Introduction:
With Europe being the epicentre of the two Great Wars of the last century, a robust arrangement of cooperation and mutual benefit was made imperative. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, an opportunity was created for the erstwhile divided Europe to once again unite under a democratic framework. On the broader geo-political scale, the rise of the United States of America as the undisputed superpower had made a case for a suitable counterbalance. The greater integration within Europe, as witnessed in the last two decades is an attempt toward this end.
European integration as it exists today is largely confined to the domain of economics. In other words, the dismantling of labour movement barriers between nations, the floating of a common currency, the adoption of common laws pertaining to trade and commerce, are all outside the purview of domestic/internal policy. To this extent, the constituent nations retain their cultural and social uniqueness, while still benefiting from new economic opportunities created within Europe. This essay will look into the advantages and challenges created by the process of integration by way of studying its various facets.
The origins of European Integration:
Given the long history of war and conflict between European nations, there emerged a need for strong commitment toward cooperation and mutual benefit. The first step toward this cooperative framework was initiated with the formation of Council of Europe and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the year 1950. An impressive 40 European nations subscribed to the resolutions carried forward in the convention. Yet, the Council of Europe remained a peripheral institution as the continent was divided in two during the Cold War. It would be another forty years for the next significant step toward integration, which came with the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989 and with it the collapse of the Soviet Union. The commitment toward amicable relations within Europe resumed with the signing of Maastricht Treaty in 1993, which was further expanded in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the year 2000. The Charter drew together “all EU-protected personal, civil, political, economic, and social rights into a single text. But it goes beyond simply restating already respected human rights by addressing specifically modern issues such as bio-ethics and protecting personal information and data”. (Nagel, 2004)
An important aspect of the integration is the common acceptance of EU law by all constituent members. With it they agree to abide by the judgments of the European Court of Justice, which will be the highest authority in resolving legal disputes. The core principles of EU law were built on the common European traditions of law and justice. As a way of making this new institution effective, all member nations have agreed that “EU law overrides national law in areas where the EU has authority and that the European Court of Justice is the final arbiter of EU law. Its complete judicial independence makes it one of the best examples of European integration”. (Rucker, 2004)
Advantages created by European Integration:
1. Free Market Economy:
At the centre of the European Integration is the acceptance of principles of free market economy by national governments. Hence, it is only on expected lines that different member states have embraced the free market ideology at varying degrees. The smaller nations of the EU have benefitted the most from the removal of barriers to trade and labour. The Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty are the key legislations pertaining to this integration of erstwhile separate national economies. These laws endeavour to decrease, if not eliminate, “national differences in fundamental policies that are viewed as common interest to the Union although there are vast differences in the social and economic structures of the members” (Favell, 2001). The application of principles of market economy across the EU has transformed the economic landscape of the entire region. A healthy state of competition exists between nations and their leading enterprises, which helps generate economic growth, boost trade, encourage investment and lift the standard of living for all European Union citizens. A classic example is the deregulation in telecommunications and air transport sectors and privatization of state-owned enterprises across the EU, which has levelled the playing field and has encouraged competition while also having positive economic implications for the citizens.
2. Opportunities for Smaller Members:
In its early days, the European Union comprised of only six nations, all of which had well-developed economies. The subsequent stages of enlargement have made the Union more diverse in terms of the social and economic status of its member states. This has conferred unprecedented opportunities for the smaller nations of the EU. Nations from the Eastern European bloc, especially, have benefitted from this integration. At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, these nations were in economic turmoil. With the adoption of democracy and free market capitalism, these nations have managed to come back from the brink, although some challenges still confront them. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice has gained a reputation for fairness and has not favoured one nation over the other in its short history. This must come as a big boost for the smaller members. For example,
“The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg, for its part, has displayed remarkable activism. EU law generally has direct effect: it becomes part of the acquis communautaire that domestic courts must enforce. The Court reviews the legal status of acts undertaken by Union institutions, supervises member-state compliance with the founding treaties and secondary Union legislation, and interprets EU law for domestic courts.The Court has strived to rise above and mitigate the inter-institutional squabbling that has so often paralyzed the EU”. (Favell, 2001)
