THEI

Question 1

What is the first example of European integration?

Answer 1

1815 with the defeat of Napolean. The balance of power in Europe was restored

Question 2

What is the core idea behind the balance of power?

Answer 2

To prevent the existence of a dominating state to prevent wars on the European continent. States would have equal amounts of power.

Question 3

Did the balance of power idea work?

Answer 3

No, there were a lot of armed conflicts and death since this time.

Question 4

What is the German Question?

Answer 4

How is France going to contain Germany without foreign support?

Question 5

What led to the German question?

Answer 5

Three Franco-German wars. The Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was the most important, as it led to the unification of Germany. This was a key turning point for the balance of power, because they became a leading European land power. This led to the German empire, which in turn led to Nazi Germany.

Question 6

How did the Franco-Prussian war lead to the unification of Germany?

Answer 6

Thought of Bismarck that if the lander could conquer France, they could form a single state.

Question 7

How was the German Question answered?

Answer 7

1. Partioning of Germany into allied zones (US, France, Britain, SU). This became more permanent due to the relations between west and east worsening, which led to BRD and DDR.
2. Non-European holders of balance of power. This would maintain BOP in Europe by having outside influence. This causted a western versus eastern block by US and SU.
3. Spheres of influence. These blocks led to implicit understanding of spheres of influences.

Question 8

Context that led to the idea of the ECSC

Answer 8

Mood of wanting change, to not return to pre-war ways. It had destroed infrastructures, economies and social cohesion due to Nazi collaboration in governments. This led to more support of federalist ideas, mostly in countries that that suffered from fascism.
There were such concerns such as:
1. The emerging cold war caused security issues (DDR)
2. France felt that the partioning of Germany was not enough, a more permanent solution was needed for security concerns.
3. Most of the resources needed to strengthen economies were in Germany, but it could not be allowed to get rebuilt.

Question 9

Why the idea of ECSC? / jean Monnets 3 questions

Answer 9

Jean monnets 3 questions:
1. How can another war in Europe be prevented? (Nationalism)
2. How can the European economy be restored?
2. How can the rise of communism be stopped?

Question 10

What was the answer to Monnets questions?

Answer 10

European integration. The goal was an economically united western Europe. Monnet had no confidence in a free-market, because this had not worked for France.
No more war, restoration of EU economy + stop rise of communism

Question 11

How did the ECSC get set up?

Answer 11

Monnet proposed questions to Schuman, french foreign minister.
This led to the Schuman declaration in 1950 in Paris.

Question 12

What did the Schuman declaration entail?

Answer 12

Call for organized Europe, as there were threats to world peace which could only be solved on a grand scale. This needed to be done in small steps, by solidarity and small achievements to create trust. The France/Germany relationship needed to be fixed. The Franco-German production of coal + steel would be placed under a common High Autority and would be open for other countries. The pooling of resources would set up common foundations for economic development and a step towards a federation of Europe.

A proposal of the ECSC including the goals:
1. organized and united Europe
2. not made all at once
3. Franco-German production of coal + steel under a common High Authority
4. first step of federation of Europe

Question 13

Why did the pooling of resources?/ ECSC need a supranational organisation?

Answer 13

1. Shows commitment to European integration
2. Easier for an IO to enforce compliance
3. more efficient

Question 14

What was the goal for setting up the ECSC?

Answer 14

1. integrate West- European economies. A bigger scheme would be too ambitious, so coal + steel would be tthe starting points.
2. It would also prevent Germany from going to war, because of dependency of other countries
3. Decartelization of coal and steel industries, as they were Nazi’’s.

Question 15

Why just coal + steel?

Answer 15

1. feasible
2. key in German rearmament
3. key in reconstruction
4. decarelization (group of industrialists supporting HItler)

Question 16

What was France’s position on the ECSC?

Answer 16

1. Coal supply = economic recovery
2. German economic recovery without mobilization
3. United States would enforce compliance

Question 17

What was German position on ECSC?

Answer 17

1. Adenauer was from the border area like Schuman, so he knew what war was like and wanted to prevent this
2. resotration of international reputaton and reconciliation with France. This meant getting rid of allied occupation and possibility to restore economically
3. Equal treatment (Gleichberechtigung)
4. Party ideology (CDU connect with Western Europe)
5. Window of opportunity. Chancellor had a lot of power in foreign policy + US guaranteed that France wopuld not take advantage.

