salaries and pensions. 2. Contributions of non-EU countries. Basically these are contributions of non-EU countries to different European projects. The contribution of Norway is included in the framework of the EEA. The country pays as much as the member state Denmark, 3 around 340 million euro a year . It makes Norway the 12th largest total contributor to the European budget, ahead of around 15 member states.
2 3
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/financing/fin_en.cfm#own_res. http://www.eu-norway.org/ARKIV/newsarchives/EEA_agreement_facts/.
205
The European Budget
nc .
3. Interest on late payments and fines: It includes the interest paid by member states on late payment of their own resources, plus fines to companies for infringing upon 4 European legislation.
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
The European Union does not have a tax office for collection, so it depends on the national agencies. It is important to point out that the national agencies collect the money on behalf of the Union, and hence the money belongs to the Union, not to the member states. The main economies of the Union contribute more as their gross national income is bigger; the largest contributors in total payments in 2012 were Germany (19.7%), France (17.6%), Italy (13.1%), the UK (10.9%), and Spain (9.2%); and the lower contributions come from Malta (0.05%), Estonia (0.13%), Cyprus and Latvia (0.16%), and Lithuania (0.26%). The total amount of the EU budget for 2012 was 147.23 billion euro. On the other hand, the net contribution is diverse; it is the differences between the payments and the receivables from the Union, because most of the money of the Union is spent in the member states. Germany still remains the main net contributor to the Union, and countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, or Belgium climb to the top positions, and countries as Spain drop to the bottom of the list, with Greece being the main net receiver of 5 Communitarian money. The money of the European Union is spent mainly in five main chapters:
Sc i
en
ce
EU Budget 2012
Sustainable growth 55.3 billion Preservation and management of natural resources 57 billion
EU as a global player 6.9 billion Administration 8.2 billion
N
ov
a
Citizenship, freedom, security and justice 1.4 billion
EU Budget 2012.
4 5
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/public_fin/EU_pub_fin_en.pdf#page=240. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/LBL2012/EN/GenRev.pdf.
206
David Ramiro Troitino
is
he rs
,I
nc .
1. Sustainable growth: It has the aim of stimulating Europe‟s economy. Competitiveness and cohesion are the purposes, dealing with major social challenges such as climate change or the aging population, investments to modernize and diversify economic structures across Europe‟s least-developed regions, and adapting the workforce to a changing economic environment. Mainly it includes the regional policy of the Union, with the Structural Fund and the Cohesion Fund and a focus on developing the poorer areas of the Union. 2. Natural Resources: It is the main expenditure of the European Union focus on European farmers, environmental duties, and the diversification of rural economies. It is mainly the Common Agricultural Policy and all other policies linked with it. 3. Citizenship, freedom, security and justice: It deals with immigration, promoting legal immigration and fighting and preventing illegal immigration, fighting all forms of crime and terrorism, and security issues. 4. EU as a global player: Development cooperation, neighborhood policy, support to EU candidate states. 5. EU administration: All the administrative costs of the European institutions.
Pu bl
THE EUROPEAN UNION BUDGE RULES
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The first draft of the annual budget is prepared by the European Commission according to the expected incomes and expenditures to fulfill all the needs of the European Union and stressing the main objectives of European needs. The budget should match incomes and outcomes; the total revenue must equal total expenditure. Nevertheless, there is usually a surplus, which is used to reduce EU countries' contributions to the budget for the following 6 year. Following the co-decision system in the budget procedure, the draft is sent to the European Parliament and the European Council, which, after different readings, discussions, and amendments, agree on the budget. If there is no agreement between these two institutions, the budget of the previous year is adopted until the new one is agreed upon. Normally there have always been disagreements between the Council and the Parliament, because the member states prefer to have a prudent budget, and the EP has always wanted to increase the budget. At the beginning of European integration, control over the budget was one of the main powers of the European Parliament, as the co-decision system did not work in most of the policies as it does nowadays. Before, the budget was divided into two main parts: compulsory (mainly the CAP) and non-compulsory expenditures, counting the first for the major amount of money and under complete control of the Council. Anyway, the EP could reject the whole budget if there was no agreement. The EP always tried to increase the noncompulsory expenditures against the will of the Council, and hence for several years there was an important conflict between both institutions. It was the main battlefield for the role of the EP in European integration, pushing for more power, pushing for a Europe with more equilibrium between the member states and the European people. Nevertheless, little by little, the powers of the EP have spread to other policies of the Union, and finally these two categories in the budget have been abolished, with both institutions standing now on equal 6
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/budg_system/financing/fin_en.cfm#own_res.
207
The European Budget
Principle of unity: The budget includes incomes and outgoes; that means that only revenue and expenditure included in the budget are authorized. There are some exceptions in the cases of borrowing-and-lending operations, the European Development Fund, and the financial activities of the European Investment Bank. The case of the European Development Fund is important because it is funded by the member states, so it is subject to its own financial rules and is managed by a specific committee. It is dedicated to the external aid of the Union, especially the ACP countries and those member states want to keep their independence in order to maintain their influence over these areas of the world. Anyway, it is included in the EU budget. Finally, the CFSP and police and judicial cooperation are partly not
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
terms. Since then and with the general use of the co-decision system, the relations between the EP and the Council have improved significantly. The European budget also contains some reductions in the amount that some members should pay. That is because these countries have asked for a national compensation because they think that their countries give a higher net contribution than the other members because of the particularities of their economies or of their wealthier situation. Different mechanisms have been created to prevent these imbalances for different member states. The United Kingdom, after a long discussion under the leadership of the British Premier Margaret 7 Thatcher, obtained the so called British Rebate, or a reimbursement of 66% of the difference between its contribution and what it receives back from the budget. Currently it amounts to around 4 billion euro. The cost of the British rebate is distributed among the rest of the member states of the Union, with a discount for Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden because they consider that they already have high contributions to the budget. The situation that led to this imbalance in the case of the UK has been mitigated during the last years, and hence some member states, especially France, have tried to abolish this exception, but according to the rules of the European budget, all decisions related to the budget must be taken by unanimity, and hence the British government have rejected the proposal. Other states that benefit from national compensations are the Netherlands and Sweden that get lump-sum payments from the Union to balance their contribution to Union finances. Finally, there are reduced VAT call rates for Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden. 8 The Communitarian budget is controlled by the Court of Auditors. This European institution works independently and exercises different controls over the accounts of the Union. It submits an annual report about the budget, needed to close the budget. Its main target is assuring that European money is spent properly, acting as a watchdog for European citizens and their money. It increases the transparency of the budget and avoids possible mismanagements of European funds. In some sense also the office in charge of the fight 9 against corruption, OLAF, and is involve in the control of European funds, but more focused on particular actions as fraud, corruption, or any other illegal activity than on the whole budget. The European budget must follow different principles in its elaboration and implementation:
7
See chapter Thatcher. http://eca.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/aboutus. 9 http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/index_en.html. 8
208
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
ce
Sc i
en
Pu bl
is
,I
he rs
included in the budget and get national contributions. The reason is the same as for the EDF: the states want to develop these policies under inter-governmental cooperation without any interference by the European institutions, and hence they need budgetary independence. Principle of accuracy: The European Union will not spend more than needed. There is a special case for interest generated by the funds, which are the property of the Community. Principle of universality: All revenue and expenditure shall be entered in full without any adjustment against each other. It is a supplementary principle to the accuracy and basically designates that the all revenues will be spent without distinction for the expenditures. This no-assignment rule has some exceptions, as financial contributions from member states to certain research programs, the contributions of member states to some external aid programs, contributions from third countries to Communitarian activities, and other minor activities. Principle of annuity: The European budget is calculated per financial year in order to expedite its elaboration and implementation. There are some exceptions for funds located in projects lasting for a longer period of time when needed. Anyway, the annuity of the budget is complemented by plans and previsions made by the European institutions for longer periods of time that serve as a guideline for the elaboration of the annual budget Principle of equilibrium: It is based on the idea that total revenue must equal total expenditure. It means that the European Union does not have a public deficit and it works within its financial possibilities without going into debt. If there is a profit in any year, it will be count in the following budget as income and normally will reduced the contributions of the member states. On the other hand, if there is a deficit, it will be included as expenditure in the budget of the following year. Anyway, it is not a very common situation, because of the principle of equilibrium and of the fact that the community is not allowed to borrow, as are the member 10 states. The last time the Community was in deficit was in 1986. Principle of specification: Each appropriation included in the budget must be given a purpose and must be assigned to an objective in order to avoid confusion. This assures fulfillment of the wishes of the budgetary authority. Anyway, there is some flexibility in the application of this rule with transfer of appropriation, but under strict control. Principle of the unit of account: The European budget works with the European currency, the euro, even when some of the member states are not part of the Eurozone. At the beginning of European integration, the budget was drafted in US dollars, afterwards in gold parity, afterwards in the ECU, and nowadays in euros. The member states get the Communitarian transfers in euros, and their national contributions are also calculated in the European currency. Principle of transparency: The budget of the Community must be transparent and accessible. The European Union tries to fight the numerous complaints about the opacity of the organization and the way its money is spent by different measures
N
ov
a
10
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/public_fin/EU_pub_fin_en.pdf#page=240.
209
The European Budget
nc .
,I
is
CONCLUSION
he rs
asserting the transparency of the budget, such as publishing the annual budget and the consolidated annual accounts in the Official Journal of the European Union. Principle of sound financial management: It is based on setting verifiable objectives which can be monitored by measurable indicators. The idea is to implement the 11 budget with efficiency and effectiveness achieving result oriented management. Evaluation of Community action and sound financial management: It includes continual evaluation and monitoring of the measures included in the budget in order to assure their effectiveness. These evaluations are applied to legislative decisions, budget decisions, and the implementation of the budget. It also provides a good tool by which to improve the future actions of the Union. Internal control and sound financial management: Besides the external control of the Court of Auditors, there is an internal control on the Communitarian budget in all levels of management. Obviously this principle is needed for good management of 12 the budget.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
The European budget has been a source of problems in the past, but nowadays it is an example of the cooperation between the different institutions of the European Union, especially the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council. The budget has been increasing since its creation, amounting nowadays for the year 2012 to 147.2 billion euro. It is an important amount of money, but if we take into consideration all the obligations of the Community, the high number of citizens in Europe, and its territorial extension, it is not as big as thought. If we compare to the national budgets of the member states, the EU budget is smaller than that of many of the European states, being more or less equivalent to the national budget of Austria. As, because of its nature, the European Union is an expanding organization, it cannot keep its current shape because otherwise it would collapse. As integration continues, more policies will be included under the sphere of influence of the European Union, and hence more money will be required to fulfill the obligations of the organization, and hence there will be a necessity for increasing the funds of the Community. It could be done in two ways: increasing the current incomes of the Union itself, or creating a new European tax. Nevertheless, both should be translated into national tax cuts because the national policies will become European. There will also be a problem with the budget in terms of the monetary Union. As the current crisis is showing, some states of the monetary Union are facing financial problems because of their previous mismanagement and the impossibility of using the interest rate or devaluation of their currencies to have access to financing sources. The only possibility left for them has been the public debt, already too high in many countries, with the consequent problems for increasing it. The situation has been solved temporarily by the national funding of the strongest states of the Union under their own rules. But to solve the problem in the long term, a new European fund backed by a new European tax must be created to deal with this kind of situation. As the common currency is not held by all 11 12
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/reports_control/index_en.cfm. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/public_fin/EU_pub_fin_en.pdf#page=240.
210
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
members of the Union, this fund and tax could not be included in the EU budget, and hence a new Eurozone budget should be created.
nc . he rs
REGIONAL POLICY
,I
Chapter 23
Pu bl
is
It is one of the most important policies of the Union in budgetary terms and in its direct implication on European citizens. The regional policy accounts for around one third of the European Union budget and has influence over the poorer regions and people of Europe. Its origin is linked with the principle of solidarity, included in the European building process since the first European Community, and its principal targets are:
Help the European regions to achieve their full potential Increase competitiveness and employment rate in the regions with higher growth potential, which normally are the less developed regions Increase living standards of the central and eastern member states that have joined the Union since 2004
Sc i
en
ce
The fulfillment of these principles is basic to closing the gap between the richest and the poorest areas of the Union and to having a more equal society in Europe. The European Union is one of the wealthiest areas in the world, but there is still a big disparity among its members. On the one hand, Luxembourg is one the wealthiest countries of the world; Germany, France, Finland and other members are on the top also. On the other hand, Romania and Bulgaria are the poorest and newest EU members, and other states as Estonia, 1 Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland are far behind the first group of countries. According to the European Union, the regional inequality is mainly the consequence of:
N
ov
a
1
Geographical remoteness, and hence there should be actions to integrate these regions with the rest of Europe Recent changes in the economic and social model: Especially in the central and eastern European member states, which after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union suffered a dramatic change from their previous communist system to their current capitalism A combination of wider reasons
http://europa.eu/pol/reg/index_en.htm.
212
David Ramiro Troitino
,I
Improving the transport networks and accessibility of these areas, providing basic services as the internet, and preserving their environmental wealth as a way to make these regions more attractive for investors and hence for economic development Supporting and promoting innovation and the creation of new companies providing information and access to new technologies to these regions Investing in human resources to increase the qualification and adaptability of 3 workers as a way to defeat unemployment.
he rs
nc .
As a direct consequence of the inequality, the European populations of these areas suffer social deprivation; the quality of their school system is low; their infrastructures are 2 insufficient and often old; and their unemployment rate is high. That is why the regional policy of the EU focuses on economic growth and the creation of jobs to overcome this situation via:
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The regional policy has an important financial capacity in terms of the European budget, accounting for around 40% of the whole budget, or 55 billion euro in 2012. The plan of investments done for the period 2007-2013 for this policy includes an investment of 350 billion euro. The regional policy invests money via three different funds: the European Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Social Fund. These funds have three main targets for the period 2007-2013: convergence, covered by the three funds; regional competitiveness and employment, covered by the European Development Fun and the Social Fund; and the final target, European territorial cooperation, covered by the European Development Fund. Convergence tries to reduce the regional disparities in Europe. It is focused on the regions where the Gross Domestic Product per inhabitant is lower than 75% of the European average. Most of them are in the new members of central and Eastern Europe. The enlargement meant a problem for those regions of western Europe included in this target, because after the accession of the new members, the European average dropped significantly and hence they were suddenly above the average and hence not eligible by this criteria. In order to have a smoother switch, a transitional period was agreed upon whereby these regions would still be included and funded until 2013. Currently there are 99 regions included in the convergence criteria, and hence eligible for European funds from the regional policy. The funding of this criterion, as the three funds are included, means more than 80% of the total budget of the regional policy, or 283.3 billion euro for 2007-2013. The projects funded are mainly linked with basic infrastructures, supporting economic agents, workers, enterprises and new businesses, access to the internet, and environmental issues, especially water and waste treatment. Regional competitiveness and employment is aimed to make the European regions more attractive for investment, and hence economic development and the creation of new jobs. All the regions of Europe not covered by the convergence criteria are eligible for this objective, meaning all those regions above 75% of the average GDP per inhabitant of the European Union. The richer regions of Europe can benefit from the funding of the regional policy of Europe to increase their economic performance and hence increase the performance of the 2 3
http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/web/guest/home. http://europa.eu/pol/reg/index_en.htm.