3. Attainment of Greater Social Solidarity:
In the last two decades, the European Union underwent a rapid expansion. The confluence between the Western and Eastern blocs had seemed impossible at a time. But most of the former Communist countries have now been included in the broader EU, which has helped people across the continent progress toward peace and prosperity. It is a testament to this renewed European solidarity that the EU was able to “launch or complete daring projects such as Economic and Monetary Union and the introduction of the euro, an EU Defence and Security Policy, and the European Immigration and Asylum Policy”. (Schmidtke, 2007)
Challenges facing European Integration:
1. The Immigration Problem
The most talked about issue regarding European Integration is the issue of immigration. When the EU was initially conceived it was meant to provide a level playing field for labourers from all across the Union. But based on recent statistics and opinion polls the movement of labour across national boundaries has not been hassle-free. The problem is compounded by factors of race, origins and nativity, for “even more than indigenous Europeans, foreign-origin populations have run into barriers when trying to gain a say in the EU policy-making process” (Verdun, 2005). Furthermore,
“The distance separating immigrants from the Union and its policies, the Union’s institutional structure and the trend toward intergovernmental bargaining, the diversity of national immigration policies, and the specific actions of EU authorities have all hampered immigrant participation. A legal wedge has been driven between EU and third-country nationals, and between second-generation immigrants and their parents.” (Schmidtke, 2007)
The particular case of Britain is of importance to the discussion, given its past experience with colonialism and post-colonial immigration. The nature and complexion of immigration to the UK has undergone a radical change since the economic integration of European nations and the enacting of common European Union laws. Ever since the New Labour ascended to power under the leadership of Tony Blair, the British government has been confronted with the challenging task of pleasing its indigenous people while not affronting immigrants. If we accept the precept that public opinion is a driving force for policy changes, then the outlook for immigrants does not look promising. A survey conducted by Channel4’s Dispatches, in collaboration with YouGov titled ‘The survey for Immigration: The Inconvenient Truth’ has thrown light on some surprising facts. A majority of participants are of the view that immigrants contribute to “diluting our culture and leading to the breakdown of society” (Gillingham, 2003). More importantly, 58 percent of settled migrants are of the view that the United Kingdom is facing a ‘population crises’. Indigenous Britons are more apprehensive about the economic implication of the foreign influx believing that ‘their jobs’ are usurped by the immigrants. More than three fourths of those interviewed want stricter controls for immigration while some even stating that the government should do away with immigration altogether. The rest of the survey is consistent with this trend and there is public opposition of varying degrees to unfettered immigration into the United Kingdom. It is no surprise then that the New Labour rhetoric over the last few years has undergone a transition. From being leading promoters of ethnic and cultural diversity, the government has turned toward garnering voter support, as its attitude toward some new entrants to the EU fold shows (Verdun, 2005).
The issue of legal and illegal immigration is not just confined to Britain. Most of the Western European democracies have been equivocal their position in public rhetoric. Some political commentators have pointed out how such differential treatment of émigrés has undermined the purported economic consolidation within the European Union and made a “mockery of the ideal of free movement of labour in a united Europe” (Cohen, 2005). There is also bad news in store for Asylum-seekers, as they are denied housing and other benefits until “they have been granted leave to remain” (Cohen, 2005). As a result of this restriction, the numbers of asylum seekers who are accommodated in these countries have steadily declined in the last three years. Studies have also shown that only a small number of immigrants get accommodated in social housing schemes. Immigrants are almost always disadvantaged against the locals due to an unfair points-based system that some governments employ to allocate houses.
2. The Lack of Political Clout:
The story of European Integration so far has been largely confined to the realm of economics and commerce. Despite having a total population that is greater than that of the United States of America, having a combined GDP that is comparable to it and possessing military technology that is on par with the only global superpower, the EU remains a weak force in international diplomacy. In other words, the collective effort that’s been behind the success of EU’s economic and social solidarity, has not translated into political power. This was made evident in the days leading up to the Iraq War of 2003. Despite overwhelming opposition from most countries in the world and many of its own citizens, the two key members of the EU, namely France and Germany, could not pressurize the USA to drop the idea. In effect the USA continues to be the only global superpower, with the EU playing a marginal role in countering its authority. This imbalance of power is not healthy for world polity. And the sooner it gets remedied the better. In the matter of international politics, some of the members of the EU are caught in a dilemma between their commitment to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union. NATO continues to be a relic of the Cold War period, after which it has lost its significance. (Asselborn, 2006)
3. EU’s struggle for legitimacy:
