chapter 4+5 (reading 2 week 1) Flashcards
how has European integration advanced?
- deepening= vertical integration: more intense integration between member states
- widening = horizontal integration: growing geographical spread of the European Community (EC) / EU (new member states)
dev. of policy processes, dev. policies, treaty dev.
treaty development
- founding treaties European Communities: Treaty of Paris + two Treaties of Rome
- more treaties + amendments to extend, strengthen and democratize the EC/EU treaty framework
major sets of revisions
- 1986 Single European Act (SEA): tidying-up provisions, provisions designed to give the community a broader policy remit + altering aspects of decision-making
-Council of Ministers qualified majority vote strengthened (to complete the internal market 1992)
- EP strengthened via creation ‘cooperation procedure’ (two-stage legislative procedure)
!Milan summit + SEA often described as heralding the ‘relaunch’ of EU integration - 1992 Maastricht Treaty:
- new organisation of the EU (Eu communities, Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
- Fields of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA))
- institutional deepening (procedure + timetable for moving to Economic and Monetary Union (EMU): extending QMV in the Council + new legislative procedure: co-decision (EP got some veto powers)) - Amsterdam Treaty 1997: not as ambitious and far-reaching, but still important policy deepening (esp. strengthening EU decision-making capacity in certain JHA spheres) + institutional deepening (extend co-decision procedure to more policy spheres and virtually abolish the cooperation procedure
- Nice Treaty 2001: ‘Amsterdam leftovers’: change institutions and voting to enable EU to absorb applicant states whilst remaining efficient
- 2007 Lisbon Treaty: new position European Council President + High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
- unique: longer + more tortuous period of preparation, negotiation and ratification (multiple IGC) (e.g. 2004, as it included the word constitution: Constitutional Treaty -> referenda, in NL and Fa rejected the Treaty), Lisbon Treaty was mainly the same, but not constitutional/symbolic
*Treaty only took effect in December 2009
all treaties since the SEA advance policy and institutional integration
dev. of policy processes
founding treaties: Commission would propose, Parliament would advise, Council would decide (usually by unanimity), Court of Justice would interpret the law
relaunch integration process mid-1980s -> 5 additions and amendments:
- changes in relationships between the 4 institutions: more sharing of powers + blurring responsibilities (institutions have extended their interests and become less compartmentalised and less self-contained
- e.g. council of ministers has usurped some proposing responsibilities of the Commission: has larger role in helping initiate and set agenda
- e.g. EP more legislative power -> Council-Commission-EP legislative triangle (rather than former Commission-Council axis) - increasing range of participants not associated with the 4 main institutions (e.g. Heads of Gov. key agenda-setting and decision-taking)
- policy processes more varied and complex: have come to function in many diff ways at may diff levels (no only the formal institutions)
- policy processes have become more efficient (often QMV vote Council rather than unanimity) and democratic (EP more influential)
- policy processes more supranational in character (some EU institutions have independent powers + when QMV is used rather than unanimity)
dev. of policies
expansion of policy portfolio (stimulated + encouraged by:
- treaty provisions
- increasing internationalisation + competitiveness of eco. forces
- growing recognition of benefits of working together
- integrationist pressures emanating from central institutions
- stimulus that policy dev. in one sphere has given to dev. in other spheres
internal/common market
(also known as Single European Market (SEM))
- policy to promote free movement between member states + enable EU to act jointly and present a common front in relations with third countries
- increase in range/extent EU’s regulatory presence: market can operate fairly + open when key features are managed/controlled from the center
e.g. essential conditions for product standards + testing and certification, liberalisation national eco., protected industries criteria for companies to trade in the EU market - creation of SEM was given priority since mid-80s (via the 1992 program + SEA)
- also e.g. regulation/policy in e.g. employment, environment, consumer protection + working conditions
Economic and Monetary Union EMU
- long was a community goal, real progress only in late 1980s: saw it was necessary to harmonize macroeco. + financial policies and a single currency to realise the full potential of the internal market