213
Regional Policy
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
whole Union. As they became wealthier, thanks to the European Union effort, they will likely have access to higher financial resources for investing in other regions of Europe. This criterion also focuses on small areas in these regions that still lag behind, as pockets of poverty, in order to balance these regions. There is extra funding for those regions recently included in this criterion to help them adapt to their new situation in European terms. It covers 172 regions in Europe, and is funded by 55 billion euro or 16% of the regional policy budget. The main projects funded under this objective are focused on higher education and training of skilled workers, support for entrepreneurs, and some environmental concerns such as the development of clean transport.
Sc i
Convergence Regions. Phasing-out Regions. Phasing-in Regions. Competitiveness and Employment Regions. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/atlas2007/index_en.htm.
a
Regional Policy.
N
ov
The European territorial cooperation wants to increase the cross border relations within the Union. It can be between regions or even between member states. The funds of this criterion are much reduced compared with the other two, and just account for 2.5% of the budget of the regional policy, or 8.7 billion for 2007-2013. It includes all the regions of the European Union and is focused on higher education network building, on improving communication between the regions, and on the establishment of a common management system of natural resources because environment does not know about borders. Many
214
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
member states and regions of the Union have tried to increase the role of this criterion, mainly by raising the funds allocated, but the current crisis and the austerity imposed by the Council 4 have blocked its development, and is not likely to increase its role for a few years. The actions of the cohesion policy are guided by four principles:
he rs
,I
1. Concentration of resources: Most of the funds of the regional policy are concentrated in the poorest regions of the Union. 2. Concentration of effort: The investments from this policy are focused on specific aspects, such as research and innovation, information society, support for enterprises and workers, transport, energy, environment, health, culture, tourism, employment, social inclusion, and education and training. 3. Concentration of spending: At the beginning of each programming period, annual funding is allocated to each program. These funds must be spent by the end of the 5 second year after their allocation.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The working system of this policy is closely associated with the member states. As the policy does not fund individual projects, it needs elaboration by the national authorities of the member states in multi-annual national programs following the objectives and priorities established by the EU. Also, the programs need the involvement of different levels of administration, from European Union, regional, local levels, as well as social society and other partners in the design, management, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Hence, the regional policy ensures the fulfillment of regional needs. The regional policy is an additional help for those regions that are eligible, but it is never a substitute for national funding, rather complementary to the national policies of the member states. The budget of the funds is drafted by the European Commission according to the EU objectives, taking into consideration the previous budget and the financial capacity of the EU. The draft is sent to the EP and the Council to discuss, to reform, and finally to approve. The principles and priorities are set by the Commission after consulting with the member states. Each member state creates a national strategic reference framework (NSRF) that must be sent to the European Commission during the 5 months following adoption of the priorities. This national document includes a list of operational programs. The Commission then has three months to analyze the information provided by the states, comment on it, and ask for further information if needed. The Commission validates the NSRF, as well as each operational program (OP). For the period 2007-2013, the European Commission validated 455 operational programs. After validation, the national and regional authorities of the member states implement the OP, selecting, monitoring, and evaluating the most suitable projects. Afterwards, the Commission commits the funds to allow the member states to start spending 6 the money, and then the Commission disburses funds to each country. As we see, there is very close collaboration between the member state authorities on all levels and the European Commission in the regional policy, with the Council and the Parliament involved in approval of the budget.
4
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/index_en.cfm#3. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/principles/index_en.cfm. 6 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/how/policy/index_en.cfm. 5
215
Regional Policy
CRITICS
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The regional policy is not really decreasing the gap between the richer and poorer regions of Europe at the speed expected, and in some cases the gap is even bigger. This has brought about numerous criticisms of this policy, especially about the working system of the policy, which highly bureaucratized with the consequent centralization of the process, making this policy slower and less effective. It also leads to high bureaucratic costs because the administration managing the funds consumes more than 500 million euro a year. As the member states have to send the money that is not spent back to the EU, it creates a perverse cycle where the states spend the money on useless projects rather than sending it back to Brussels; following the principle of better waste it than lose it. It leads to projects meant to increase the employment rate, like a manicure course for gypsy women, a democracy museum in Sweden, or a giant lake in the center of Bradford, UK. Another criticism is based on the poor coordination of the regional policy with the national policies. As the European policy is meant to be additional to the effort of the member states, there should be a higher complementation and coordination between the European Union and the member states. It is complicated because the objectives in the European Union are chosen for the whole Union, and not just one member state. The individual states could have different interests or actions in the regional development field. The funding of the regional policy has been accused of having high vulnerability to fraud. For example, Italy‟s tax and fraud investigator, Guardia di Finanza, noted in its latest annual report that €433 million worth of EU money was subject to outright fraud in Italy alone in 7 2006. So if this data of fraud is at least half as great in each member state, the regional policy is a great disaster. Anyway, there is no reliable data on fraud and regional policy, and hence 8 these criticisms cannot be proved right at present because are based on estimations. The most prosperous member states, especially the UK, complain, because almost all the funds are diverted to the poorer regions, leaving the richer countries without support to actuate against their internal differences. The UK also underlines the idea that investing more money in the richer countries will be investing in the areas where the EU can add most value 9 instead of wasting the money in less efficient projects. It is clear that there are important problems with the regional policy, but it should not be allowed to disappear, as most of the critics want, because it would mean the end of solidarity in the European Union, and hence the change from a supranational organization to an international market union. It is clear that the most prosperous countries of the Union benefit more from the Single Market, because their economic systems are more developed and hence their companies are stronger and more competitive than the economies of the poorer states. Some of these benefits should be spent closing the gap between European nations and regions via the EU budget, with contributions of the member states and the expenditure of the Communitarian policies. It does not mean that the regional policy is not facing many problems of inefficiency, corruption, or lack of accurate auditing, and hence there should be a reform in these fields improving the quality of the service provides by the European Union to the European people following the essence of the social model of Europe Solidarity is needed 7
http://www.gdf.gov.it/ricerca/ricerca.asp?testoRicerca=UE&ok=ok. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/regional.pdf. 9 http://www.alanjohnson.org/. 8
216
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
to build a common Europe, but solidarity should be efficient, and hence the European Union still needs to work in this direction.
nc . he rs
,I
Chapter 24
THE ENLARGEMENT TO CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The fifth enlargement of the European Union was the consequence of the end of the Cold War. After WW II many European states were under the influence of the Soviet Union, and hence associated with this state. As the Soviet Union saw the European Communities as an imperialist tool against the workers of the world under the influence of the United States, relations between both blocs were almost nonexistent. Europe was divided into three main areas, western Europe, central neutral countries as Sweden, Austria, Finland, and Switzerland, and, on the communist side, central and eastern Europe. The relations between west and east were minimal and mainly directed by the USA and the Soviet Union. After WW II the position of the West German government of freezing relations with East Germany, affirming the existence of a single Germany against the solution of two different states, increased the division. The French president, Charles de Gaulle, tried to build an independent policy in the Cold War, opening a third way. In that cause he visited countries from the communist bloc, as Romania, but it was a complete failure. The changes in the West German government and the beginning of Ostpolitik meant some improvements, but relations were still under the surveillance of the Soviet Union until the end of the Cold War. The confrontation of the USA and the Soviet Union was harder at the beginning of the conflict with numerous indirect fights all over the world. At first Europe was thought to be the main battlefield in case of conflict, but as attention was focused on other areas of the world, as Korea, Vietnam, the Middle-East conflict, or the third IndoPakistani war, Europe became a secondary scenario, lowering the tension there and avoiding another conflict between Europeans. The states of the Soviet bloc associated themselves as did their rivals of the west; the Warsaw Pact was built as an answer to the creation of NATO. The main difference was the lack of free will in the Warsaw Pact member states compared with the members of NATO. For example, de Gaulle expelled the headquarters of the association from Paris, and removed his country from the military structures of NATO, actions impossible to compare with the Warsaw Pact and Albania because of the international dimension of France. As a response to the creation of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation in Western Europe, the communist bloc founded the COMECON, or Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
218
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Nevertheless, the first European Community, the ECSC, introduced new concepts based on supranational aspects that were never applied in the Soviet bloc. With the hardening of the Cold War with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and with the full support of Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister put much more pressure on the Soviet Union and its European allies, leading, among other important factors, to the end of the conflict as the Soviet Union faced too many unsolved troubles. The first consequence was the enlargement to Austria, Finland, and Sweden, previously neutral countries in the Cold War. German reunification was also a consequence of the same event. The disintegration of the Soviet Union meant the rise of new states in Europe, especially Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as future new members of the organization. The countries of eastern and central Europe suffered radical political changes, creating democracies and changing from an economic system based on public property plus direct control of the state over society, to a capitalist system based on markets. All these changes altered the countries to the model prevailing in the European Communities, and hence made them acceptable candidates for membership in the organization. Russia was undergoing a big internal transformation, and hence its influence over central and eastern Europe disappeared completely. The USA was pushing the western European states to influence the area in order to secure it. The EU had to act to secure the area before any turmoil could collapse the young democracies leading this area once more against the rest of Europe. The best idea to secure them was offering them membership, avoiding any internal disorder or a revival of Russian power over the area. The proposal of membership meant political stability in the area, but still there were huge economic problems that were solved with financial transfers from the Union as pre-accession aid.1
ce
THE ENLARGEMENT
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
This was a historical achievement in Europe for uniting the continent by peaceful means. In 1993 the European Council decided that the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe shall become members of the Union. Afterwards, in 1997, the European Council launched the enlargement process with the first group of candidates; a second wave of candidates was accepted in 1998. Finally the enlargement started in 2004 with 10 countries, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, plus two Mediterranean countries, Malta and Cyprus, and ended with the incorporation of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. The economic problems of these candidates, with the exception of Cyprus and Malta, needed to be solved before the enlargement to avoid a collapse of their economies and adapt them to European standards of free competition. The economic agents had to be ready for competition with the more developed states who were already members of the Union. Also, the candidates had to institute many reforms before they could join the Union to adapt themselves to the Communitarian policies, and hence to the transfer of funds from the Communitarian budget. Enlargement without important structural reforms could have meant a transfer from the old members to the new members, with the less developed areas of the old members 1
Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century, Mazower, Mark, New York, 2000.
The Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe
219
,I
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
PHARE Program: the biggest fund with around 10 billion euro for the whole period. It was mainly focused on the modernization of the public administrations of the member states plus the modernization of their economies. It was created for the enlargement to eastern and central Europe, but it still exists presently and is focusing on the Balkan region SAPARD: Pre-accession agricultural instrument. This instrument funded the reform of the agricultural sector of the candidate countries. It was thought to invest in the modernization of the agricultural sector in two main fields, the medium and big properties of land and the small plots. The funding was thought of as a complement to the actions of the candidate states. The first group needed a big investment to buy machines and other technological means after privatization of the collective farms. On the other hand, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an explosion of growth in the number of small farmers. They were not competitive and were basically involved in making a livelihood. The European Union wanted to abolish this kind of farming in order to decrease possible future payments in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy. Also, there was much discussion, especially with Poland about the calculations of agricultural production of the new member states to adapt the payments of the CAP. The EU wanted to focus on a period of time in which the production was smaller, and, on the other hand, Poland wanted to use the period of time right after independence when agricultural production grew. Finally, the European Union included the historical rights of the western farmers to keep on paying them from the CAP. Otherwise, it could have meant the end of the agricultural sector in western Europe as most of the payments would have gone to eastern and central Europe. The historical rights kept the privileges of farmers in France, Spain, and other western member states, decreasing the amount of money transferred to the new members. Currently with the reform of the CAP, where production is no longer the key data for European subsidies, the historical rights make no sense any longer and have been abolished. It means an increase of fund transfers to the eastern and central member states at a moment when their agricultural occupation has fallen from the period of the enlargement. The agricultural matters were a conflictive issue in the negotiations between the European Union and the candidate states. Instrument for structural policy for pre-accession: It was focus on environmental and transport policies. During communist times the environment was not a priority, and hence there was not a developed policy on this issue. As environment goes further than political borders, often pollution created in eastern and central Europe had an important influence on the rest of the continent. As an example, pollution generated in Poland had a huge impact on the lakes of Sweden and Finland. Hence, the European Union supported the creation of effective environmental policies based on Communitarian environmental policy. The candidates also lacked investment in the
he rs
nc .
completely out of the different policies of the Union, and hence from its financial support. It was decided to invest in these countries before the accession to make changes in their economies, political systems, and social structures via pre-accession instruments during the period 2000-2006:
N
ov
a
220
David Ramiro Troitino
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
1935.9
1974.6
2014.1
2054.4
2095.5
2137.4
Cross-border cooperation program: Under the PHARE program, encouraging multinational cooperation in the area. Coordination instrument: It was created to coordinate all the actions included in the instruments above in order to avoid mismanagement or duplication in different undertakings.2
is
14110.1
he rs
Current prices in million euro. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/highlight/20111207_ipa_final_en.pdf.
2014-2020
,I
Instrument 2014 For 1898.0 Pre-Accession
nc .
transport network, indispensable for integration into the European market and to develop the local economies by aggregating them to the global network system. The program was mainly based on interconnection and interoperability between national networks and the trans-European networks. Nevertheless, the financial capacity of the fund was not very high, and still nowadays many central and eastern member states are in need of investing in their transport network.
Growth and stability to Europe. Economic growth was bigger in the new member states, around 3.75% on average for the period of 1997-2005 than in the rest of the members of the Union, 2.5%. As the new members started the period from a lower development point, their growth was faster. Increasing economic integration: The old member states increased their trade with the EU-10 countries by 6%, whilst their imports from the new member states rose by 13%. Currently there is still a surplus for the old member states in their relations with the eastern and central European members. On the other hand, the benefits for European companies were very important as they could expand to a virgin area, as the Austrian banks into central Europe or the Nordic banks into the Baltic region.3
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
The enlargement was a great success in many ways. It meant the integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the European Union, giving the organization a wider international spectrum and a stronger presence in the world arena. It also provided a huge virgin market for the European companies that expanded over the area, increasing their production and sales. It meant a period of great economic bonanza on the continent. The enlargement meant security for the old members of the Union, as the borders of the organization expanded and included eastern and central Europe. The most developed member states also had an important influx of workers from the new member states. Even though there were some still clauses, especially in the free movement of people, the impact of internal immigration inside the territory of the Union was huge, helping to generate the economic growth of the following years. The new member states secured their democracies and freedoms, transforming their societies enormously thanks to the stability given by membership in the European Union. According to the European Commission, the enlargement meant:
N
ov
a
2 3
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enlargement/2004_and_2007_enlargement/index_en.htm. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enlargement/2004_and_2007_enlargement/e50026_en.htm.
The Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe
221
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The enlargement had also some negative effects on the Union and on the new members. The Union faced new international problems, as the previous national problems became Communitarian problems; thus relations with Russia came under stress. It also means there is currently a problem in terms of integration, as member states like Germany, with an important economic interest in the Russian market, does not normally support other members of the Union in cases of diplomatic conflict with Russia, such as the bronze soldier event between Estonia and Russia, or the historical confrontation between Poland and Russia. It means a decrease in internal cohesion of the organization and hinders further integration. The enlargement also can be linked with the internal problems of the Union because so many new member states were involved in the decision making. As the organization is having problems making resolutions, the most logical step would be increasing the political integration, but in reality the situation is different. The cooperation between Germany and France, previously the motor of European integration, is becoming stronger and somehow a strong leadership for the rest of the members excluding the UK. It means that instead of cooperating inside the Union, their policy making is done under the national governments and the rest of the members cannot influence the decisions. This situation has always been latent in European Union history, but after the enlargement it has grown, becoming somehow the center of the Union, breaking away from most of the Communitarian principles. The enlargement also meant a common market for criminals coming from eastern and central Europe, with the consequent increase in criminal activities. After the collapse of communist rule, criminal organizations grew faster, but are nowadays reducing their presence in society. The new member states also suffered negative consequences from the enlargement, such as the social cost. The necessity to achieve some European standards meant the end of the previous social system and the introduction of a new social system similar to the USA‟s system, and far from the European models, such as the Continental, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Mediterranean. Currently the social protection of the state in most of central and eastern Europe is very reduced or nonexistent, leaving the weaker members of society without the protection of the state. In the economic field the enlargement meant fast integration into the European market, and hence local companies had no time to adapt to the new situation, succumbing to the competition of European companies and hence reducing national control over the system. Finally, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria was less successful as these two states, with huge problems of corruption, market economy, and incorporation of European standards, problems currently still important, were not ready to join the European Union. Despite these negative effects, the enlargement to eastern and central Europe was a great success for both the EU and the new members and meant a huge jump in the entity of the European Union as a peace system, economic power, and international actor.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE TREATY OF LISBON
,I
Chapter 25
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The Treaty is the consequence of the rejection of the so called European Constitution by referendum by the citizens of France and the Netherlands. After this shock to European integration, the member states had two main choices, either to follow with the ratification of the Constitution and include exceptions for France and the Netherlands, or to elaborate a new treaty eliminating the conflictive points because the EU needed a reform in its working system. As France is a central state in the Union, any advance in terms of integration has to count on it, and hence the second option was taken. The new Treaty had to change the controversial issues, but besides the name of Constitution, too federal for the citizens of both countries, or too European, there were no clear reasons for the rejection. French citizens could use the European referendum against the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, or against the inclusion of Turkey as an official candidate to the Union, or against the current gap between the European institutions and the people. The Netherlands could use it against the continuous enlargements of the organization that were weakening the position of the country in the Union, or about immigration after the enlargement to eastern and central Europe that could increase with further enlargements. All of them were legitimate reasons, but these issues were not included in the European Constitution, and hence the reform of Lisbon mainly was based on the name and little else. The Treaty of Lisbon includes most of the most important reforms of the Constitution under a different name; the treaty is almost the same but it is called a treaty instead of a Constitution. It was presented to European citizens and approved via national parliaments or referendums without problems. The Irish people rejected the treaty of Lisbon via referendum, but after the inclusion of some minor changes and protocols for Ireland, they accepted it. Germany made some constitutional reforms to control the expansion of the powers of the European institutions, and the president of the Czech Republic, the Eurosceptic Vaclav Klaus, used dilatory tactics to delay the signing of the treaty.
REFORMS
The European Union was facing problems in its working system after the last enlargements of the organization, and the integration had to be improved in order to increase the agility of the working system of the Union. On the other hand, new policies were
224
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
developed or included in the European sphere of influence as globalization made it difficult for individual states to influence international affairs. The main reforms were:
Source: http://european-federation.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-irelanders-were-wrong-treaty-of.html.
Decision making: Unanimity was almost abolished by the Treaty of Lisbon, because, as 27 members were included in the Union, it was difficult to reach agreements among all the members. The EU mostly works by consensus, and negotiations are launched even when not needed because of the qualified majority, but this reform abolished the possibility of a veto from a single member state to an initiative supported by the other 26 members. This reform made the states reluctant for further integration or new European measures more willing to negotiate because otherwise they could not stop the initiative and they would also be isolated in the Union. This enlargement of the qualified majority voting was united with the co-decision process, where the Council and the EU Parliament stand in positions of equality. There were more than 40 new areas included in this voting system, with some exceptions for Ireland, the UK, and Denmark in areas of justice and home affairs. The extension of the QMV has been done gradually and will end in 2014. Creation of new institutional posts: the Treaty of Lisbon created two new high posts in the European Union, a permanent President of the European Council and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The President has a mandate of two and a half years, and the occupant cannot be a serving head of state. He is mostly a figure to represent the Union, to give the organization a face, and an icon in the external representation of the EU. It provides continuity to the
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Reasons of the Irish to vote against the Treaty of Lisbon.
225
The Treaty of Lisbon
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
presidency of the Council, and hence allows middle term objectives that were previously impossible under the rotating presidency of individual member states focused on national areas of interest. The powers of the president are modest, but the inclusion of his figure in the treaties opens the gate for new treaties to come to improve the powers without major opposition within the member states and probably without referendums. So, the creation of the presidency is just one step toward the future and a diplomatic representation. The High Representative conducts foreign policy on behalf of the European Council, such as representing all member states at the UN. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs automatically gains membership to the European Commission, as a Vice President, but does not have the 1 power to independently generate policy. It is expected to give the external policy of the Union a bigger range, improving European influence in world affairs, but the European Foreign Affairs minister still needs to further develop the functions of the office in the future to effectively exercise the role. Inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: These rights are already included in the legal systems of the member states, but after mention of fundamental rights in the Treaty of Lisbon, they became part of Europe in order to increase the common identity of European citizens and in the future their loyalty to the European Union. When the fundamental rights will be included properly in the European treaties, the final institutions to defend the rights of citizens will be the European tribunals, and all Europeans will have the same rights; the people will identify themselves as Europeans. It also opens the gate for further integration as many national policies without any European influence can be analyzed from the point of view of fundamental rights, and hence can be under the power of the European Union. It does not include all the member states, as the UK, Poland or the Czech Republic. Expanding role of the co-decision system: Lisbon increases the areas under codecision, where the European Parliament and the Council, the European people and the member states, stand equally in the legislative process. It should contribute to the democratization of the Union and hence will bring European citizens closer to the organization. Legal personality: The Treaty of Lisbon for the first time includes the legal personality of the European Union. It will provide a more solid external stature of the Union and will strengthen its position in international negotiations and in external relations of the Union with third states or other organizations. Withdrawal from the Union: For the first time there is included a clear mechanism for those members that want to withdraw from the organization. It is important for underlining that the EU is a free will organization where all members belong to the organization on their own initiative. Justice and Home Affairs: Lisbon includes this pillar of European integration in the Communitarian area under the influence of the court system of the Union, increasing the scope of the organization. The UK secured the ability to opt out of police cooperation and the option to opt in to legislation relating to judicial issues.
N
ov
a
1
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSTREAT/TR6.htm.
226
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
David Ramiro Troitino
Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/386. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The Treaty of Lisbon has increased the power of the European Union, but it has not been a major treaty in terms of integration. Its real value is in the gates opened for further integration in the near future, areas included mildly in Lisbon that will develop further in the coming years. There have been some complaints about the Treaty, as the increased role of the European Commission in the external relations of the Union, something that could be a challenge to the sovereignty of member states. The Council is still the center of external policy, and most of the decisions in this policy are taken by unanimity, and hence this fear is not realistic currently. Concerning national sovereignty, the national capacity to veto further integration has been significantly reduced by the Treaty. It means that a member state can be forced to accept further integration against its will. It is unlikely to happen as consensus is still the general rule in the field of integration, and the end of national vetoes encourages more negotiation, and despite it, member states can withdraw from the Union more easily after Lisbon. Finally, the Treaty of Lisbon has been criticized because of the democratic deficit of the European Commission, an independent institutional body not elected by the Europeans and working for the interest of Europe, pushing for deeper integration. The case of the Commission is clear according to neo-functionalist theory, an independent institution pushing for deeper integration in the right direction. The Commission, for example, almost always pushes for more enlargements to increase the number of members in the Union and hence extend integration, but it is not the institution to decide about them. The European Commission will propose many things always according to what it thinks better for Europe, but the final decision is always under the Council and the Parliament, and hence the
227
The Treaty of Lisbon
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
democratization of the Commission can be understood just as a further step in integration bringing the organization closer to being a federal state. Until the member states and European citizens are eager to take such a big decision, the Commission should follow acting independently under the supervision of the democratically elected European Parliament and the democratically elected national governments represented in the Council. The real influence of the Treaty of Lisbon will be felt in the coming years when the necessities of the European Union will force deeper integration and the paths opened by Lisbon will be taken.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . ,I
Chapter 26
he rs
FUTURE ENLARGEMENTS OF THE EU AND LIMITS OF THE ORGANIZATION
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The European integration process started with a reduced Community of just six members and was originally thought to be an organization to solve the long term rivalry between France and Germany, and hence both countries became the center of the process. The Benelux countries joined the Community because of their strong links with France and Germany. Italy was divided into two parts, a highly developed north and a less wealthy south. The north needed access to the markets of France and Germany and the south needed support to develop further, and hence the country joined the organization.1 The borders of the Community were marked by different visions of European integration, as the British and its supporters, as Ireland and Denmark, highly dependent on the British economy;2 or by the political situation, as Spain, Portugal, and Greece, under military regimes;3 and by the Cold War in two main aspects, the neutral states and the supporters of Soviet Union. The first group was formed by Austria, Sweden, and Finland, who had neutrality status during the confrontation between west and east, and hence could not participate in the European process because it was seen as a capitalistic tool sponsored by the USA against the Soviet Union. A larger part of Europe was under the influence of the Soviet Union, and hence there was no possibility of joining the process.4 The situation changed when the British economy was under important stress and hence the government asked for accession in order to improve its economic situation. Denmark and Ireland followed the UK. Greece, Spain, and Portugal became democracies; the Cold War ended and all the countries affected by it became full members of the organization, expanding the original six members to the current twenty seven plus Croatia and probably Iceland. After the last enlargements the European Union currently suffers some fatigue in terms of expansion, as 12 countries joined the Union. Beside the positive effects of the enlargements, they provoked an alienation of the European people from Brussels because the sense of identity, of belonging to a common process, was diluted. The world financial crisis is not 1
The Community of Europe: A History of European Integration Since 1945 (The Postwar World), Prof Derek W. Urwin. (1994) 2 European Free Trade Association, Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome and John McBrewster (2010). 3 Transitions from Dictatorship to Democracy: Comparative Studies of Spain, Portugal and Greece, Ronald H. Chilcote, Stylianos Hadjiyannis, Fred A. III Lopez and Daniel Nataf. (1990). 4 The Cold War (Cambridge Perspectives in History), Mike Sewell (2002).
230
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
helping either as the possible candidates will be net receivers of Communitarian funds. But the problem goes beyond these conjectural difficulties and is located on the borders of the Union because the limits of the organization were not clear at the beginning of the process and there were different opinions about them.5 Europe is a concept defined by geographical space and cultural roots. If we take the European Union as an organization for the European subcontinent, its limits were easy to identify during the first enlargements, but as the organization reaches the periphery, the limits are not clear anymore. If the limit of expansion would depend on geography with borders in the Urals, Russia, North Cape, Norway and the island of Gavdos in Greece, it would include countries such as Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey.6 Europe can also be defined by religious matters, and hence with flexible boundaries in space and time. The cultural concept of Europe started having a strong identity after the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the middle ages, when Christianity was a fundamental part of Europe. Territories such as Spain were thought of as being occupied and hence subject to liberation. The Turkish occupation of the Balkan region was seen as an aggression against Europe; the German expansion eastwards can be explained as an extension of Christianity, and hence an expansion of Europe. Here there was a conflict with Muslims and pagans; the first were expelled from Spain, Sicily, and most of the Balkans, the pagans were converted or exterminated.7 The French revolution changed this identification as new ideas spread all over Europe and again established a new cultural border of Europe, with separation of powers and limits of religion on the personal life of the citizen, in contrast to other regions of the world were religion was, and still is, a way of organizing the social life of believers and inhabitants of a territory. According to this definition of Europe, the eastern countries could bend in and out of the concept of Europe, depending on the period and the inclusion of some concepts developed during the French revolution. Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan would not be included, even though Turkey is a secular state but does not have a secular society and is under constant threat of regression in terms of religion, a consequence of the implementation of the secular state from the elites to the folk.8 Another way to define Europe would be according to politics, democracy, and social states; these principles were defined by the French revolution and were developed in England. Its political principles were spread through Europe in a more radical version by the French Empire and the troops of Napoleon. There is a historical identification of Europe with the ancient Greeks, and Athens has been seen as the model of democracy, developed in Europe against the Persian-Asian concept of a supreme ruler with absolute power. The Romans kept the concept of democracy but as a much more restricted concept in their Republic and especially a nominal concept during imperial times with the maintenance of the Senate. It was seen as a contraposition to the barbarians and their political ways. After the collapse of the Empire, the middle ages kept some ideals of democracy with the denomination of the different kings as primus inter pares, the first among equals; and the roles of different parliaments in Europe grew during the period; even when they were not properly democratic 5
The Fluid Borders of Europe (Europe: Culture and Identities in a Contested Continent), Mark Pittaway (2003). Boundaries and Place: European Borderlands in Geographical Context, David H. Kaplan and Jouni Hakli (2002). 7 Christian Faith, Reason Health and Future of Europe, Vicente Ramos Centeno (2007). 8 Earthly Powers: The Clash of Religion and Politics in Europe from the French Revolution to the Great War, Michael Burleigh (2006). 6
231
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
institutions, they represented some social classes and kept alive the ideal of democracy. Absolutism was defeated by the French revolution in cultural terms, and democracy came back to Europe as an indissoluble part of it. Even the political system of the USA, an old democracy, was defined by the Europeans or recent descendants of Europeans who brought the idea of democracy from Europe to America and afterwards developed their own system. So, the idea of democracy in Europe is based on a political regime with a historical background. The social state was developed in Europe and has become a hallmark of it. The development of policies of the state follows the idea of a society organized in political terms for the benefit of its members, of the citizens. Defining Europe in this way, the limits of the organization have almost been reached, with maybe just the Balkan area to be included in the organization.9 Europe is also a cultural concept, a way of organizing society in all its extent, from economy to literature, from judicial system to common traditions. It is a broad idea with a very diffuse border, with intertwined and overlapping facts mixed and defined as Western culture. It can explain the inclusion of, for example, Cyprus in the European Union, but also raises the question of Israel and eventually could widen the borders of Europe to other continents as far as Australia or Canada.10 An easier way to find the limits of Europe can be by analyzing the members of European associations, such as the Council of Europe, an organization focused on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, located in France, whose members not belonging to the European Union are Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, and Ukraine. Belarus was a special guest but has been suspended because of its poor democratic records. Israel, Canada, and Mexico are observers in the organization and there are two partners for democracy, Morocco and Palestine.11 As we see, it is a broad concept of Europe, probably as broad as possible. Canada has a special status and is also included in the defense organization of Europe, NATO. Eurovision is a European song contest, and hence just European states can join it, but it includes many countries from outside the European Union, as Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, and Ukraine. Again the concept of Europe is bigger than the European Union and includes all the peripheral states, even those on the borders of Europe with a diffuse European identity.12 UEFA is the European Football Association, where the European national teams and clubs play their European competitions. From outside the Union it includes Albania, Armenia, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Kazakhstan, Lichtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, and Ukraine.13 It is the broadest concept of Europe taken by any European organization, and hence could be used as the ultimate borders of Europe. It includes Israel, even though geographically it is a part of Asia, because of political reasons, but also because of the cultural background of the country. 9
Democracy in Europe, Larry Siedentop (2001). Humanities In Western Culture, Volume Two: A Search for Human Values: v. 2, Robert C. Lamm (1995). 11 http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/AssemblyList/AL_DelegationsList_E.asp. 12 http://www.eurovision.tv/page/news?id=44483&_t=43_countries_represented_at_eurovision_2012. 13 http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/index.html. 10
232
David Ramiro Troitino
ACCESSION REQUIREMENTS
nc .