Question 18

What was the UK position on ECSC?

Answer 18

Not in favour.
1. Labour replaced Churchill who was in favour of united Europe
2. Had plenty of coal + commonweath = enough resources
3. Labour wanted to nationalize their industries (1945-1950)
4. UK feels more seperated from Europe.
Facism never succeeded, WWII was just national for them.
World power with global responsibilities.

Question 19

What was the UK position on ECSC?

Answer 19

Not in favour.
1. Labour replaced Churchill who was in favour of united Europe
2. Had plenty of coal + commonweath = enough resources
3. Labour wanted to nationalize their industries

Plenty of coal
Commonwealth = resources
1945-1950 labor govt. → nationalization of industries
The United Kingdom felt more separated from Europe. Fascism never succeeded, WWII was just national for them. World power with global responsibilities.

Question 20

What was the USAs position on ECSC?

Answer 20

1. United States leadership + do not want to police anymore
2. Strengthen of North-Atlantic cooperation (NATO since 1949)
3. Need for Europe to recover due to dept Marshall plan 1948 → grants, loans + food
4. West-Germany as potential ally to fight communism

Question 21

What was the Benelux position on ECSC?

Answer 21

Lukewarm
1. desire for peace and recovery
2. fear of Franco-German domination because they are only small powers
3. Wanted intergovernmental Council of Ministers

Question 22

What were the institutions of the ECSC?

Answer 22

1. High authority
   large member state could supply 2 members
   Headed by Monnet
   Funded through direct taxation of industries
2. Council of Ministers
   National ministers
   consent on non- Coal and steel issues like budget and insititution
3. Parliamentary Assembly
   National Minister President s
   only for consultation
   can dismiss HA
4. Court of justice
   rules on legality of High Autoritys actions

Question 23

What were key components of the ECSC?

Answer 23

• Decartelization of German Coal + Steel industry
• fair competition between Western European companies. Equalized access to resources
• Transition towards a customs union for Coal + Steel for trade.
• There were side payments (equalization funds) → (Belgium + Italy)
  Side payments to weaker economic parties
• Gradual harmonization (+ improvement) of working conditions.

Question 24

Paris treaties

Answer 24

1951. One half was ECSC, other half was Pleven Plan

Question 25

Triggers before the Pleven Plan?

Answer 25

Triggers:
The United States pivots to Asia (example Korean wars)
DDR communist threat → BRD defense? → Two-blocks: fear of communism
→ Germany was not allowed its own military, so there was the question of how they could defend themselves from DDR/ communism.
Federalists → how do we get past nationalism in Europe (Monnet)
More people with federalist ideas

Question 26

Goal/ idea of Pleven Plan

Answer 26

1. Common European Army (EDC) → European Defense Community
   * German divisions in European army with no German command (in command other countries)
   * no independent German army (only one)
   * no Gleichberechtigung (equal treatment), but end to occupation of Germany
2. European Political Community (EPC)w ould give orders to army
   based on supranational decision-making like ECSC

Question 27

Outcome Pleven plan

Answer 27

Not ratified in French parliament due to communists in parliament (fear of rising Germany)
idea born and died in France

Question 28

Why did the EPC/EDC fail?

Answer 28

1. Too much ceding of sovereignty which led to more concerns
2. not a small step like ECSC
3. Politically not feasible due to high profile unlike ECSC, public did not agree

Question 29

Consequence of Pleven Plan failure

Answer 29

The BRD (west) + Italy both join NATO and the WEU (Western European Union- common defense pact 1948). This solved the security issue and so there was no need for a common European army anymore.

Question 30

Who came up with the Euratom/ EEC in the Rome Treaties?

Answer 30

Monnet and Spaak came up with the Euratom, Beyen with the EEC

Question 31

Why the proposal of the Euratom (European Atomic Energy Community)

Answer 31

ECSC was a succes. Monnet wanted to expand the European integration . Oil and nuclear energy were upcoming instead of coal and steel. ECSC was also quite interventionist (dirigiste) which was unpopular by the member states. This meant that the ECSC mandate did not get extended to nuclear energy.

