Realists and Liberals: The EU Flashcards
analyse the way in which the history/development of the European Union since 2000 can be interpreted according to a realist and a liberal standpoint
realist view of the EU
liberal view of the EU
realist v liberal view on the euro
realist view of the EU
According to a realist standpoint, since 2000, the EU has grown in influence and has increasingly undermined state sovereignty, which is the most important feature of the international system. In doing so, it has led to instability and divisions as many states feel threatened and unwilling to cooperate within a body that they feel in encroaching upon their sovereignty. The idea that the EU has attempted to undermine state sovereignty too much can be seen in the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), under which national governments can be outvoted and so the will of the electorate can be thwarted as they may be forced to adopt a measure despite opposing it. This threat to sovereignty appeared to be a reason for Brexit and the vote to leave as people want Parliament to be sovereign again and not to be overridden by the EU, thus demonstrating how the EU has caused social instability. Moreover, the realist view that the EU infringes sovereignty to an unjust degree can be seen in how since 1983, through its Common Fisheries Policy, the EU has regulated the amount of deep sea fish that could be caught with a system of quotas and has allowed fishing boats from different member states to have equal access to each other’s fishing grounds. This was at the centre of the landmark ruling in the 1990 Factortame case, in which a Spanish fishing company called Factortame sued the UK government for restricting its access to UK waters. The law lords ruled that the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act, which the government was using to justify his actions, could not be allowed to stand because it violated EU law. This case established the primacy of EU law over an Act of Parliament, demonstrating that state sovereignty is often heavily undermined within the EU.
liberal view of the EU
However, liberals disagree and often argue that sovereignty has not been encroached and that the EU actually fosters vital cooperation and fairness, thus taking a much more positive view of the EU than realists. They might argue that since the introduction of QMV, decision making has become much fairer. QMV is designed to balance the interests of big and small states. Among the 28 current members of the EU, 20 have populations of less than 2.5% of the EU’s 508 million people. The total population of the 20 smallest countries is less than the population of Germany and the UK combined, while the largest four countries (Germany, the UK, France and Italy) have a combined population of around 273 million. A double majority vote, therefore, requires a combination of both big and small states. Neither big nor small states can gang up on the others because 65% of the population of the EU needs to support the measure and neither all the small states or all the big states make up this population alone, meaning that both big and small states will need to support the measure in order for it to pass. Therefore, QMV balances the right of the small member states not to be railroaded by the demands of the bigger states with the right of the bigger states not to be thwarted by the smaller states. QMV is rarely used to force countries to accept measures that they do not want – rather, it encourages those who might use their veto to negotiate as good a real as they can get. It makes each member state realise that if they are in a minority, they might have to accept the decision of the majority and a decision that they do not want. To avoid this, they should start negotiating with other member states to get the best deal they can.
realist v liberal view on the euro
Moreover, from a liberal standpoint, the development of the EU since 2000 has been positive because the introduction of the euro in 1999 has led to a high level of integration that continues to foster balance and harmony today. The introduction of the euro as the single European currency is often seen as the most significant act of integration of European countries since the European project began. It was clearly a major step towards binding the countries of Europe together in an economic, trade and political bloc, making war not only incredible but impossible.
On the other hand, realists may see the introduction of the euro in more negative terms. For many realists, the euro is a symptom of the madness of the European project. They see it as a triumph of ideology and dogma over reality and common sense, as well as an attempt to bind different countries together culturally, politically and economically with a one size fits all approach. Critics see the economic project as damaging to states, companies and individuals, and even as the factor behind the recent low growth and high unemployment in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal.