The European Union is an organization that has been expanding since its creation, according to some principles, basically:
he rs
,I
1. Politics: Democracy and protection of human rights 2. Economy: Market economy developed enough to integrate into the European market without collapsing in an environment of free competition. 3. Ability to incorporate Communitarian legislation into the national law 4. Geography: Only countries located in Europe can join the Union. As an example, Morocco applied for membership in the European Communities in 1987, arguing that the country has been united culturally with Europe via Al-Andalus, the European Muslim state of medieval times located in Spain and Morocco. This argumentation was rejected.14
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The enlargements are also determined by the capacity of the Union to absorb new members in economic terms. Croatia as a new member state in 2013 will not generate any problem joining the Union in economic terms as it is a small country, but other states as Turkey create more problems in this field.15
Potential Candidates Countries Acceding Country Members of the Union Source: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/index_en.htm.
N
ov
a
Enlargements of the European Union.
14 15
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/24/. European Union Enlargement (The European Union Series), Prof. Neill Nugent, (2004).
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
233
CANDIDATE COUNTRIES
he rs
,I
nc .
At the moment there are five candidate countries to full membership in the European Union: Iceland, Montenegro, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey. Iceland will probably join the EU in 2013 with Croatia, but Macedonia, Montenegro, and Turkey will face difficulties joining the Union. The first two countries were part of Yugoslavia and their aspirations can be included with the whole area of the Western Balkans to help stabilize the area and hence the borders of the Union. Turkey, on the other hand, has become a big problem for the European Union, as the country is associated with the European Communities since 1963, and the enlargement negotiations seem stagnant.
CROATIA
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
Croatia will become a full member of the European Union in June 2013 becoming the 27th member of the Union. It will mean the expansion of the organization into the Balkan region previously occupied by Yugoslavia with the exception of Slovenia, a full member of the Union since 2004. The collapse of the communist regimes had dramatic consequences in Yugoslavia with the dismemberment of the country and the civil war. Slovenia could leave the country with some ease, but Croatia fought a war of independence against a Yugoslavia lead by Serbia. The conflict spread to other areas as Bosnia and Kosovo. It meant an armed conflict in Europe in the „90s, something unthinkable in the European Union. The end of the conflict meant the independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Kosovo.16 The war meant a big shock for the Europeans and brought big instability to the region, with ethnicity as the main trigger for the war. As the war was stopped by the intervention of the USA, the European Union became involved in the reconstruction of the affected areas. Croatia was one of the main contenders of the war, but rapidly recovered from the conflict, adopting European standards in its economy. The traditional link with Austria and Germany helped the country to overcome the post war crisis and rebuild the country.17 Croatia applied for membership in 2003 and was granted candidate status in 2004. The great economic development of the country made negotiations easier, but there were three main problematic areas:
N
ov
a
1. Collaboration with international courts: Croatia protected some active fighters of the war as national heroes when they were criminals charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Croatian authorities did not collaborate with the international institutions in the prosecution of these criminals. After the capture of these fugitives by the Spanish police with the collaboration of its Croatian partners, the issue seems settling. 2. Land ownership: As a consequence of the war, and as a discriminatory measure against the Serbian and Muslim Bosnian population, there were numerous obstacles
16 17
The Fall of Yugoslavia: The Third Balkan War, Misha Glenny (1992). Croatia: A Nation Forged in War, Marcus Tanner (2010).
234
David Ramiro Troitino
he rs
,I
nc .
for foreigners in buying real state in Croatia. It is a typical nationalistic approach, giving all the rights to the holders of Croatian nationality. The conflict also extended to the European Union as Italians could not purchase land in Croatia, especially in the city of Istria, part of Italy until the Second World War. It was solved by bilateral agreements with the European states, but not with Serbia. 3. Border problems with Slovenia: Since independence there have been some disputes over the Gulf of Piran, the national waters, the Dragonja River, Žumberak/Gorjanci and the river Mura area. As Slovenia was already a member of the European Union and all the members have to agree on new accessions, that country blocked negotiations with Croatia until the problem could be solved. It has been agreed that an international mediator will solve the problem and both countries will accept the resolution. As Croatia also has border disputes with Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro, it seems likely that the country will reproduce the Slovenian strategy and block the accession of these countries until the disputes are solved.18
Pu bl
is
The different agreements reached before the accession of the country in the field of trade and economic exchanges mean, in fact, incorporation of Croatia into the European market, facilitating the enlargement process. In 2009 EU-Croatia trade was 14.024 billion euros, which constitutes 65.3% of the total trade of the country. But there are still some unresolved problems that have been pointed out by the European Parliament, as the corruption of the public administration, still very high for a European institution, judicial reforms, organized crime, the return of Serbian refugees, and some other minor economic reforms. Once a member in 2013, Croatia will have veto over the next enlargements, and the democratic maturity of the state will define the future of Serbia and Montenegro in the organization.19
ce
ICELAND
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
Iceland has been a member of the European Free Trade Association since 1970 with strong economic links with its partners. After enlargement of the European Union to the UK, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, and Austria, the EFTA was left just for Norway, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, and Iceland. The European Economic Area was founded in 1994 by the European Communities and Norway, Lichtenstein, and Iceland, integrating these countries de facto into the European Single Market. The inclusion of Iceland in the Schengen agreement facilitated the free movement of people between most of the European Union states and Iceland. It means that Iceland has already included most of the Communitarian legislation into its national legislation in these fields, and hence the integration of the country should not generate problems in terms of integration. Also the size of Iceland, in terms of population, around 320,000 inhabitants, avoids major problems concerning enlargement. As a member of the EEA, Iceland has access to the European market and also has to pay into the Union as the rest of the member states do, with the difference that Iceland cannot 18 19
The European Project in the Balkans, Part II (World Politics Review Briefings), Andrew MacDowall (2011). Accession of Croatia to the European Union, Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome and John McBrewster (2010).
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
235
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
influence the decision making as it is not a member of the organization, and afterwards has to implement the decisions taken, maybe in fields important for its economy. At the same time, as a member of the market, Iceland cannot receive funds from many of the European policies. During the crisis of 2009 the financial sector of Iceland collapsed with a huge impact on its economy, especially concerning the public debt, as the national currency dropped in value more than 30%. Iceland needed the support of the European currency, the euro, in the international markets, plus European funding via the Communitarian policies. Hence, the national government applied for membership in the Union, and after a fast approval of the Commission, the Council started negotiations.20 The main problem facing Iceland is the national fishing grounds; once a member of the Union, it should open them to the Communitarian fleet on equal terms with the local fleet. Currently the fishing sector provides jobs for 8% of Icelanders and has an important impact on the local population. Besides this problem, membership in the EEA and Schengen, fluid economic relations with other members of the Union, and its size will focus the debate on political issues. The main obstacle for the future of Iceland in the EU will be the national referendum to accept the enlargement treaty, and hence there will be big debate inside the country, even when the national government and the European Union will agree easily on the terms of the accession. If everything goes as expected, Iceland could join the EU at the same time as Croatia, in June 2013, finishing one of the fastest enlargements in the history of the Union.21
FYR MACEDONIA
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Macedonia gained its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 with not as much trouble as Bosnia or Croatia. The country initially had problems in the international world because of its name, the same as a region of Greece and homeland of Alexander the Great. Greece boycotted international recognition of the country until the name was changed from Republic of Macedonia to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Both countries did not normalize their relations until 1995, but the problem of the denomination of the country has not been resolved and negotiations are ongoing. During the war of Kosovo many ethnic Albanians took refuge in the border areas of Macedonia, already populated by a majority of Albanians, and started an independence movement with the aim of creating a Great Albania, including Albania, Kosovo, and part of Macedonia. It was presented as a war against Slavs by Albanian extremist who had fought previously in Kosovo against Serbian forces. The war was brief as the Albanians did not get the support of the USA as they had in the case of Kosovo. This strange situation of the Americans, supporting Albanians in Kosovo but not in Macedonia, can be explained as a way to destroy the Serbian regime, its impact over the Balkans, and the influence of Russia in the area. The conflict was solved with American support to Macedonia, protection of the Albanian minority inside Macedonia, important
20
The Political Economy of Joining the European Union: Iceland's Position at the Beginning of the 21st Century, Magnus Bjarnason (2010). 21 Accession of Iceland to the European Union, Delmar Thom Stawart (2011).
236
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
concessions from the government, and, finally in 2009 an agreement over the border disputes with Kosovo.22 The country was granted candidate status in 2005 by the European Council, and in 2004 a Stabilization and Association Agreement entered into force to help the country during its transitional period. Macedonia is currently receiving different funds from the European Union through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. Between 2007 and 2012, it expects to receive roughly 500 million euros through the IPA in order to modernize the state. The country is facing various problems for accession to the Union. Corruption is widespread in the country, and hence the country does not meet the minimum political standards to be a member of the European organization. In economic terms the country still needs to increase its performance in order to compete in the European Market. The administration of Macedonia is improving but still has reduced capacity to implement European legislation, so there is still substantial work to be done in Macedonia before the country is in a condition to join the European Union.23 Even with fulfilling all the requirements, the problem with Greece is still not solved and it could delay the accession of Macedonia sine die as Greece could use its veto right to stop the integration of the country. Greece argues that the name Macedonia cannot be monopolized by one country, and that doing so implies a territorial claim over the northern Greek region of the same name. In the coming years no big changes in the situation are expected, following with the standby until the reforms in Macedonia bring about the desired effect.
MONTENEGRO
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
This was the last country of the former Yugoslavia becoming independent in 2006 and was soon recognized by the member states of the European Union. During the dramatic period of the Balkan wars, Montenegro was united to Serbia and suffered less than other parts of the region. But under their association agreement with Serbia, there was a possibility of calling for a referendum for independence, which resulted in the creation of the new country. This particular case of Montenegro provided the country with enough stability to focus on its accession aspirations to the EU. After several agreements between Montenegro and the European Union, the country was officially granted candidature to the Union in 2010. It is expected that the accession negotiations will start in June 2012. The negotiations will focus on judiciary and fundamental rights and justice, freedom, and security. The internal problems of adaptation to European standards are basically corruption, organized crime, and freedom of expression.24 On the positive side, the size of the country could not generate problems for the Union‟s absorbing it,25 and probably the accession negotiations will speed up the internal reforms of the country. The currency of the country is already the Euro, and it could have positive and negative effects on the European aspirations of the country. The European institutions decide according to different economic indicators which member state of the Union can join the 22
European Union Influence on Violent Ethnic Conflict in Europe: Case Studies of Northern Ireland, Pais Vasco, and Fyr Macedonia, Melissa Radke (2011). 23 Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy in Macedonia: Accession to the European Union, Fatmir Besimi (2009). 24 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/candidate-countries/montenegro/relation/index_en.htm. 25 http://www.delmne.ec.europa.eu/code/navigate.php?Id=1.
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
237
Pu bl
TURKEY
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Eurozone and which country has to reform its economy in order to meet the criteria. But the EU has no influence on third countries and on their currency. Hence the decision of the government of Montenegro to install the Euro as their national currency was unilateral. When Montenegro joins the European Union, the country will have to fulfill the different criteria for enlargement, such as democracy or a free market, plus the conditions to join the Euro, such as budget control or public deficit, making the requirements more complicated. It will be positive if the country already meets the economic criteria to join the Eurozone, and the Euro will act as an important motor for a free market and a more stable monetary policy. But it will be negative if the country fulfills the requirements for accession but not for the Eurozone; then it will not be accepted into the Union.26 The enlargement to Montenegro will not happen in the short term, and probably will occur at the same time as Macedonia, in the middle term, unless any external influence speeds up the process. The European Union is showing prudence with both states, but surely both states will join the Union in some years; the only question is when they can solve their internal problems.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The relations between Turkey and the European Union have been long and problematic. The country suffered a huge transformation after WW I and the war against Greece when Mustafa Kemal, the father of all the Turks, abolished the political system of the Ottoman Empire and started the Republic of Turkey. The country tried to modernize following the European model, and economic reforms were introduced. Also some social reforms promoting the secularity of the state were developed. It also was the beginning of the creation of Turkish identity and the beginning of Turkish nationalism, as contrasted to the previous Ottoman Empire that was a multicultural society. It meant the so called exchanges of population forcing Greeks to leave areas in which they had been living for thousands of years, or provoking an exodus of Armenians with dramatic consequences, termed genocide by the French Republic and the USA. Also, the Kurdish people were adopted as Turks, and the area became a part of Turkey. The plans of Ataturk included the northern part of Iraq, populated mostly by Kurdish, in the future state of Turkey; but the British protectorate over Iraq avoided the inclusion of this territory in the new republic.27 The creation of the modern state of Turkey was always under the surveillance of the army, and political freedom was just a chimera. The country experienced moderate growth and wealthier performance during this time, separating itself from the Arab world and following the example of the European states. The relations of Turkey with the European Communities started in 1963 with an agreement based on economic terms and a customs union, and Turkey applied for full membership in 1987, but the events of Cyprus frozen the relations with the Community and lead to a standstill situation. At the same time, Turkey was sending important numbers of people as workers to the territory of the Community, especially to West Germany, placing the European Communities and Turkey closer.
26 27
Montenegro: A Modern History, Kenneth Morrison (2008). Turkey: A Short History, Norman Stone (2011).