Question 32

Why the proposal of EEC (Eruopean Economic community)

Answer 32

To move towards a single market.
Beyen was a liberal + Dutch economy was fairly competitive, so this would be profitable for Dutch firms.

Question 33

What are components of European integration (economic()

Answer 33

• Free-trade area (no-tariffs/custom duties and quantitative restrictions on imports and exports between members)
  → no limits to international trade
  → Need for customs union due that imports flow into low-tariff countries
• Customs union
  Free trade are + harmonized tariff + quantitative restrictions for non-members
  → Different product regulations - producers produce different products for different markets
• Common market
  Free movements of goods, services, capital and labor

Question 34

Positions on Euratom and EEC of France

Answer 34

Euratom:
Positive but with demands
More technological cooperation in atomic energy
needed funding for civil use.
→ They saw it as a way for France to become a nuclear power.

EEC:
Agriculture: subsidies for relatively inefficient farms + access to markets
Protect welfare state labor conditions
Strengthen ties with former colonies via preferential access to European markets than other countries outside of Europe.

Question 35

Positions of Germany on Euratom and EEC

Answer 35

Euratom:
They did not want to fund France to become a nuclear power.
Atomic cooperation helps Germany develop nuclear weapons, despite war-related restrictions

EEC:
As industrial power wanted to protect competitiveness ⇒ not happy with welfare state + high standard labor laws
Against French interventionist (dirigiste) model

Question 36

How did the negotiations for Euratom and EEC succeed despite the opposite positions of Germany and France?

Answer 36

1. Expert negotiator
   Spaaks rules of negotiation:
   * play for and with time (ijskast politiek)
   (case when France blocked EEC due to protests from producers in fear of competition negotiations continued with compromise: focus on negative integration (favor of Germany)
   Do not let technical stuff overshadow political will
   make package deals : Euratom + EEC linked
   But: still deadlock! Spaak: ‘’Lets not agree on the report, but use it as a starting point….’’
2. External crisis Suez + Hungary (1956)
   Crisis raises awareness of weakness of Western Europe
   France cannot rely on United States protection or United Kingdom
   Adenauer knows France has unstable governments: so takes over from Erhard for 1 on 1 with Mollet.
3. France forces German concessions
   Two-level game (Putnam 1988)
   Weaker domestically → stronger internationally

Question 37

Result of negotiations on Euratom and EEC

Answer 37

German side payments EURATOM; EEC via Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
The Common Agricultural Policy funded national farms
Preferential access for former colonies
Germany needed to reaffirm position with EU integration due to communist threat

Funds for employment and social policies (Belgium & Italy)
Promotion and protection for agriculture (CAP) (France)
Association of (former) colonies (France)

Question 38

Institutions of Euratom + EEC

Answer 38

High Authority remains. Same Court of Justice and Parliamentary Assemb.ly.
Own Council of Ministers and Commision.
QMV in both = qualified majority voting. Qualification of what counts as majority.

Question 39

EEC 4 freedoms

Answer 39

Freedom of movement of goods, persons, services and capital

Question 40

Result of Euratom

Answer 40

more technological operaiton
Facilitation of joint investments for civil use
degree of sharing uranium
joint cooperation with third parties like US

Question 41

Result of EEC

Answer 41

Customs union, transition towards single market
Freedom of movement of goods, persons, services and capital
Funds for employment and social policies
promotion and protection for agriculture
association of former colonies

Question 42

Context of Empty chair crisis 1965

Answer 42

Geopolitical context was volatile and governments were worried due to the Cold War missile crisis.
The EEC resulted in economic growth
custums union to be finalised in 1962
Work on CAP (common agricultural policy)
De Gaulle as president blocks European integration as he is a natonalist. Vetoes Uk entry to EEC twice in order to keep influence. Forces UK to accept everything France wants, which drags out negotiations.
UK + US get nuclear deal –> france says theyre not commited to European integration

Question 43

What is the Empty chair crisis

Answer 43

in 1965, de Gaulle against suprationalism of the Communities. He does not show up to meetings which means nothing gets accepted due to need for unaimity.