- qualifying conditions/foundations:
low rates of inflation
low interest rates
avoidance of excessive budgetary and national debt deficits
currency stability - SGP: Stability and Growth Pact = framework to ensure that stability of the single currency zone would not be threatened by national policies
- 1 jan 1999 came into operation (Maastricht Treaty 1997 proved premature)
- new states first have to wait 2 years to see if they could meet the convergence criteria
- eco/financial crises 2007-08: EMU, M strong, E weak -> austerity policies
other policies
proportionally very low level of EU spending
- many of the policies are regulatory in character (they lay down rules) = doesn’t require much direct EU expenditure (does require considerable expenditure by public and private bodies in member states)
- EU limited involvement in policy areas that have highest public expenditure: social welfare, education, health, defence
*main exception = Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), is really expensive for EU - EU more and more involvement in economic-related policies, regional and social policies (e.g. European Regional Dev. Fund + European Social Fund), foreign and security policy, defence policy, and JHA policy
enlargement rounds
original EC membership of 6 (Benelux, West Germany, France, Italy)
-> 28 member states
enlargement rounds with states sharing significant characteristics lodging + gaining membership applications at ~ the same time
*these rounds all led to diff. nature of the integration process
- 1973: Denmark, Ireland, UK
-> Denmark and UK as ‘Euro-cautious’ camp
-> UK as possible disruption Franco-German informal leadership - 1981: Mediterranean round (Greece 1981, Spain and Portugal in 86)
-> integration tilt to the south + tilt to less prosperous states - EFTAn round 1995 (all applicants were members of the European Free Trade Association): Austria, Finland, Sweden
-> easiest round (all were rich), led to almost all of Western Europe joining - 10+2 round 2004/2007: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia + Bulgaria and Romania
-> from Western European integration into a near Europe-wide process of integration
in time probably: fifth ‘Balkan’ or ‘South-Eastern’ round
!diff rounds bc:
- diff in nature of national economies and econ. needs in would-be EC/EU states
- diff in national political systems (only liberal democracies allowed in)
- diff perceptions of likely gains and losses
the 1973 enlargement
the UK, Denmark and Ireland
UK - before 1958/EEC
- saw itself as operating within three overlapping and interlocking relationships (Churchill): Empire/Commonwealth + Atlantic Alliance and special relationship with the US + Western Europe (least important until early 60s)
- govs wouln’t accept loss of sovereignty that comes with integration
*parliamentary tradition + not having been invaded/controlled in modern times + pride + saw itself as world power of the first rank (didn’t want to be dependent) - only 1/4 areas of integration were interesting: European Economic Community -> Stockholm Convention 1960 established EFTA (Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, UK)
(not appealing: ECSC (had more coal/steel than other countries) + EDC (would mean limiting gov. manoeuvrability+options) + Euratom (other powers had less advanced weapons))
UK - after 1958/EEC
- changed attitude + sought membership
political: no longer world power of the firs rank + special relationship with USA weakened + British Empire was giving way to the Commonwealth
economic: trade with Commonwealth declining + EC states were outperforming the UK - first attempts to joined opposed by President de Gaulle (FA): feared competition/rivalry with France + thought it would unsettle Franco-German alliance + suspicious wit UK’s close links with the US
- 1969 Pompidou president of France -> UK as counterweight of strong/confident Germany, support to France’s opposition to increasing supranationalism + France would gain eco. by having access to UK markets and UK’s contribution to the EU budget
Denmark and Ireland: were not interested in joining 50s Communities
- ECSC had little to offer: economies relied on agriculture
- EEC: doubt it would benefit them (both countries had strong eco. + historical links with UK (and Scandinavian countries))
- UK joining -> both applied (withdrew applications on two occasions in the 60s, became members in 1973)
Norway: applied twice in the 60s, early in the 70s (this third attempt failed bc of referendum)
The Mediterranean enlargement
Greece 1981
1986: Spain and Portugal
Greece:
- econ. unsuitable for ECSC or EEC in the 50s (was mostly peasant-based) + history, culture and geographical position put it outside the Western European mainstream
- joined later than they wanted bco resistance: problem of underdev. econ.