238
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
After the end of the Cold War, the European Union expanded eastwards, and negotiations with Turkey started again; the country was granted the status of candidate in 1999 and negotiations began in 2005, but most of the chapters are still open. In economic terms, Turkey and the EU signed a Customs Union in 1995 focusing on trade in manufactured products. Hence Turkey started implementing all the Communitarian legislation related with trade in their national legal system. Trade between the EU and Turkey in agriculture and steel products is regulated by separate preferential agreements. The Customs Union meant important growth in economic relations between both areas, and today more than half of Turkey's trade is with the EU. Both areas have equilibrium in their imports and exports to each other, and the direct investment of Europeans in the Turkish economy has grown significantly, accounting nowadays for billions of euros. Currently the negotiations are going on in slow motion, leading Turkish society to frustration in its European dream. The negotiation process is stalled and suggests a delaying tactic on the part of the member states of the Union to avoid, or at least delay as much as possible, the accession of Turkey.28 The problems for the enlargement to Turkey are numerous and very different, touching cultural aspects as well as political or economic issues, which makes the enlargement the most problematic in the history of the European integration process. The conflictive points could be divided into:
EUROPEANISM OF TURKEY
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
There is debate over whether Turkey is European or not, based on different aspects. In terms of geography, the country is mostly located in Asia, with a small portion of its territory in Europe. If Turkey is geographically accepted as European, such countries as Kazakhstan, which has more territory in Europe than Turkey, could also be accepted into the European Union. The geography also has an influence on the external borders of the Union, because if Turkey joins the organization, there will be no borders from, for example, France till Iran, and Europeans will share borders with Iran, Iraq, or Syria. It is a situation generating negative reactions among some Europeans because of cultural and security concerns. Culturally there are also some issues raising suspicion in EU citizens in the history of the country, traditionally considered an enemy of Europe since Ottoman troops occupied Greece and the Balkan region, reaching even Vienna. The following centuries were a continuous war between the European powers against the Turks to dismantle their European possessions. Identity can be built on an opposition to someone or something, and in this case Turkey was used as the opposition to Europe. Religion is another cultural issue to take into consideration. Currently there are no members of the Union where the majority of the population is Muslim. There are many Muslim immigrants in the most developed states of the Union, as Germany, France, and the Netherlands, but as a minority they do not impose their religion on the social order. Turkey, as a secular state, should follow the European pattern, but an important majority of the population supports a mild Muslim political party, which is changing the secularism of the state. The fear related to religion is that, once in the Union, Turkey will push to have more Muslim religious influence over Communitarian affairs, as against the secularism of the organization and the traditional Christian roots of Europe. Also, various 28
Turkey and the EU: An Awkward Candidate for EU Membership?, Harun Arikan (2006).
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
239
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
movements of the Turkish government promoting Turkish leadership of all Muslims living in Europe obscures the relationship with the EU, because conditional Muslim support to Turkey could be translated in European elections in a domination of the seats of the European Parliament by Turkish supporters from all over Europe. Religion is also linked with another cultural issue, the identity of the European people. There are some fears that accepting Turkey into the Union will lead to a lack of identification of the Europeans among them and with the institutions of the Union and hence with the integration process, stopping the building of Europe midway. It is culturally easier to create an identity between those who share many cultural aspects than with differing cultural groups. Here is not a problem of superiority, or discrimination, it is just a problem of creating a European identity to be the basis of the future Union. The case of Turkey is very complicated as it is a very nationalistic country as a consequence of the policies of Mustafa Kemal and the relatively recent creation of the Turkish nation. It will clash with the European identity as no other identity than the Turkish will be accepted in the country, at least in the middle term. The nationalistic approach also permeates the government and its policies, creating doubt as to whether the Turks know what the European Union and the integration process are. Of course there are other nationalistic states in the Union, but to a significantly lower degree than Turkey. Also dangerous is the new approach of the Turkish government that, instead of increasing cultural convergence with Europe, is promoting a policy focused on a new Ottoman influence over Muslim countries. It is a childish threat to the EU in order to accelerate negotiations and the enlargement. This policy is dangerous because it is based on religious affiliation and could give hints of the intentions of the country about religious matters once in the Union. It also separates Turkey from Europe, leading the country eastwards because of its own will. It seems clear that Turkey cannot play both roles, as it wishes to, and should define itself and its aspirations, as being a part of the EU or being the leader of the Muslim world. Also this policy is mostly unreal in practical matters, as the Muslim countries are not interested in a revival of the Ottoman Empire in any form, but the Turkish government seems to see it as a real possibility.29
THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS
N
ov
a
Sc i
As Turkey is a big country in terms of territory and population, and its citizens fertility rate is greater than that of any of the member states, it is likely than in some years Turkey will be more populous than any European country. Once the country is a full member of the organization, it is going to have the same rights and duties that the other members have, without any discrimination. It means that Turkey will be represented in the European Institutions according to its stature and will be a leading force in the Union, moving the Germans and French from the center of the Union. Once a member, Turkey will have more power in the European Council than any other member state, and more representatives in the European Parliament. The Treaty of Lisbon established a limit in the representation of the member states in the European institutions, and thus Turkish representation would be equal to the German, but the Treaty will surely be reformed in the future, and the influence of Turkey will grow according to its size. Otherwise, it would mean a change of the rules of European 29
Europeanism, John McCormick (2010).
240
David Ramiro Troitino
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
integration just because of Turkey, a clear discriminatory measure, which is against all the principles of the European building process. Democracy and human rights protection are another concern related with the European institutions, as is the role of the army in the Turkish state. It is a contradiction as the army has been the leading force of the modernization of the country and the promoter of European standards in the society. It has played a role in protecting the heritage of Kemal, and hence the Europeanization of the country introducing reforms from above, but at the same time that is not acceptable in terms of democracy where the citizens, not the army, should lead this process. Recently the Turkish government has been reducing the power of the army but at the cost of moving the country farther from the European model of society in cultural and social terms. Human rights are also a problem with the Kurdish population and their rights as a minority. Here the main problem resides in the fact that the Turkish government does not recognize the Kurds as a minority group as they are seen as Turks, and hence part of the majority. Some improvements have been made in this field, but the situation is still far from full normalization. The question of the Armenian genocide still confronts Turkey and some of the European countries, such as France. The Turkish government refuses to recognize a documented historical fact and reacts violently against any contrary opinion, showing very little democratic maturity. Following this example, the country is not ready to enter the European Union because in case of any conflict in any decision of the European Union, it could show the same aggressive behavior against the principles of the Union based on dialogue.30
THE CAPACITY OF THE UNION TO ABSORB TURKEY
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The financial capacity of the Union is medium or even small when comparing the EU budget with national budgets, and it has to pay for all the Communitarian policies. As the EU has its own sources from the member states, whenever Turkey will join the Union,it will also contribute to the common budget. The problem of absorbing such a big country is the money the EU will spend on its policies in Turkey, much more than the money added to the budget by Turkey, and hence the country will be a net receiver in European terms. Turkey is divided into areas of differing development, mainly similar to European standards, or at least with not much difference, in the area of Istanbul and Asia Minor, but the rest of the country is much less developed. The Common Agricultural Policy should be reformed before the enlargement to Turkey because the rural areas of the country will have access to the funds, and it will mean a big financial effort for the Communitarian budget. As the historical rights have been abolished, the western members of the Union are going to lose an important support to their farmers as the central and eastern members get equal treatment, a situation potentially deeper if Turkey joins. The member states of the Union will have to face an important reduction of agricultural payments to their farmers, and hence there will be a crisis in the countryside of countries such as France, Spain, or even Germany. As it is Communitarian policy, the national governments could not subsidize their farmers, with the consequence of an important reduction of jobs and production and an increase of social unrest provoked by the transfer of people from the
30
The Institutions of the European Union, John Peterson and Michael Shackleton (2006).
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
241
Pu bl
CYPRUS
is
he rs
,I
nc .
countryside to the cities. It will be very hard for the member states to face, and hence the policy should be reformed, maybe against all the tendencies of European integration, making it national again, or reducing the protection of farmers. The other possibility is that these states will block the enlargement to Turkey to protect their farmers, an important electoral group. The second main policy of the EU in budgetary terms, the regional policy, will face similar challenges, with important transfers of money to Turkey to promote growth in the less developed areas by investing in infrastructures, productivity, and qualification of the labor force. The member states of the Union will have two possibilities also: increasing the national contributions to the EU budget, something unlikely to happen under the current crisis, or blocking the access of Turkey to the Union This could be the main problem of Turkey‟s joining the organization, because once inside it has to be treated equally, and hence the transfers of money will unbalance the EU budget, focusing it on Turkey. The problem comes from the size of the country and its level of development that makes its absorption impossible within the current shape of the Union.31
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
This Mediterranean island has traditionally been inhabited by a Greek population, but during the times of the Ottoman Empire some people converted to the Muslim religion and there was some immigration from the mainland, creating a minority of Muslim people. The island became a part of the British Empire and hence under the control of London. The British presently still have a big influence over Cyprus, with stable military bases and an important population impact over the island in terms of tourists and permanent residents. Cyprus became independent in 1960, and at this time the Greek Cypriots represented 78% of the population and the Turkish Cypriots 18%, with a small minority of 4% of the population divided among Armenians, Maronites, and Latin people. There were different movements to unite the island with Greece and some attacks on the Turkish population followed by the consequent retaliation. Finally, Turkey decided to attack the island in 1974, officially to protect the Turkish minority, but perpetrated ethnic cleansing in the North, forcing the Greeks to leave their homes. The attack was condemned by the United Nations as illegal, but the Turkish army remained in the North. Currently the island is divided into two parts with a buffer zone in between under the control of the United Nations. The South is controlled by the Greek Cypriots and the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the most important international organizations and a full member of the European Union. The North is under the control of Turkey; even though it is legally a different country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, it depends completely on the support of the government of Ankara. There have been peace talks, but no agreement has been reached on withdrawing the Turkish army and reunifying the island. Even more, since the occupation of the North, Turkey has been promoting a transfer of population from the mainland to the island in order to populate the area and increase Turkish influence over the territory. It means that the Greek people will not be able ever to return to their houses or to recover their material possessions. At the same 31
Understanding Regional Development: Absorption, Institutions and Socio-economic Growth in the Regions of the European Union, Lorraine Frisina (2008).
242
David Ramiro Troitino
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
time, Turkey is investing important amounts of money in the economy of the North to make it stronger and impossible to be absorbed by the South. It is a clearly illegal situation with artificial movements of population following the example of Asia Minor and other areas of Turkey formerly populated by Greeks and Armenians.32 Currently the Turkish government is following nationalistic behavior promoting immigration to the island and investing strongly in its economy. In order to access the Union, the attitude of Turkey should change, but the government continues to have tense relations with Cyprus, and hence with the European Union, as, for example, with the Single Market and the prohibition of boats from Cyprus to land in Turkish ports, partially solved; or the intention of Turkey to control a possible oil and gas field in the southern national waters of Cyprus. As all the member states have the right to veto any enlargement, it seems unlikely that Turkey will join the Union unless the dispute is solved. The Turkish government seems blind in this sense, as it still blames the Republic of Cyprus instead of trying to solve the situation. This is a widespread attitude in the Turkish state, a lack of self-criticism, because it is seen as an attack on the Turkish nation, and hence, under the nationalistic premises of the state, an unacceptable challenge. The situation can be summarized as the Turkish are right and the rest are wrong; if someone tries to think that maybe Turkish are not right, he is automatically an enemy of the Turkish nation. The nationalistic behavior of Turkey in the case of Cyprus is going to block the negotiations until Turkey changes its attitude. The Turkish seem to pretend as if nothing happens in the island, as if it will be something independent from the enlargement, or even blame the perfidy of the Greeks who block their European aspiration irrationally without any rational reason.33 The issue of Cyprus involves more international actors than Turkey and Cyprus, complicating the solution to the problem. As some states as France and Germany have shown their rejection to the Turkish enlargement, they could use the conflict to block the negotiations and delay indefinitely the process without getting directly involved in the maneuver. If Turkey would forget its nationalistic approach and find a good solution for the Greek and Turkish people in Cyprus, the main official obstacle to its accession to the European Union will be removed. Then, the real reasons for blocking the negotiations will arise and the member states against Turkish accession would have to defend their positions publicly.
Sc i
POSITIVE EFFECTS OF THE TURKISH ENLARGEMENT
Turkey will provide positive effects for the European Union as a full member of the organization in four main fields:
N
ov
a
1. The European Union as a peace system: The original target of the European building process was avoiding wars between its members and securing the freedoms of its members by sharing in a common organization. Turkey as a full member of the Union will develop the peace system, avoiding the possibility of conflict and solving the current conflicts with Cyprus, the Kurds, and Armenia. It will also expand the
32 33
The Cyprus Emergency: The Divided Island 1955 – 1974, Nik Van Der Bijl (2010). The European Union and Cyprus, George Christou (2004).
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
243
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
influence of this peace system to the Arab world, increasing the rule of law, human rights, and democracy in the area. It could have a positive influence in territories such as Syria, Lebanon, or Iran, acting as an example of a peaceful society and the cohabitation of different nations of different religions with different languages living together. The current position of Turkey in the conflict between Palestine and Israel is very aggressive as Turkey is acting following the new Ottomanism as the leader of the Arab world, and hence the protector of the Muslim population of Palestine. Its position is not helping to solve the conflict, and is strongly different from the position of the European Union. The enlargement could act positively on Turkey, changing its position to a moderate approach helping to solve the conflict. It is important to underline that the EU is an idealistic project, and hence it is essential for the organization to keep to these principles in order to increase integration. 2. Economy: Turkey has an economy that is growing very healthily. The enlargement will mean full access in equal terms without discrimination of European companies to the Turkish market and consumers. The economic relations with Turkey are currently important for the Union, and its importance will grow if the country joins the Union. Besides full access to the Turkish market, European companies could install their production centers on Turkish soil with the legal protection of the Communitarian law, and hence increase the competitiveness of the European economy. Currently there is a customs agreement with Turkey, and the economic integration of the area with Europe is growing with benefits for both areas. 3. Population: the Turkish population is young and growing very fast compared to the aging population of Europe. The enlargement to Turkey will provide the European Union with a young population to solve its structural problems along with an influx of cheap labor in order to keep, and increase the European economy and hence ensure the European social system. Europe could face a big problem in terms of population in order to pay the pensions of the retired people as the funds come from current workers. If the number of pensioners is going to grow as expected, the EU main economies will have troubles collecting enough money to fund the social system. As the fertility rate of Europe is low, the influx of young population coming from the accession of Turkey could solve this problem. 4. The European Union as an international actor: The enlargement to Turkey will create more international muscle for the Union. The organization will increase its power in the international world, especially in the area of the Middle East because of the historical ties of Turkey with the region plus the military power of Turkey, already a member of NATO. The European dependence on oil from the area will be more secure with Turkey as a full member following the common positions of the Union. The main problem here is the nationalistic behavior of Turkey, of its government, and of its army, that could lead to a situation where Turkey will act differently from the common positions, generating internal conflicts to the organization, as for example with the alliance of Turkey and Brazil to solve the Iranian conflict against the position defended by the European Union. Anyway, if Turkey can be included in the EU in every sense, not just officially, the benefits for the Union in external policies and external influence will be good.