Question 44

Why the Empty chair crisis

Answer 44

Commission proposed a system of financing the CAP (common agricultural policy) that would have given the EEC its own financial resources. This was linked to a proposal to increase the budgetary powers of the EPA which, to de Galle, would be another supranational institution deciding on funding

Question 45

Result Empy chair crissi

Answer 45

Luxembourg compromise
Idea was to agree to disagree by maintaining national vetoes in the case of anything that counts as national interest despite QMV.
This caused CAP proposals to shut down and funding was done by national contributions.
This destroyed European integratin as governments could now spin everyting as national interest.

Question 46

Context Hague summit 1969

Answer 46

New French president Pomidou.
Gaullist but in favour of UK cooperation because he thinks it will balance out German Ostpolitik by Brandt.
Pompidou also in favour of CAP. This was to compensate the Luxenbourg compromise by widening ,completion and deepening

Question 47

Goal of Hague summit

Answer 47

Relaunch European integration after stagnation due to empty chair crisis by completion, widening and deepening

Question 48

Results of Hague summit

Answer 48

Merging of EEC, ECSC and Euratom into European Community. It were the same member states and same HA. This was done in 1968 Merger Treaties.
Here they decided on EC funding by taxes on agricultural products (CAP) and tarrifs on external products (single market) plus budgetary powers to the European Parliament.

Question 49

Widening Hague summit

Answer 49

UK, Ireland and Denmark joining the European Community

Question 50

Deepening Hague summit

Answer 50

1. Staged progress towards EMU by removing last trade barriers, economic policy coordination between members and a single currency.
   First step was to get ecnomic/monetary convergence but due to floating exchange rates due of the Bretton Woods system this failed.
   Later the snake in the tunnel (pegging currency to dollar so that European currencies move in tandem with the dollar and thus with each other).
   This failed due to the OPEC crisis
2. More cooperation on foreign policy throuch EPC (European Political Cooperation)
   and they also came up with the European Council: idea of meeting of heads from states and governments

Question 51

What is the snake (1970)

Answer 51

The European Monetary System was agreed upon as a snake. This simply meant that the different currencies within the European Community got connected.:
JUST enough to keep each other in check to not go over agreed margin.

Question 52

1980 stagnation makes progress to single market difficult/ CONTEXT OF SEA

Answer 52

Stagnation in 1980s
1. mass unemployment, especially in UK and France, led to political instability.
2. snake did not work
3. Commision proposals (harmonization) blocked (unanimity)
4. BBQ –> the British Budgetary Question

Question 53

What was the British Budgetary Question 1980

Answer 53

Thatcher’s tit for tat
1. UK imports more goods from Commonwealth, but payed more import levies to EU
2. UK has low wage taxes, high VAT (VAT determines EC contribution)

Thatcher felt that the UK was being treated unfairly in terms of funding European Communities. UK imported more goods from Commonwealth. EC was funded partly by tariffs on external goods so she felt that they mostly contributed to EC budget and only French colonies got preferential access. UK also has low wage taxes and high VAT, EC also funded by VAT. UK has small and efficient farming sector, so comparatively they got far less out of the CAP than other member states. This was solved in the Fountainebleau 1984 meeting.

Question 54

Why the SEA? (1971-1987)
EU integration Pressure from unexptected places 1980s towards a Single market:

Answer 54

economic mailaise all around

1. Judicial activism ECJ.
   The European Court of Justice has mutual recognition as principle which leads to race to the bottom.
   Product quality in other markets decreases which creates pressure on politicians due that mutual recognition undermines the idea of them heing able to block low quality products coming into their country.

EXAMP:E Cassis the Dijon decision by ECJ:
· Rewe imports French liquor, 15-20% alcohol
· German law: minimum: 25%
· ECJ: Mutual recognition as principle

2. EEC losing competiveness to US and Japan –> foreign investors dissapear
3. Convergence of preferences of big 3:
   * electoral shifts to neoliberlism in Germany and the United Kingdom
   * French socialist economic policy fails.
4. Elite alliance
   increase interest of transnational interest groups. European and American big exporters pushing for single market.
   Eruopean parliament:
   Kangaroo Club: trade to jump over borders
   Altiero Spinelli: communist turned social democrat, former commissioner and MEP
   Crocodile club (federalists) headed by Spinelli