As the key leaders within the EU grapple with addressing the aforementioned challenges, there is one other smaller challenge facing its leadership, namely that of public perception both within and outside the union. Yet, the success or failure in this area could prove to be crucial in deciding the future course of European Integration. Oliver Schmidtke elaborates this challenge thus:
“At this time, the EU faces unprecedented uncertainty regarding its political future. This uncertainty has nothing to do with the effectiveness of any of the EU’s key policies, or even the latest round of enlargement, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. Rather, the uncertainty about the future results from public perceptions. The Union is struggling with a fundamental legitimacy problem. The more ambitious its goals become (in terms of intensifying the integration of its member states into a wider political union), the more it becomes clear how much this transnational community’s legitimacy depends on a more pronounced identification of its citizens with the European cause. This was painfully evident in 2005 with the failed Dutch and French referenda on the proposed European Constitution”. (Schmidtke, 2007)
Reasons for Optimism:
Despite instances of dissent amongst its members in the last few years, the European Union as an economic force has come to stay. There are many reasons for such optimism. For example, “the setbacks of 2005 have not led to an institutional stalemate, nor have they sounded the death knell for the constitutional project, as many of its critics had predicted. Luxembourg went on to hold a successful referendum on the Constitutional Treaty only a few weeks after the French and the Dutch had rejected it, thereby clearing the way for further ratifications. Other countries have since approved the Constitutional Treaty in its current form.” (Nagel, 2004)
Moreover, the guidelines set forth in the Treaty of Nice are faithfully followed by the member states. Nor have the nations taken a backward step in challenging situations. This includes the starting of accession negotiations with Turkey, the consensus on a new budget, and the decision to send nearly 7,000 European soldiers to the UN mission in the Middle East. The referendum setback of a few years back is proving to be a blessing in disguise, for it has reignited debate and discussion about the future course of European Integration. Hence, there is every reason to be optimistic about the future prospects of the European Integration project. (Verdun, 2005)
Conclusion:
In sum, the idea of European Integration offers many advantages to its participants, provided that the challenges confronting it are adeptly handled. A level playing field for workers of varying skill levels and different nationalities is one of the promises of European Integration. While the free flow of labour across national borders has undoubtedly created prosperity for enterprising citizens, the first decade of its implementation has seen problems relating to immigration and labour exploitation as well. The European Court of Justice is one of the positive developments to have come out of European Integration process. And finally, the biggest challenge for the EU is to form a political coalition that would have the potential to veto USA’s international military interventions. But, despite these challenges, there are sound reasons for remaining optimistic about the future of European Integration and the unity and collective progress that it will bestow upon citizens across Europe.
References:
Asselborn, J. (2006). An Unwarranted Pessimism: Rethinking the European Integration Debate. Harvard International Review, 28(3), 20+.
Gillingham, J. (2003). European Integration, 1950-2003: Superstate or New Market Economy?. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Groenewegen, J. (2000). European Integration and Changing Corporate Governance Structures: The Case of France. Journal of Economic Issues, 34(2), 471.
Hansen, L. & Wæver, O. (Eds.). (2001). European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States. London: Routledge.
Kampfner, J. (2004, August 23). Politics: With a New European Commission President Who Is Keen to Show He Is No One’s Poodle, Can Tony Blair Still Secure an Advantageous Deal for Britain in Brussels?. New Statesman, 133, 6.
Nagel, K. (2004). Transcending the National / Asserting the National: How Stateless Nations like Scotland, Wales and Catalonia React to European Integration. The Australian Journal of Politics and History, 50(1), 57+.
The Principles Underlying European Integration. (2005, November/December). Foreign Policy 2+.
Rucker, M. (2004, September/October). European Integration Unplugged. Foreign Policy 60+.
Schmidtke, O. (2007). In Search of a European Identity: Towards a Genuine Political Community?. Behind the Headlines, 64(2), 9+.
Veen, A. M. (2005). 6 The Purpose of the European Union. In The Political Economy of European Integration: Theory and Analysis, Jones, E. (Ed.) (pp. 88-107). New York: Routledge.
Verdun, A. (2005). The Political Economy of European Integration: Theory and Analysis (E. Jones, Ed.). New York: Routledge.
Wilson, T. M. (2001). Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 7(3), 611.
Zahariadis, N. (2002). Rethinking European Integration in the Competition Domain: A Public Policy Approach. Policy Studies Journal, 30(2), 229+.
Cohen, N. (2005, May 20). Let Them All Come: It’s Not a Soft Touch Welfare System That Makes Britain a Magnet for Immigrants; It’s Our Need for Cheap Labour. New Statesman, 131, 22+.
Favell, A. (2001). Philosophies of Integration: Immigration and the Idea of Citizenship in France and Britain. New York: Palgrave.
Four in Five Say Britain Is Facing a Crisis over Immigration; Not This Time: UK-Bound Migrants Are Arrested at Calais. (2008, April 5). The Daily Mail (London, England), p. 12.
O’Neill, B. (2007, June 4). How Migrants Really Live: Margaret Hodge Thinks Newcomers to Britain Take Housing Which Should Go to the Indigenous Population. but There Is No Privilege in the Life of Newly Arrived Immigrants. New Statesman, 136, 28+.