244
David Ramiro Troitino
FUTURE OF TURKEY AND THE EU
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Full membership: Turkey, after long years of negotiations and delays, will join the European Union as a full member when its government, economy, and society is ready. On the other side, the European Union is not likely to accept a country of such big size into the Union in a period of economic crisis, so the enlargement will be paralyzed until a new economic cycle will improve the European economy. Both areas have to be patient with each other and ready for a long term process. Special preferential relations: The president of France, Sarkozy, with the support of the German premier, Merkel, proposed an alternative to full membership for Turkey: a special association agreement in which Turkey and the EU will benefit from economic integration without political integration. The special relationship could be developed via the Union for the Mediterranean, an organization created to improve and regulate relations between the Mediterranean states where the European Union acts as a whole, and where the Asian and African countries try to act in a united manner. The organization is meaningless right now because of different problems, mainly related with the Arab-Israeli conflict and the tremendous differences of the EU and the other Mediterranean states‟ approaches to the conflict. Nevertheless, the association could be developed in such a way as to act as the vehicle for relations between Turkey and the EU, and as a way to institutionalize the preeminence of Turkey over the Arab world. It could be useful to establish stable relations with Turkey which would then act as a bridge between north and south and west and east in the Mediterranean to increase the coexistence between Europe and the Arab world. This alternative to full membership has been rejected by the Turkish government, but if negotiations do not advance, it could become a real option. No integration, no cooperation: In a case where the EU would not agree on enlargement or Turkey would refuse the European requirements, there could be a total end to relations between them. Turkey then will focus on the east, trying to become the leader of the Arab world, something more in the imagination of the Turkish government than in reality. Economic relations between the EU and Turkey
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
At the moment the negotiations between the EU and Turkey are developing very slowly and it will probably take many years before any agreement is reached. The European Union should balance the negative and positive effects to the enlargement to Turkey in order to take a decision. On the other hand, Turkey should learn more about the European Union and what it is, and then think whether it is worth it for them to join the Union. Turkey cannot pretend to change the essence of the Union, and hence Turkey should adapt to European standards in politics, economy, human rights, democracy, and social structures. The country should be ready for these changes or refuse accession. The enlargement process is a free will action of the candidates, and when any state joins any international organization, it has to accept its rules. It cannot pretend to join the organization with special rules for itself. So Turkey should make a big effort to integrate into the European Union, and its government and population should think whether the effort is or is not worth it, and then continue with the enlargement process or abandon it. There are three main options for future relations between Turkey and the EU:
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
245
he rs
ALBANIA, BOSNIA, AND SERBIA
,I
nc .
will follow anyway as the current global world will not allow any autarchy in the Turkish economy. In the political field the consequences would be worse, as rejection of accession would foster even more nationalism in Turkey with the consequent instability on the borders of the European Union and possible armed conflicts in the case of Cyprus. This is the least likely option, the first two being more realistic, but a break between Turkey and Europe could have unpredictable consequences.34
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
These three countries are future candidates for membership in the European Union. It will mean the enlargement of the organization to all the Balkan states, after Croatia, Montenegro, and Macedonia join the Union with the exception of Kosovo, a more problematic case. Integrating the area is one of the main targets of the Union in terms of enlargements for the short and middle term. It will make the Union compact and will provide peace and integration for an area with a conflictive past. Probably Albania and Serbia will join the EU at the same time, near 2020, because otherwise the rivalry between Serbs and Albanians will be extended and used in the Union, using the unanimity required for any new enlargement. Albania formally applied for membership on 28 April 2009 after negotiating a Stabilization and Association Agreement in 2006 after three and a half years, a much longer period than any other possible candidate of the area,35 outlining the probable difficulties in the negotiations for full membership still to come. Albania is a relatively poor country according to European standards, but has been growing economically in the past years when most of the European states have been in crisis. But there are different problems in the Albanian economy and in its aspirations for accession into the EU, mainly corruption, organized crime, weak political institutions, high unemployment rate, and energy. The state is not fighting the criminals and the corruption as the EU has asked, with important political and economic implications, such as a corrupt political class involved in many illegal activities and danger for economic growth and for the free market. The energy sector has problems of supply because it is outdated and inefficient, but the different investments from the Italian company ENEL should solve the problem. Other problems for integration of the country into the EU are gender and minority political participation, because women and the ethnic minorities of Greeks, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Roma, and Aromanians are poorly represented in the national Parliament. Finally, the issue of the 3 million Albanians living in South Serbia, Kosovo, and Macedonia could be solved inside the Union, in a territory without borders rather than by the creation of the Greater Albania, a nationalistic project already almost forgotten.36 The problems of Albania and its role in the criminal activities focusing on Europe, as drugs and human trafficking, make enlargement to Albania very problematic and
34
Turkey and the European Union: Prospects for a Difficult Encounter, Prof. Esra LaGro and Prof. Knud Erik Jørgensen (2007). 35 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidate-countries/albania/eu_albania_relations_en.htm. 36 Albania and the European Union: The Tumultuous Journey Towards Integration and Accession, Mirela Bogdani and John Loughlin (2009).
246
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
surely for a middle term, after enlargement to Montenegro and Macedonia, probably around 2020 or 2025.37 Serbia signed the Stabilization and Association Agreement in 2008, and its main obstacle to accession was judicial collaboration of Serbian authorities with international authorities in the cases of war crimes during the Bosnian war. Lately the Serbian government has removed this barrier by the arrest of several criminals such as General Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, and Serbia was officially recognized as a candidate country in March 2012. Another important problem blocking the European path of Serbia is the issue of Kosovo, considered by Serbia as a part of its territory and hence not as an independent territory. The Serbian government is showing strong willingness to compromise about the issue, but local Serbians are not keen on any agreement about Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. As Serbia will probably join the EU at the same time as Albania, both countries will look actively at an international resolution accepting the independence or a high autonomous territory within Serbia.38 The conflict of Kosovo spreads also to the relations of Serbia and Montenegro; when the latter recognized the independence of Kosovo, there were diplomatic retaliations and their bilateral relations were harmed. Both countries should collaborate on many issues, such as corruption, money laundering, criminality, and the Serbian minority living in Montenegro in order to succeed in their European aspirations. As Montenegro is going to join the Union before Serbia, the second must make bigger efforts in reconciliation.39 The economic situation of Serbia after so many years of conflicts is not as good as that of other countries applying for membership and some reforms should be included in order to equate it to European standards. Another important problem is organized crime and corruption, a negative aspect common throughout the area against which the country is struggling, but is still far from the minimum conditions that can be accepted by the EU.40 If these problems are solved, Serbia could become a member state of the EU around 2020 or 2025. Bosnia-Herzegovina suffered dramatically during the Balkan Wars; the country was divided mainly among Serbs, Croatians, and Bosniaks, who were killing each other during the conflict from 1992 till 1995. The war finished thanks to the intervention of the USA, and afterwards the European Union got involved in the reconstruction of the country, where it still keeps a peacekeeping force and a police mission. Currently the country is divided into two main autonomous areas, the Republic of Srpska, mostly populated by Serbs, and the BosniakCroat federation. The ethnic tensions are still important and could block access of the country to the European Union because currently the country is not really working as one united entity;41 it is more an artificial body collaborating on basic issues rather than a proper state. The relations between both areas should be reinforced via constitutional reforms in order to access as a full member of the EU and secure the viability of Bosnia as a state. Other major problems are corruption and organized crime,42 mainly related with the lack of a proper state in the area and hence the impossibility to control illegal activities. The future of BosniaHerzegovina in the European Union is not clear, as the internal situation is still very unstable and a common administration needs to be built. Probably Serbia and Albania will join before 37
http://www.europeanforum.net/country/albania. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidates/serbia/relation/index_en.htm. Still buying time: Montenegro, Serbia and the European Union, ICG Balkans report (2002). 40 http://www.europeanforum.net/country/serbia. 41 The EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Powers, Decisions and Legitimacy, European Union Institute for Security Studies and European Commission (2011). 42 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidates/bosnia_and_herzegovina/relation/index_en.htm. 38 39
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
247
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Bosnia and with Croatia already in the Union; it will help to solve the ethnic confrontations in the area and hence solve the main obstacle of Bosnia‟s joining the Union. If Serbia and Albania join the Union in 2020, Bosnia could access the organization in 2025. Another possibility is Bosnia‟s becoming a protectorate waiting to collapse when the international commitment leaves.43 Kosovo is another problematic territory in the Balkans because it has not been recognize as an independent state by all the members of the European Union, and Serbia still considers the area as a part of the country. The ethnic division between Albanians and Serbs is still very strong, and peaceful cohabitation is granted only by the international peacekeeping forces. The viability of Kosovo as a proper state without the presence of the international troops is still questionable, and it is an obstacle for Albania and Serbia to join the European Union. The problem should be solved by these two parties plus a representation of the local Albanians and Serbs and the protection of the international community, and especially of the European Union with financial and political support of the area.44 Otherwise the territory will collapse and a new conflict could arise. A practical solution could be the creation of an autonomous region inside Serbia with special relations with the European Union, and as Serbia and Albania join the EU, Kosovo will be also part of it with a special status. Kosovo could also become an independent state under the influence of the Albanian majority, with the consequent conflict with the Serbian minority. An independent Kosovo could not survive in the world because of its poverty, economic situation, and political instability, and hence will have to be annexed to Albania, become a protectorate of the European Union, or collapse.45 As these three options are less likely to occur, and the involvement of the USA is decreasing and leaving the main position to the European Union, a compromise solution from Serbia and Albania is expected.
ce
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES UNDER THE EUROPEAN NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
Currently there are in the eastern part of the continent six states under the European Neighborhood Policy: Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The main aim of this policy is establishing relations with the border countries of the Union in order to secure the European borders. The EU provides, via different actions, stability to these states, and hence to the Union itself because the security of borders starts with the security of neighbors. It can be applied for Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova as they share physical borders with the territory of the EU, but not Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. The main targets are promoting democracy and human rights, access to the European Market in order to develop their economies and hence provide these countries with economic prosperity, and cooperation in areas of common interest as environment, transport, energy, or migration. The European Union uses different tools for implementing these targets: technical help, political support, and economic aid.46
43
http://www.europeanforum.net/country/bosnia_herzegovina. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/potential-candidates/kosovo/relation/index_en.htm. 45 Contested Statehood: Kosovo's Struggle for Independence, Marc Weller (2009). 46 http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/welcome_en.htm. 44
248
Pu bl
Source: http://eeas.europa.eu/eastern/index_en.htm.
is
he rs
,I
nc .
David Ramiro Troitino
Eastern Partners of the European Union.
en
ce
The relation of the EU with these six countries is influenced by Russia, formerly the main power of the region, which still keeps important political and economic influence over most of these territories, with even military presence in some of them. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, under strong internal changes, did not influence the national political life of these countries, but currently the power of Russia is rising again and its government sees these areas as its natural area of influence, clashing with the European interest.
BELARUS
N
ov
a
Sc i
The country is under a regime with a very poor democratic record and even poorer human rights protection. The country has difficult relations with the EU and is much closer to Russia.47 The possible accession of the country to the European Union will depend on a change in the regime. An agreement with Russia will be needed as the economy of Belarus is strongly linked with the Russian market. This makes any approach in terms of membership in the short and middle term very difficult, so the possible inclusion of the country will be in the long term. The European Union is currently focusing on environmental issues in its relations with Belarus because other chapters of cooperation are stalled by the internal political situation of the country.48 The EU banned more than 200 people of the regime from traveling to Europe and has frozen funds of some companies involved with the political elites.49 The country is more likely to stay as a buffer area between the European Union and Russia, with 47
http://eeas.europa.eu/belarus/index_en.htm. Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship, Andrew Wilson (2011). 49 http://www.europeanforum.net/country/belarus. 48
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
249
,I
nc .
some special agreements in the economy, but rapid democratization of the country if the current regime were to collapse, combined with a weaker Russian influence, could lead the country to the European Union. At the moment a democratic revolution in Belarus after the breakdown of the opposition after the elections of 2010 does not seem possible and hence the country probably will not become a member of the Union until the international arena allows it in the long term.
UKRAINE
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
The country is a priority in the east for the European Union. It has suffered from great political unrest with successive governments supporting a closer relation with the EU or other governments supporting special relations with Russia. After the Orange Revolution in 2004, it seemed possible for the country to become an official candidate country to access the EU, but the numerous internal problems stopped the process. The main problem facing Ukraine‟s getting closer to the European Union is basically its relation with Russia, which is problematic in different aspects, such as the Crimea and the Russian population in this area plus the Russian fleet based there, energy dependence on Russian supplies, or the Russian minority in the country.50 Also, enlargement is seen by some Russian leaders as a threat to their country, and hence unacceptable because of security reasons. On the other hand, Ukraine also has many internal problems, as a high rate of corruption and crime and some democratic deficit according to European standards. The economy of Ukraine is based on a market economy where the privatization and re-nationalization of public companies make the situation unstable. It also has some structural problems that make integration into the European Market difficult because it lacks enough competitiveness. The country has made big efforts in terms of democracy and human rights, and its economic relation with the EU has been strengthening in the last years with the European Market. Currently they are negotiating the creation of a free trade area between the Union and Ukraine.51 The economic aid of the Union is helping the country to meet the basic criteria of convergence, improving the local situation. If it continues to reform and seats a democratic regime with a stable market economy, the country could get closer to the European Union. The Ukrainian parliament refused in 2010 to join NATO,52 a military organization seen as the defense community of the European Union and the USA, with the enlargement to central and eastern Europe cited as an example, but at the same time the parliament reassured the compromise of the country with the EU. Ukraine could become a member of the Union in the medium to long term, but just if the problems with Russia are solved. Hence, the possibility of enlargement will depend on the bilateral relations between Russia and Ukraine, and a change in the internal Russian politics could accelerate the process or simply stop it, so it makes the situation difficult to foresee.53 The strong support of Poland, whose territory previously included an important part of the current Ukraine, and the historical and cultural
50
Ukraine - Crimea - Russia: Triangle of Conflict (Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society 47), Taras Kuzio and Andreas Umland (2007). 51 http://eeas.europa.eu/ukraine/index_en.htm. 52 http://www.europeanforum.net/country/ukraine. 53 Ukraine, The EU and Russia: History, Culture and International Relations, Stephen Velychenko (2007).
250
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
links between both countries, mean strong Polish support for the candidature of Ukraine, and hence could pave the way for future enlargement of the European Union eastwards.
MOLDOVA
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
Currently the country is negotiating an Association Agreement with the European Union, considered as a step prior to being accepted officially as a candidate country for joining the Union. The agreement will focus on economic issues as a free trade area and political issues as democracy. The main internal problems acting as obstacles for integration of the country into the EU are the Transdniester conflict, a pro-Russian separatist region under the protection of Russian troops acting officially as peacekeepers; poverty, as Moldova is the poorest country of Europe; emigration, where 1 million citizens or half of the work force have left the country in the last years; and political and media freedom. The external relations of Moldova are focused on three main partners: Russia, Romania, and the EU, all with different views. Russia wants to keep its influence over the area, and Romania wants to get closer to a country where an important part of its territory, Bessarabia, was part Romania until 1940 and whose language is the same as Moldovan. The European Union is a priority for the Moldovan government as the best option to keep its independence and raise the living standards of the local population.54 The Moldavian aspirations could benefit from the close cultural ties with Romania, already a member of the Union,, and its small size, easy for the Union to absorb if the country can solve its internal problems.55 Russia will play a determining role in the accession of the country and probably will not support the integration of the Transdniester region into the EU. Because of these reasons the accession of Moldova could come after Serbia and Albania, perhaps at the same time as Bosnia.
en
THE CAUCASUS
N
ov
a
Sc i
The Neighbor policy includes three Caucasian countries, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, even though geographically and culturally there can be doubts about the Europeanness of these territories. The three territories have in common their Soviet past and hence the influence of communism, a secular society, Western literature, European art, and economic connections. These ex-Soviet Republics have other historical ties with Europe, as the ancient Greek influence, especially in the case of Georgia because of the Black Sea, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, Christianity in the case of Armenia and Georgia, and ethnicity in the case of Georgia. The geographic border between Asia and Europe becomes diluted in the Caucasus as it reaches the periphery of Europe, but a possible enlargement to Turkey will solve the geographic concerns in the enlargements of the European Union.