Question 55

Ellite alliance pushing the SEA

Answer 55

Elite alliance pushing the SEA: (explanations for sudden big step)
1. Transnational interest groups
· European & American big exporters.
→ unattractive status of EEC as an economic block, while Japan had an enormous growth. US+ Japan as key-competitors.
2. European Parliament:
· Kangaroo club (liberalsà coordinated their push to a single-market ‘’hoped over regulations’)
· Altiero Spinelli: communist turned social democrat Former Commissioner & MEP
· Crocodile club (federalists) - after Spinelli later.
3. New European Commission (1985)
· President Jacques Delors Former banker turned socialist. Former Finance minister
· VP, Internal market: Lord Cockfield à Conservative but supranationalist
4. Elite alliances: business, Commission and EP
Philips, Unilever and Shell really wanted the customs union to further develop.
Window of opportunity for the Commission for smart policy
5. Side payments to smaller member states
allowed other players to adopt the SEA.

Question 56

Fountainblue summit (1984)

Answer 56

Turning point in European integration
1. Fixed the BBQ –> rebate & cuts in CAP expenditure
2. Ad hoc committee Spinelli on institutional affairs
The European Council decided to set up an ad hoc Committee consisting of personal representatives of the Heads of State or Government, on the lines of the Spaak Committee’’

3. introduction of QMV in EC

Question 57

How was SEA set up (1971-1987)

Answer 57

During IGC (intergovernment conferences) to see what was necessary to achieve a single market.
1985 the SEA was created in Luxembourg

The intention of the SEA appeared relatively modest:
* Seeking to complete the objective of a common market set out in the Treaty of Rome.
with an important role for cohesion funds.
The issue of monetary union as accompaniment to single market was not addressed at this stage of development
New European Commission –> President Jacques Delors (former banker turned socialist/ former finance minister) proposed SEA
–> Side payments in the form of cohesion funds to smaller member states.

Question 58

Why was the EMU set up/ context? ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)

Answer 58

Momentum of the SEA: there was a desire to make more happen.
Monetary issues continued. Due to continued issues with the snake, and the European Monetary System;
the European Council created in Hannover a committee: with Delor, presidents of national banks and Karl-Otto Pohl (Germany). Within this committee there was conflict between economists and monetarists → which policy becomes first monetary or economic?

In June 1989 at the European Council of Madrid Delors however managed to come up with a plan to have an Intergovernmental conference on discussion a treaty on European monetary union.

Question 59

Progress in Europe 1992/ Reasons of introducing social policy ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)

Answer 59

1. Strong pressure due to joining of Greece, Spain and Portugal
   - the stronger countreis were afraid of a race to the bottom. These countries had low production costs –> due to lack of social policies.
   - iIf you are from Spain, Portugal and Greece and you know that the northern countries you cannot compete with…
   You will ask something in return: we will take part in this
2. Strong commissioner of Social affairs
3. Delors (former banker- socialist) started social dialogue

Question 60

Monetarists versus economists ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)

Answer 60

There were to divergent camps:
* Monetarists –> start single currency and economies will converge
( France + Italy) believed that once a single currency got implemented, economies would automatically converge a
nd that central banks need political guidance.
* Economists –> economies must converge before single currency is possible
(Germany and The Netherlands) believed that economies needed to converge before a single currency could be implemented.
Central banks needed to be fully independent.

Question 61

How would the EMU get set up ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)

Answer 61

Delors report in 1989 had 3 stages:
1. Removal of remaining barriers to bring capital flow + central bank independent
2. Convergence
From snake (european monetary system) to ERM 1 to ERM 11
Stability + Growth Pact to restrict government deficit + debt
3. Euro
Opt-outs for UK, Denmark, Sweden

Question 62

Positions on EMU Germany ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)

Answer 62

Germany: used to have fear of stronger currency dissapearing and did not want to be linked to weaker economies in Europe. Due to changes in world politics such as collapse of USSR;
the chancellor Kohl (from CDU) understood the need to give up restistance and show commitment to European integration

Question 63

Postition on EMU France ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)

Answer 63

In favour. In order to benefit from single currency due to weakness of own currency at the moment and getting linked to Germany.