- transitional period deemed necessary -> 1962 Association Agreement
*April 1967-June 1974 (coup + civilian gov. re-est.) Association Agreement was virtually suspended -> 1976 Membership proposal (Greece argued joining EC was important for the democr., threfore Council of Ministers rejected the Commision’s proposal of pre-accession period) + 1981 entering
Spain + Portugal
- long eco. unsuitable for EC membership: agricultual + underdeveloped + autarkic until end 1950s
- both were authoritarian dictatorships until mid-70s -> founding 6 states didn’t want to be attached (democr. not necessary in EEC Treaty)
- requested negotiations with the community as early as 1962, were granted preferential trade agreements, full membership became real possibility with deaths of the Caetano regime and General Franco
- difficult negotiations: threat to other Mediterranean countries by Spanish agriculture + size Spanish fishing fleet + implications of cheap labor moving north
WITH ALL THESE COUNTRIES POLITICAL FACTORS HELPED OVRCOME DIFFICULTIES: EC STATES WANTED TO ENCOURAGE POLITICAL STABILITY IN SOUTHERN EUROPE
The EFTAn enlargement 1995
Austria, Finland, Sweden
negotiations in 1992 (Norway 1993) -> concluded in March 1994
why did they seek membership?
- end of the Cold War reduced importance of traditional attachment to neutrality
- they were in EFTA, with which the EC already had special relations
negotiations started in early 1993, were easy: were well prepared for EU membership (market econ., incorporatoin Community acquis into national law + established democr. political systems) + part of the negotiations had already been resolved in the EEA negotiations and agreement
Norway 1972 did not ratify, did not accede in jan 1995, remained in EFTA and EEA
EC and EFTA
EFTA
- constituted in 1960
- members: Liechtenstein, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, UK, Portugal
- objectives: free trade area in industrial products (achieved in 1966)+ creation of a base for making the whole of Western Europe a free trade area for industrial goods (achieved in 1977)
relations EC-EFTA mostly friendly, but EFTA states increasingly unsatisfied:
- EC was collectively much stronger
- forced to accept trading rules EFTA had played no part in helping to formulate (e.g. when EC made product specifications)
dev. Single European Market program -> EFTA countries reconsider EC membership + EC proposes a European Economic Area (EEA): would extend internal market to the EFTA, but not include EC membership (was set to be ratified in 1992, but Swiss people voted no-> delay, when it came in effect in 1994 it was clear that only full EU membership would be enough)
The 10+2 enlargement 2004-2007
2004: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia
2007: Bulgaria and Romania
Aka 10 central and eastern European countries (CEECs) + two Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta
Central and Eastern European countries:
- Fall communism 1989-90 -> overlapping/interconnected political, security and eco. Motivations to join the EU (and NATO)
- EU guided/assisted the CEECs to fundamental eco. And political reconstruction (was thought to be a long process, no realistic prospect for many years)
- Increasingly specific promises about membership (e.g. Copenhagen European Council june 1993: accession as soon as econ. And political conditions are satisfied)
- 1995 Madrid European Council requested Commission investigation in all applicants + effects on the EU -> Luxembourg meeting/negotiations 1998 with Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Cyprus (not yet with the others as per advice Commission)
- Continuing turbulence in the Balkans + onvrede Turkey + distinction first and second wave countries -> contestation Luxembourg decision -> Helsinki summit 1999 revision
- April 2003: accession treaty for all CEEC countries but Bulgaria and Romania => became members 1 may 2004 (just before elections)
- Bulgaria + Romania became EU members in January 2007 (even though there were many concerns)
*Copenhagen conditions/criteria for aspiring members: to ensure convergence pol and econ systems + so that new member states would be able to adopt and implement Union laws and policies (acquis)
Cyprus and Malta
- part of Western European tradition/heartland despite geog. distance
- late 1980s interest in membership