54 55
http://www.europeanforum.net/country/moldova. The EU and Moldova, Ann Lewis (2004).
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
251
ARMENIA
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The country conducts its relations with the European Union via a partnership and cooperation agreement from 1999, and became a part of the European Neighborhood Policy in 2004. During the period of 2011-2013, the country benefited from economic support of the Union of 157 million euro. Armenia also is included in other programs such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. Currently Armenia is negotiating an Association Agreement with the EU in order to link both areas more closely and establish a free trade area.56 Some domestic issues influence the relations of the country with the EU, such as minorities. Even though Armenia is a very homogeneous country, just 2% of the population comes from different ethnic groups; there is a division between Armenians, Hayastantsis from Armenia proper, and Karabakhtsis from the Armenian diaspora. New legislation gives Armenians living abroad, the predominant group in local politics, the possibility of having double nationality and hence a vote in Armenian elections. The organization of society into clans has an influence on political life, and hence on the democratic standards of the state, and brings an important obstacle to the European concept of society and democracy, making any possible integration more difficult. A major issue is the conflict with Azerbaijan, which should be solved before any possible enlargement because it affects another possible candidate. Other problems are poverty, corruption, the involvement of business in politics, human rights, gender representation, and a weak media.57 In the field of international relations, Armenia surprisingly has good relations with Russia, the USA, the EU, and Iran, with difficulties with Azerbaijan and Turkey.58 The possibility of accession to the EU will depend on third parties, as Turkey or Georgia, because the geographic position of the country will make enlargement impossible if any of those mentioned countries do not access the Union as well. So Armenia is likely to join the Union if Turkey joins the organization, and the relations with this country improve. Otherwise, Armenia is going to become a strategic partner of the EU, but not a full member of the organization.59
AZERBAIJAN
N
ov
a
Sc i
The relations of this country with the European Union are parallel with the Armenian and EU relations: A Partnership and Cooperation agreement, the inclusion of the country in the Neighbor Policy, and the extension of different European funds to Azerbaijan, and currently the negotiation for an Association Agreement.60 On the other hand, the internal situation of both countries is very different; Azerbaijan is a country with important oil reserves and hence with important financial incomes and a more strategic partner in terms of energy for the EU. The political system is closer to a dictatorship than a democracy, with the ruling party winning 88% of the votes on average and with constant accusations of electoral fraud by
56
http://eeas.europa.eu/armenia/index_en.htm. The History of Armenia, Simon Payaslian (2008). 58 http://www.europeanforum.net/country/armenia. 59 Armenia - European Union Relations, Adam Cornelius Bert (2011). 60 http://eeas.europa.eu/azerbaijan/index_en.htm. 57
252
David Ramiro Troitino
is
GEORGIA
he rs
,I
nc .
Western observers. This political system is bringing the country closer to Russia and separating it from the EU. Other internal problems are gender representation, with women clearly discriminated against in political life; the conditions of the refugees from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; the relation between religion and state, far from European secularism in society even when the Azeri government is strongly secular; corruption; and poverty.61 The European Union sees Azerbaijan as an important partner because of its energy supplies, but integration of the country seems difficult. Besides the internal problems, the fact that the majority of Azeri people are living in Iran, and the problems with Armenia, could block any accession.62 Integration could come only with a prior accession of Turkey to the EU, and its probable support for the Azeri bid. So probably the EU will encourage economic relations; it currently promotes a pipeline from Azerbaijan via Georgia to Turkey as a way to improve the energy independence of Europe and influence the country, but accession seems really unrealistic nowadays.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
As with Armenia and Azerbaijan, relations between Georgia and the EU are conducted by a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement and the inclusion of the country in the ENP.63 It is probably the most European state of the Caucasus because of its historical relations with Greek civilization and its integration into the Russian Empire and afterwards into the Soviet Union. To some extent it could be said that the Mediterranean influence over Georgia includes the country culturally with the northern shore of the sea. The Mediterranean was long divided between Christians and Muslims, between Europeans and Africans and Asians. The Christian orthodox religion of the country could have helped with the integration of Georgia with the European Mediterranean states and with Russia, being effectively a link between both influences. Also its historical confrontation with the Ottoman Empire situates the country with historical similarities to the Balkan states.64 The internal situation of the state after independence from the Soviet Union was extremely unstable, with important conflicts, as in the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and poor economic performance. After the rose revolution, the political situation of Georgia changed, bringing it closer to the Western world and the European Union.65 But the recent conflict in South Ossetia and the Russian intervention have made clear the difficulties of the country‟s escaping the Russian influence. The main obstacle to Georgia‟s joining the EU is its relationship with Russia, the main power of the area and aggressive in its relationship with Georgia because of the interest of the Georgian government in Western organizations as NATO or the EU. Besides the fight between the Western world, led by the USA, and Russia to be the dominant power in Georgia, and hence in the Caucasus, the country has several internal 61
http://www.europeanforum.net/country/azerbaijan. Azerbaijan Diary: A Rogue Reporter's Adventures in an Oil-rich, War-torn, Post-Soviet Republic, Thomas Goltz (1999). 63 http://eeas.europa.eu/georgia/index_en.htm. 64 The History of Georgia: From Its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time, T. S. Aarthur (2007). 65 Democracy Restored: A History of the Georgia State Capitol, Timothy J. Crimmins and Anne H. Farrisee (2007). 62
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
253
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
problems making its approximation to the European Union more difficult. Gender equality is almost nonexistent in national politics, with an overwhelming majority of men in the parliament and other political institutions; there is widespread corruption strangling the modernization process started by President Saakashvili. Poverty is another important internal problem even though economic performance has been good in the last years. There are also environmental concerns about the impact of the construction of a pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey.66 A possible enlargement to Georgia seems very unlikely at the moment, even though the country has a foreign policy based on that approach, mainly because of the current dominance of Russia over the area. Just a change in the Russian policy in the Caucasus and the solution of the conflict with the separatist areas could pave the way for accession of the country. The geographic situation of the country, even though it has a common border with the Union with the Black Sea, seems to complicate any accession until Turkey joins the Union, giving unity to European Union territory. These are too many premises to be fulfilled in a short or medium term, and hence any enlargement to Georgia seems very unlikely unless the international situation changes radically. Anyway, there is an obvious European interest in the country, and hence it will foster the bilateral agreements and contacts between both areas and Georgia will become the main partner of the EU in the Caucasus area, influencing also other states located in the area.
RUSSIA
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The relations of the European Union with Russia are very important for both areas, but in terms of accession to the EU, it is a complete chimera to think about Russia‟s joining the European organization. Geographically Russia has some parts of its territory in Europe and the majority of it in Asia, but in terms of population, more Russians live in the European side of the country than in Asia. The main ethnic group is Slavic, a predominant group in many other states of Europe. The geographic extent of Russia, the biggest country of the world, makes any enlargement impossible because the Union lacks the capacity to absorb Russia. Any enlargement to Russia would mean the end of the organization in its current shape, leading to a mere free trade area. Cultural matters also have an important influence in the possibilities of expanding the organization to Russia, because the Russian identity is not really European, and not even Asian, because the country has created its own identity, which is stronger than any identification with Europe, forming its own block. The political situation of Russia, where the democratic deficit is vastly accepted by the whole population as a minor negative effect coming from the Russian condition, also separates the political systems of the EU and Russia. The special conditions and historical background of the country have meant the development of a pseudo democratic regime that the society feels is acceptable but is insufficient according to European standards. In economic terms, Russia has a market economy influenced by unilateral decisions of the state to protect its interest. It means important interference by the state in economic affairs with decisions sometimes arguable from a juridical point of view. The judicial system is united in many cases with the political power, against the basic principle of three independent powers 66
http://www.europeanforum.net/country/georgia.
254
David Ramiro Troitino
is
he rs
,I
nc .
in any modern European state. These are some of the main topics that make Russia different from Europe, and hence impossible to unite with European integration.67 Nevertheless, it is an important country for the European Union in economic and political terms as it is one of the main trading partners for the Union, a supplier of energy, and an important consumer of European products. The stature of Russia in international affairs makes it a containment area for the expansion of the European organization with a buffer area where both contenders dispute the dominance over it with their own weapons. The relations of Russia and the EU also affect the eastern borders of the Union, with several conflicts with Estonia, Poland, and other states previously under the influence of the Soviet Union, stressing even more the difficulty of further enlargements eastwards. Obviously the EU cannot include Russia in European integration, and neither is Russia interested in such integration; hence there are no possibilities for expanding the European organization further in this area.68 The relations of Russia and the EU will be focused on economic terms from a privileged position as both areas need each other and the strength or weakness of Russia will determine the expansion of the EU to the countries included in the Eastern Neighbor Policy.
Pu bl
THE CASE OF KAZAKHSTAN
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
The country geographically has an important part of its territory in the European continent, even more than Turkey, a country accepted as an official candidate to full membership. Nevertheless, Kazakhstan is commonly considered an Asian country and hence without any possibility of joining the European Union. Kazakhstan is culturally also seen as Asian although it belonged to the Soviet Union and hence experienced important influence from the European and Russian communist intelligentsia.69 The relations between the country and the Union have been focused on energy and transport issues, as an alternative to increasing the energy independence of Europe. There is a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement working since 1999, but the exclusion of the country from the Neighbor policy is an indicator of the impossibility of any enlargement in this direction. Kazakhstan has been included in another group by the European Union, the Central Asia states, Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, through the European Union and Central Asia Strategy for a New Partnership adopted in 2007. The geographic situation of the country, linked with the rest of Europe via Russia, also makes any closer relation with the European Union difficult. So, Kazakhstan will not be a member of the European Union even in the long term, unless European cultural perceptions change dramatically.70
67
The Penguin History of Modern Russia: From Tsarism to the Twenty-first Century, Robert Service (2009). Russia and the European Union, Oksana Antonenko and Kathryn Pinnick (2009). 69 Once in Kazakhstan: The Snow Leopard Emerges, Keith Rosten (2005). 70 http://eeas.europa.eu/kazakhstan/index_en.htm. 68
Future Enlargements of the EU and Limits of the Organization
255
THE LIMITS OF THE ORGANIZATION
The European Federal State: The European Union will have to increase integration as a substitute for territorial expansion. The necessity of new markets will force the Union to integrate its own market even more. It will also need to obtain market access to other areas of the world. In that sense the European Union will focus on larger areas than mere states, and hence will promote the integration of other parts of the world. To deal with these other communities the Union must integrate politically, and hence the end of the process will be the creation of the European federal state. This possible scenario has the disadvantage of promoting the creation of similar blocks around the globe because it could lead to confrontation, in economic, military, and political terms, between blocks. The Western Block: the European Union, having once reached its limits for further expansion, could include countries culturally belonging to Europe even when geographically far from the continent. These countries were populated by mainly European people during the expansion of Europe during the last centuries and could include such states as Canada, Argentina, or Australia. The improvement in transportation and in communication will allow this option, but it is not very likely to happen as the USA is the current leader of the Western World, and would not allow this expansion of the Union. In that sense there could be an economic integration between the culturally European states around the world including the USA, but the leading force of the process will probably be the USA and not the European Union, and hence the result will be very different. The World Union: According to Jean Monnet, the father of Europe, the organization should expand until it includes the world, without geographic borders. As European integration is a peace process, expanding the project to other parts of the world will finally bring, as a result, a strong world organization where conflicts can be solved
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The European Union clearly will expand in the Balkan area in the coming years and, depending on Russia, will integrate some eastern areas of Europe. The limits eastwards are clearly define by Russia as the ultimate border of the Union. The Mediterranean area is more complicated because of the situation of Turkey; an official candidate for full membership, but the numerous obstacles in its way makes a preference relationship more likely than full membership. The Caucasus states will depend on the enlargement of the Union to Turkey, and hence Armenia will face a dichotomy as it will need a traditional opponent inside the Union to access the organization. The southern part of the Mediterranean is not in the expansion area of the organization because of geographic reasons, as the rejection of the application of Morocco showed. The north of the Union could include Greenland, a territory of Denmark previously part of the European Communities, but its impact in the Union will not be considerable. Other European states as Norway or Switzerland are possible candidates for membership if their internal opposition changes and the economic performance of the Union improves. In the middle term the European Union will reach its natural borders and then, as an organization based on continuous expansion since its creation, will define itself again. Europe then will have to face the essence of the Union itself and its practical matters with different options:
256
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
,I
he rs
by peaceful means, something like the United Nations but with real power and effectiveness in solving problems between its members. The integration will be led by a hardcore area or central states with already a high level of integration, and the rest of the states will be less integrated. The periphery will look forward joining the central core in order to have more power in the institution. It is a very idealistic scenario, and seems quite unrealistic nowadays, but the European Union also seemed unrealistic less than 100 years ago. The collapse of the organization: As the Union reaches its limits; the identification of the European people with the organization could decrease as the homogeneity among the members shrinks. Economic integration will surely lead to political integration, and it will need even more for the European people to be the real holders of sovereignty. The constant need of new markets will force the organization to expand and to stress its limits, destroying the identification of the people and hence the Union, giving place to a mere trade area.
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
Probably the European Union will become some sort of mixture of these four options because the European building process has shown a great capacity for innovation in economic and political fields, adapting to new situations by creating new models of integration by including diverse aspects of different theories and practices.
nc . he rs
EUROPEAN IDENTITY
,I
Chapter 27
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
There are different theories about integration– mainly federalism, functionalism, cooperation, and neo-functionalism – and its consequences on European identity. The first of them supports the idea of a European Parliament as the central institution of the new political framework in Europe, because the new political structure can be built only by the people of Europe, and should be done at once with a federal constitutions and federal institutions. Hence, the European Parliament should be elected by the Europeans in democratic elections to rule over European affairs. It means that the citizens of the member states, and hence the European citizens, should vote in European elections according to the European interest, and not according to their national interests. In order to achieve this, Europeans should have issues which are felt to be European. How to identify a European issue when people do not identify themselves as European? Why doEuropean elections have such low participation compared with elections in the States? Why is there so much indifference about the European Parliament in Europe? Why can‟t a great majority of European citizens name even a single member of the Parliament? Why don‟t we have any European political party? Why are domestic issues still much more important in most of the countries of the EU in the political campaign for the European elections than European problems? Because there is a lack of identification between the European citizens and the European Union since their national identity is much stronger that their European identity. According to the federal idea of subsidiarity, the problems should be solved at the best level of decision making. There are many different levels: the local level and city halls, the regional level, the national level, and above all of them, the European level. So, for example, if there is a problem that can be solved better on the local level, such as rubbish recollection, city hall should deal with it. Having a problem that can be solved better on the European level, as, for example, protection of the environment – a problem widespread in Europe because environment does not know about political borders and influences all its members, the European Parliament should act. Hence, if decision making would happen on the European level, European citizens would look to the European Parliament for solutions. Once the EP is the one that rules on and solves these problems, loyalty should be transferred from the national level to the European level. If the institution that solves problems is European, loyalty gradually would change from the national level (previously the last institution to solve problems) to the European level.