Question 64

Position on EMU UK ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)

Answer 64

Did not want it due to nationalism + did not want to give up their currency
Not in favour of political cooperation and just wanted the beneftis of the SEA.
one treaty too far!

Question 65

Context of/ WHY EPU ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)
European Political Union on common foreign policy.

Answer 65

European Political Union on common foreign policy.
1. The context was the collapse of Berlin Wall, leading to a process of unification of Germany –> growing fear of unbalanced Germany
2. the collapse of the USSR. (SU), his all led to political instability.
3. War on European Continent: Yugoslavia war broke out.
The question was how to deal jointly with the USSR collapse. It was a volatile period due to countries attempting to set up democracies.

Question 66

Positions on EPU European Political Union on common foreign policy. ( leading towards treaty Maastricht)

Answer 66

Germany and France –> in favour due to all changes in political system
United Kingdom –< Change of Prime Minister from Thatcher to Jajor who saw a point in foreign policy coordination due to USSR collapse.
Not in favour of a suprantional organisation, but willing to cooperate

Question 67

Maastricht Treaty

Answer 67

1992: Change from European Communities to European Union –> Maastricht temple with three pillars
Also EPU and EMU

Question 68

First pillar Maastricht temple

Answer 68

1. European Communities: (EEC, ECSC, Euratom)
   Supranational.
   Policy areas are common market
   Common Agricultural and environmental policies,
   cohesion funds and legal basis steps for EMU.
   (opts-out UK, Denmark, later Sweden)

Vothing through QMV.
Falls under co-decision which is good for powers of the Commission, EP and ECJ

Question 69

Second pillar Maastricht temple

Answer 69

2, Common Foreign & Security Policy
Foreign, security and defence policy, subjected to NATO obligations.
Intergovernmental: unanimity needed in Council and limited role Commion, EP (only consultaton) and ECJ

Question 70

Third pillar Maastricht Temple

Answer 70

3. Justice and Home Affair
   Judicial cooperation
   EU citizenship
   coordination migration and asylum policy
   intergovernmental: Unanimity in Council:limited role COM, EP (consultation), ECJ

Question 71

What is the co-decision procedure?

Answer 71

The co-decision procedure basically means that the Commision proposes and that the Parliament and the Council both have to agree. When displeased, they can place amendments, and these have to be accepted by the others.

Question 72

What is the principle of subsidiarity?

Answer 72

This principle was introduced within the Treaty of Maastricht but gained more body with the treaty of Amsterdam.
Key elements in contents:
1. introduction of EU citizenship
2. introduction of social protocol
2. EMU, CFSP, JHA +cohesion funds

Question 73

Aftermath of Maastricht Treaty

Answer 73

Politicization of European integration:
Salience (prominent)
Polarization > caring plus also divergennt opinions
Mobilization —> start voting or protesting

Big convergence problems; especially for Stability and Growth pact.
Government debt of 60% of GDP was doable but government deficit of 3% was hard to get.
Austria, Sweden and Finland join EU
Sufficient progress to move towards finalisation of EU.
Founding of European Central Bank
Greece joining European Monetary Union
Denmark referendum with low turnout and 52% no and second referendum with higher turnout and yes vote
Mitterand, French president in weak position, also does referendum. Very small yes, which weakens his position even more due to large amount of no’s.
British Euroscepticism

Question 74

Context/why Treaty of Amsterdam

Answer 74

Issues with the Maastricht Treaty:
1. legitimacy of all the reforms became at stake → ratification fears lead to modesty > how much can we do without upsetting people (national)
2. An upcoming big enlargement from 15 to 30 Member States occurred
→ too many Commissioners

Enlargement issues because a lot of countries wanted to join the EU which caused troubles with balance in QMV voting. Their economic output was way lower, lot of money going from west to east/south. No full on democracies and having all EU laws apply to them.

3. Kissinger’s problem ( issue with the 2nd pillar about security) has not been solved
   → Kissinger/ XI Jinping problem → QMV?
   (who do we call for Europe?!!!!!!!!), moving to QMV if there’s so many member states
4. Open border issues: starting in 1993 there would be no border controls anymore → led to new ways of organization. → QMV?