Cyprus had extra motivation for joining: possible solution of ‘the Cyprus problem’ - applications in July 1990 -> EC was reluctant (for Cyprus partly bco conflict with Turkey’s occupation of North Cyprus) ->1994 commission generally supported the applications
- both joined in 2004
‘the Cyprus problem’ (remains present)
- wanted to join as whole island
but in practice the Greek Cypriot gov. of the Republic of Cyprus only ran in the South - the Turkish Cypriot leadership in the North rejected that the Republic negotiated for all of Cyprus
- conflict: Greece threatened to veto all aspirants if negotiations with Cyprus were halted/delayed, letting Cyprus join would damage relations with Turkey
*Cyprus only state that didn’t directly seek support from the national electorate (they didn’t do a referendum)
the enlargement to Croatia, and the ongoing Balkan round
Slovenia (part of the 10+2 round) and Croatia (negotiations 2005, memberstate july 2013) were forerunners
Thessaloniki summit: European Council meeting that confirmed EU ambitions to include Western Balkan countries (i.e. countries formerly part of Yugoslavia + Albania)
Balkan countries have applied, but negotiations and access has been delayed (partly bco EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker)
reasons why further enlargement to the Balkans is proving to be slow:
- the states are mostly underdeveloped (institutions/systems, but also lack of respect for democratic freedoms)
- some of the states have ‘special political problems’
e.g. FYROM calls itself Macedonia, leads to Greek resistance
e,g, Serbia and Kosovo, Serbia disputes that Kosovo declared independence in 2008 - Bulgarian and Romanian membership is seen as having been done prematurely: the countries were not yet ready -> now states need to demonstrate (nearly) full compliance with standards before accession
-> applications require ‘EU-ising’ if this is shown countries get candidate country status + Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAAs)
the special case of Turkey
applied for membership in 1987, negotiations in oct. 2005, still not granted
3 central problems from the EU’s standpoint:
- Turkey’s bad record with respecting democratic and human rights (part of the Copenhagen criteria)
- dispute if Turkey’s accession would be too much of a stretch: it may have diff values (can undermine EU sense of identity) + is Islamic, whilst the EU is based on Christian values
- non-settlement Cyprus Problem: Turkey continues to occupy the north of Cyprus, thus formally occupying EU territory
->settlement necessary before accession
*full membership is not likely to happen (soon)
*Turkey may want to withdraw application and seek other forms of privileged relations with the EU
box 5.2 perceived benefits/disadvantages of Turkish membership
possible benefits
- large population -> great increase size internal market
- young population -> helps address problem of EU’s ageing labor force
- key geo-political location -> stronger links with Islamic world and Middle East
- largest military in NATO after the USA -> enlarging EU’s military capability
possible disadvantages/risks
- would be the largest member state -> major institutional and policy process implications
- membership would mean ~20% EU would be Muslim -> risk transforming nature of Europe
- relatively poor GDP would be major claimant on EU budget
- EU’s external borders would adjoin ‘troubled states’ (Iraq, Iran, Syria)
why has the EU been willing to enlarge?
the first 3 rounds
no clear policy on enlargement
1973, Mediterranean + EFTAn enlargement
- doubts: UK as wholehearted participant, Mediterranean underdevelopment, EFTAn distraction from more urgent matters (dev. Maastricht Treaty Provisions on EMU and Common Foreign and Security Policy)
- they were accepted bc: countries were seen as part of the Western European ‘family’ + all had market-based econs that could catch-up + most had democr. or could be helped + enlargement rounds didn’t require much adjustment by the EU as the rounds were limited in scope
why does the EU continue to want to enlarge?
- two explanations
10+2 round
- problems: relatively poor, outside of ‘Western mainstream’, still in democratization process
explanations continued enlargement:
- rationalist explanations: cost-benefit balance sheets are in the black -> there is more to gain than to lose
- constructivist explanations: values more important, esp inclination of EU politicians to empathise/support proximate states that are attempting to Europeanise/Westernise/democratise