258
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
Why has this not happened in Europe? Mainly it is because of confusion about the role of European Institutions, and especially confusion between the powers of the European Council and the European Parliament, and secondly because of the lack of a strong European identity. Functionalism, based on a technocratic work, out of the political spectrum, does not need any European identity to work. The case is the same with transactionalism: the member states are the centre of decision making, so no transfer of loyalty is required, and hence no European identity is needed. In the case of neo-functionalism, and its approach to integration in Europe with the spillover effect, the transfer of loyalty from the national level to the European level is basic to the system. Neo-functionalism speaks about integration in areas of low politics which are important in other fields. Economy, for example, has a high potential for further integration that will lead to bigger integration that will create new necessities which can be solved just by more integration, the end of the process being the creation of a European State. The idea is clear: integration in a common trade area leads us to a common market. In order to have a common market, there should not be national barriers, so the European institutions dealt with this problem by creating European standards. So, it moved towards a single market. But neo-functionalism has a multi-approach to integration. The spill-over effect is its central point, but not the only one. The creation of institutions to deal with common issues and push for further integration, leading the process in the right direction, is another important approach. These institutions must be independent from any member state of the organization, and its workers should forget the interest of their own national states for the European interest. In the case of the European Union, this institution is clearly the European Commission. As a consequence of the spill-over effect, more and more policies are and will be included in the area of influence of the European Union, and hence, in the area of influence of the European Commission, which becomes a centre of decision making in terms of European issues. The loyalty of the economic agents, according to neo-functionalism, will change from the previous level of decision making, the national governments, to the European level, transferring loyalty from the states to the European Union. If in any economic field the decisions are taken on the European level, providing the economic agents rules, benefits, and losses, the eyes of these agents will be focused on the European level. Whenever they have a problem, they will try to solve it in Brussels, or whenever they have a proposal, they will lobby in Brussels. According to neo-functionalism this will create a European identity in economic terms, helping to create the European identity in cultural terms. The problem with this theory is the multifunctional approach to the European Building process and the creation of other institutions, such as the European Council, where the member states are represented, where the national interests of the member states are protected. The European Union has four main institutions, the High Court of Justice that protects respect for the common law, the European Commission as the executive branch, the European Parliament as a representative of the European people, and the European Council as a representative of the member states. The process of legislation is started by the European Commission, but the Council and the European Parliament have the last say, and they can change the original proposal substantially. In this game of power, the Council almost always has the upper hand, becoming the central institution of the European Union and blocking the transfer of loyalty from the national level to the European level, delaying the creation of a European identity. As an example, one of the most successful lobby agencies dedicated to the car industry has declared in the Financial Times via his chief executive that their success
259
European Identity
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
resides in the lobbying done in the capitals of the member states before the meetings of the European Council, and not in Brussels. The current situation of the European identity, after more than 50 years of the European Building process, common institutions, and more representation of the people of Europe via the European Parliament, have resulted in a process where the European identity is growing but is still far from unseating the national identities as the main source of identification for the European people. The European Union does not want to destroy the national identities; the European Union is just adding another level. It already exists, but is weak in comparison with national identity, the strongest in Europe at the public level. All agents working in the European Union field try to achieve the same primary goal, the end of confrontations and wars in Europe, most of them a consequence of nationalistic confrontations, via integration. So, the creation of a European identity above the national identities will integrate people, making them closer, and avoiding conflicts between them because of nationalistic feelings, fears, or ignorance. Another important base is the creation of the European state, the main target of the so called fathers of Europe, as they declared in the Schumann declaration, the founding paper of European integration. It is unworkable in the long term without the support and identification of the citizens with the new state. How will last a European state if there is no European identity? A state is just the organization of the public and common affairs. What if there is no common interest? At the moment there are many reasons for the lack of European identity and measures working to achieve it. One of the obstacles is the fear that increasing the European identity would attack the national identities. Europe is a place with great diversity, with more than 750 million inhabitants, and nearly 500 million in the EU, more than 200 languages, more than 2,000 dialects, different ethnic groups, many different national groups, different climates from the extreme cold of the north to the warm south, different cultures, etc. Europe, small in territory, is big in diversity, making it more difficult to create this European identity. For years the actions of the European Commission in the field of European identity have been very cautious; trying to avoid problems, the Commission has been acting according to the idea that pushing for a Unitarian identity would have meant the same as the fascist approach. That idea is wrong because the European identity is not something that destroys or dismantles national identities; it is something to be added to them. The process is similar to the one followed by the national states in Europe where there are different cultural groups – a national consciousness was created over them without destroying regional differences. For example, the regional identity of Bavaria in Germany is very strong, but is not confronted with their German identity. The same can be said about Spain, where many regions, such as Andalusia, have a strong identity, but no stronger than the Spanish one. One problem could be the new nationalism in many regions of Europe, like Catalonia in Spain, Corsica in France, and Scotland in the United Kingdom. Even though all these regions have a strong provincial nationalism growing, they also feel very European. Their main nationalist political parties want to be part of the European Union, outlining that their main target is just to eliminate one level of integration: the state. They support the European identity as the last level of identification of their citizens. So, a Basque who supports independence would like to have his local and regional identity, understanding the last as national identity, eliminate the Spanish identity, and make the European identity stronger. It
260
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
means that it is a problem, but more for the member states of the European Union than for European identity. Nationalism on a state level presents a bigger problem. Centuries of building a national identity among many different people in the same state, as in the case of France, made the state a nationalist agent, against pressures from below, local nationalism, and from above, the European Union. Their support for the creation of a strong European identity is indispensable, because they are the main recipient of the loyalty of the people because of their power in terms of education, economy, or politics. They should understand that a strong European identity is good also for them, because with a stronger Union, with stronger integration, the possibilities of conflict would be minimal, and the benefits in many fields great, with minimal losses for national identity
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb68/eb_68_en.pdf. European Identity.
261
European Identity
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
The European identity is principally based on weak symbols, copying the process initiated by the states in the creation of their national identities. The European Union has its own flag, and it‟s supposed to be the flag of all the Europeans, something to identify with. Also there is a European anthem, which, as can be read in the webpage of the European Union, is not the anthem of just the EU, but the anthem of Europe. The melody comes from the Ninth symphony composed in 1823 by Beethoven. These are two of the most visible symbols of the European Union, but there are others, less popular among the citizens of the EU, such as European Day. It is a copy of the national days, important festivities in the member states, but on a European level: it is the 9th of May, the day of the Schumann declaration and the real beginning of the European building process. A huge part of Europeans do not know anything about Schumann, the Schumann declaration, or even when the day of the European Union is. So, this symbol is still empty. The economic field has provided much stronger links of identification for the Europeans, mainly two facts, the creation of the Euro, the common currency, and the Schengen agreement. The first means that 16 member states share a common currency, more than 320 million Europeans with a common symbol in their everyday life. The level of identification with the currency is important in order to achieve a strong common identity, as we can see with the British and the Pound, still an important symbol for them. But the currency should work well, be strong, and give security to the citizens. Until now the Euro has been one of the strongest vehicles to create European Identity because, despite a general rise of prices with its adoption, the Euro is surviving well during the current financial crisis. The feelings of the people related to the Euro, the common currency, are also important. The former idea in Europe of one state, one currency, makes the people get used to associate a country with a currency. The effect of having the same currency whenever the Europeans move to another country of the Euro zone, makes them feel more at home, with a currency that they know, without changing at the border. The Schengen agreement, primarily a bilateral agreement between France and Germany, is also an important point in the creation of European identity. The free movement of people between the member states of the EU, with some temporal restrictions for new members, security restrictions for crises, and exceptions for some countries as the United Kingdom, has practically abolished the concept of borders. Travelling from Spain to Finland without stopping at any border, or showing any passport, makes people feel that they are still in the same area, on common territory. Finally, European citizenship is also helping to shape European identity, especially for Europeans who live in other states within the EU. The main points of European citizenship are the right to participate in local elections wherever the citizens live, despite their nationality, and also in the European elections. It means that if European citizens do not live in another member state, the benefits are not felt, so its integration effect is residual. On the other hand, there are other symbols to create the European identity, as the Eurovision song context, the TV channel Euro news, the Ryder Cup, a golf competition between the USA and Europe, or the football competitions on the European level, especially the last one, for its great popularity among Europeans. The judgement Bosman, related with the freedom of movement of European Union workers, allows the creation of real European teams where previously there were national ones. The future of European identity faces many problems; much work is still to be done in order to increase the identification of European citizens with the European Union to achieve a
262
David Ramiro Troitino
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
minimal level of loyalty that will allow creating the European state. First of all, the ignorance of the citizens about the EU and its institutions should be eradicated via education. Secondary schools and high schools all over the territory of the EU should teach a topic related with the Union. It is clear that education is a policy in the hands of the member states, but the Council, where the states are represented, could include this topic all over Europe, with the same contents, the same structure, and the same target. It would help to close the big gap between the people and the European Institutions, and increase the turnout of European elections. Language is another problem, originating at the beginning of the European Communities where France was clearly the leader of the process and the French language still pretended to be a worldwide vehicle of expression. Also, the UK was outside the Union promoting the European Free Trade Association, an alternative to the EC. At the moment there are 23 official languages in the EU, and 3 working languages: French, German, and English. It is an inefficient system where almost all the documents are translated to too many languages. This situation should change – the European Union should have just one official language, and the 1 member states two : their national tongue and the official language of the EU. The international language in the world and in Europe is English. Communication between Europeans is mostly done using English, so if citizens already use it, a political decision should just be made to reflect in the institutions the reality of the citizens. Of course, there are nationalistic problems in many states, because German is the first language of Europe as a mother tongue, and France still pretends a leadership of the Union and actively promotes the use of the French language in the organization. Both objections are out of touch with reality, because more than 30% of Europeans can speak English, when less than 15% can speak French or 9% German, and English is the first foreign language in more than 80% of the secondary schools in Europe. A common language is needed in order for people to be able to communicate and give them a feeling of belonging. The great disparity in Europe in the educational systems gives us situations as that in Denmark where around 70% of the population can speak English, or very low rates as in Spain. Again, more effort should be made in the field of education. In political terms, the European institutions should work faster to make European citizens feel easier about them, increasing the loyalty of them towards the EU. At the moment there is a system of balance of power between the member states, where unanimity is required in delicate issues, and between the member states and the European Parliament, with the codecision system. It makes it inefficient and slow. A reform to increase the capacity of reaction and reduce the timing in decision making will have a positive influence in the identification of citizens as Europeans. In International relations, a single voice is needed, because nowadays most of the member states still look after their own interest unilaterally, instead of reaching a common and stronger position for the benefit of all of them. So, a foreign affairs minister is needed to increase the influence of the EU in the external world, and make it stronger inside the community. As an example, we can see the energy policy of different states negotiating with Russia, like Germany, avoiding a common position that could bring better deal conditions to the whole community. In the defence field, many European countries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, feel safe from external aggressions thanks to their membership in NATO, a military 1
In the cases of states with more than one official language, English should be added to the list.
263
European Identity
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
he rs
,I
nc .
organization lead by the USA. It means that they do not feel safe because of the EU, and the citizens identify themselves less with a common Europe. So, the European Union should develop its own defence policy in order to protect its members from external aggressions, even if they are hypothetical. This would without any doubt increase the European identity of the people protected. The project already exists via the Western European Union, but is developing slowly, and lately has suffered some reverses. Related with the international relations and a common position with the rest of the world, this idea is also the key to understanding the division of Europe in the war in Iraq. Finally, religion should not be a topic in terms of European identity because of its diversity among Christians, Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, plus Muslims, Jews, and other minority religions. One of the most important characteristics of Europe is the laicism approach, a consequence, among others, of the French Revolution and the separation of the state and the church, which is commonly accepted all over Europe. The attempt of including in the failed European Constitution a reference to the Christian roots of Europe would have a negative influence in the creation of a stronger European identity because it would exclude citizens of other religions and the long tradition of laicism in public affairs. As a conclusion, the creation of a European identity as the last level of identification of the citizens, above the national level, is needed in order to achieve a European state. It seems that many agents are not interested in it because of nationalistic approaches. The EU should analyse what it wants to be, and then push for it, giving up its ambiguous current approach. It is clear that there are other identities, like that of Western civilization, where democracy or human rights are shared, but for which geographic distances make future cohesion impossible. Something has been done, especially as we have seen because of the Euro, the single market, and the Schengen agreement, all of them with an economic background, and the European identity is much stronger than it was at the beginning of last century. But globalization and the revolution in communication are forcing Europe to speed up the process in order to keep a place in the leading blocks of the world. It could be done just with reforms in other fields, as education, defence, and politics. There are still many obstacles on the way, but they could be overcome by presenting these reforms to the people of Europe via popular referendums where the outcome is shaped by the majority of the Europeans, and not from the majority of the citizens of each member state. It would also bring the Union closer to the people, lessening the gap and building a strong European identity. Of course, these referendums would need the support of the member states represented in the European Council. The way is long, but necessity will force Europe to face the inevitable reforms to create an emotional link between its citizens and the European institutions, and not as a substitute for national identification, just as something bigger.
a
ov
N ce
en
Sc i he rs
is
Pu bl
,I
nc .
nc . he rs
THE MONETARY UNION
,I
Chapter 28
N
ov
a
Sc i
en
ce
Pu bl
is
The economic integration in Europe started long before the common currency. The Euro is the consequence of the creation of the Common Market and its improvement, the Single Market. As Europe developed its market, it solved obstacles to trade in the territory of the Common Market, but new problems arose, such as the uncertainty of trade because of the different currencies operating in the system, or differing access to financing companies in the area, or even creative inventions using the situation for private economic benefits on European public money. A real Common Market needed a common currency in order to abolish an important obstacle to trade and to unify trade conditions among different members of the market. The international world was working with a monetary system based on gold reserves kept in national banks. The system was very easy, the notes and coins just reflected a share of the value of the gold backing this currency located in the national reserve, and it was just a representation of it, an easier way to carry the wealth, better in notes than in proper gold. Hence, each currency had a value according to the gold reserves of its Central Bank. This system gave stability to the currencies and was good for trade because there were no big movements in the level of gold reserves, and hence there was stability in the value of the 1 currencies. In this context, the International Monetary Fund was working well, without 2 major problems until the reform of the USA in the context of Bretton Woods. The United States, led by its president Nixon, decided unilaterally by 1971 on the end of the convertibility of the dollar in the gold system. After that, nothing material was backing American currency as gold had been doing. It meant that the currency was backed by just the promises of the Federal government and the trust of the market in them. This reform meant many changes in world finances, such as currency instability and hence damages to international trade, bank failures, inflation, and other economic problems. The Western European States decided to unite to avoid the instability and the economic crisis in what was called the European Monetary System. It was based on a basket of currencies called the ECU, and stabilization of the currencies included in the system, that were allowed to increase their values just a maximum of 2.5% or decrease them in the same quantity, 2.5%. 1 2
http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/gold_standard.htm. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1852254,00.html.
266
David Ramiro Troitino
nc .
+ 2, 5% Central Bank sells Krooni O