S. rebrenica massacre strained EU power legitimacy
Mobilisation before signing of Treaty - Integration by stealth (elitist project, below the radar of citizens/national politicians) + neoliberal agenda = protests
Trouble of presidents in big 3
→ Conclusion: the Maastricht Temple had to be rebuilt → calling for a new conference:

Question 75

Positions on Treaty of Amsterdam (CFSP)
Common Foreign & Security Policy

Answer 75

Germany + France –> in favour of cooperation to deal with struggles of collapse of USSR.
They also do not mind give away power to a common European representative.
United Kingdom does not want to give away powers
Portugal +Finland neutral: fear of not being able to stay neutral with CFSP

Question 76

Positions on Treaty of Amsterdam (JHA)
Justice of Home Affairs

Answer 76

Germany sees benefits of it since they are on the border.
France not opposed, but does not want to move things to supranational pillar to retain veto.
UK generally eurosceptical.
other countreis not a fan.

Question 77

Open method of coordination (treay amsterdam)

Answer 77

the Open Method of Coordination is party of social policy+ employment.
The OMC is about taking action without losing too much control.

Question 78

Positions on Treaty of Amsterdam considering Social Policy

Answer 78

Germany and Uk –> liberal + more competitive
–> not too keen, but do realise some politicisation would be good.
France + Nordic countries –> more in favour due to better welfare state

Question 79

Positions on Treaty of Amsterdam (Institutional reform)

Answer 79

All big countries against due to more power and otherwise power goes down.
UK in favour because it wants to get enlargement done which would mean slower integration

Question 80

Outcomes of Treaty of Amsterdam considering CFSP: common foreign & security policy

Answer 80

High representative.
Not gonna give up QMV, if there’s a group of EU countries who wanna do something together they can do it under the EU with opt-in.

Question 81

Outcomes of Treaty of Amsterdam (JHA)
Justice of Home Affairs

Answer 81

JHA stuff moved to 1st pillar; but asylum/migration will remain veto and opt-outs

Question 82

Outcomes of treaty of Amsterdam (social policy)

Answer 82

Protocol in treaty, non–binding
OMC –> naming + shaming but no enforcement

Question 83

Outcomes of Treaty of Amsterdam (institutional reform)

Answer 83

European Parliament co-decision extended
no reform on QMV/ Commission reform

Question 84

Context of why Treaty of Nice

Answer 84

Treaty that happened after disagreement on things from Amsterdam
1999 Member stats start negotiating about conditions for joining
–> gives more pressure to find solutions for issus from Amserdam Treaty.

1. Extend QMV (taxation, migration etc)
2. Fix Commission size
3. Fix European Parliament size
4. Fix Qualitative Majority Vote weighting
   5 Differentiated (flexible) integration
   –> countries energing, not ready for some parts of EU,
   being able to let countries integrate at different speed at the rest)

It looked very technical but it was about relative power and the distribution of power in the European Union. Important contradictions were France- Germany, big-versus small Member States, and intergovernmental- supranational levels.

Question 85

What is the diabolic triangle

Answer 85

Important contradictions were France- Germany, big-versus small Member States, and intergovernmental- supranational levels.
These contradictions are all about the diabolic triangle:
1. Capacity
2. National control
3. Legitimacy
A perfect balance between capacity, legitimacy of national control is attempted. It is however impossible to have an increase in all three at the same time.

Question 86

Maintenance Treaty

Answer 86

1996 Intergovernmental Conference on Maintenance Treaty:
1. More social benefits for citizens
2. improve decision-making/capacity
3. expand capacity for external action

Question 87

What is the diabolic triangle

Answer 87

Important contradictions were France- Germany, big-versus small Member States, and intergovernmental- supranational levels.
These contradictions are all about the diabolic triangle:
1. Capacity
2. National control
3. Legitimacy
A perfect balance between capacity, legitimacy of national control is attempted. It is however impossible to have an increase in all three at the same time.

Question 88

Key takeaways series of treaties

Answer 88

The series of treaties in not the point, but indicative of underlying dynamics of European integraton:
1. Insitutional battles are increasinlgy slowing integraton (diabolic triangle)
2. EU politizations is increasingly slowing integration
3. Franco-German ‘‘axis’’ increasingly under strain