How does the EU incorporate both supranational and

intergovernmental features?
Some observers (Keohane and Hoffman) question the assumption that
internationalism and supranationalism are the two extremes of the continuum.
Are the governments of member states trying to preserve their sovereignty by relating
to each other as equals, or are they transferring their sovereignty to a new supranational
organisation. In some respects the *European remains a pact among independent states, but
in other respects the balance of power has shifted to European Institutions.
According to Wikipedia The European Union or the EU is an intergovernmental and
supranational union of 25 European countries.
The Council of Ministers has no equivalent anywhere in the world. Here, the Member
States legislate for the Union, set its political objectives, coordinate their national policies and
resolve differences between themselves and with other institutions. The Council is a body with
the characteristics of both a supranational and intergovernmental organisation, deciding some
matters by qualified majority voting, and others by unanimity.

Supranationalism is a method of decision-making in international organizations, where

power is held by independent appointed officials or by representatives elected by the
legislatures or people of the member states.
Member-state governments still have power, but they must share this power with
other actors.
Furthermore, decisions are made by majority votes; hence it is possible for a member-
state to be forced by the other member-states to implement a decision against its will.
The institutions of the EU have the power to make laws and policies that are binding
on its member states and in several areas such as agriculture, the environment and
competition, where the EU has authority, and EU law is supreme, it overrides national law.
When cooperation leads to the transfer of power on this level we move into the realms of
supranationalism (McCormick)
The EU is much more than a standard IO (International Organisation) (McCormick)
Rather than being a meeting place for governments and making decisions based on
the competing interests of the member nations [the EU] a supranational organisation rises
above the individual interests of its members and makes decisions on the basis of the interest
of the whole (McCormick)
Many EU decisions are taken at supranational level in the sense that they involve the
EU institutions, to which EU countries have delegated some decision-making powers. (EU
website)
 Intergovernmentalism is a theory of decision-making in international organizations,
where power is possessed by the member-states and decisions are made by unanimity.

Independent appointees of the governments or elected representatives have solely

advisory or implementation functions.
Intergovernmentalism is used by most international organizations today.

Where governments participate in international cooperation, decision making is described as

intergovernmental (McCormick)

Membership is voluntary
The EU lacks the power to raise taxes and thus depends on contributions from
members for revenue
Some matters such as security and defence issues are decided purely by
intergovernmental agreement (i.e. agreement between the governments of the EU countries),
and not by QMV. These intergovernmental decisions are taken by ministers meeting in the
Council of the European Union, or at the highest level by the prime ministers and/or
presidents of the EU countries, meeting as the European Council. (EU website)

Is European integration leading to a federal Europe?

A federal government is one in which at least 2 levels of government, national and
local, exist.
Each level has a clearly defined and independent functions but neither is supreme
In a federal system, the government exercises power over both its constituent units
and its citizens, and there is a direct relationship between citizens and each level of
government.
Federalism usually requires separately elected national and local governments.
There is a single currency, a common defence force, a codified constitution and a
supreme court
Federal features of the EU:
It has a complex system of treaties and laws that are uniformly applicable
throughout the EU
In those policy areas which the member states have agreed to transfer
authority to the EU, EU law supersedes national law (But in non-agrees areas national law is
still supreme)
EU laws and treaties are interpreted and protected by the European Court of
Justice (ECJ)
It has a directly elected European Parliament, which has growing powers over
legislation. As their powers grow the legislature in the national states is declining.
 Although small in comparison to most national budgets, the EU budget gives
the EU institutions some financial independence
In those areas where it has been given authority, the EU government has
authority to negotiates with third parties on behalf of its member states
The EU has its own currency which has replaced the national currency of most
of its member states

If the EU was confederal the members are sovereign and the central authority is
relatively weak, existing solely at the discretion of the members and doing exactly what they
allow it to do.
The EU has several confederal qualities:
The citizens of the member states do not relate directly to most of the EU
institutions. All but the European Parliament derive their authority not from the citizens of the
member states, but from the leaders and governments and member states.
The member states still have their own separate identities. The most important
elected political leaders in the EU are still heads of government of the member states who are
not directly elected to that position
There is no generalized European tax system
There is no European military or defence system
There is no codified European constitution. Recent attempts to create one were
turned down in referendums in Denmark and France.

Subsidiarity and the EU

Subsidiarity is the idea that matters should be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest)
competent authority.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority
should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed
effectively at a more immediate or local level.
Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism.
It is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law.
According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where member states
agree that action of individual countries is insufficient. The principle was established in the
1992 Treaty of Maastricht, and is contained within the proposed new Treaty establishing a
constitution for Europe.
Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive
competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action
cannot be sufficiently achieved by the *Member States, either at central level or at regional
 and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be
better achieved at Union level.
Formally, the principle of subsidiarity applies to those areas where the Community
does not have exclusive competence, the principle delineating those areas where the
Community should and should not act.
In practice, the concept is frequently used in a more informal manner in discussions as
to which competences should be given to the Community, and which retained for the Member
States alone.

Is the EU an economic giant but a political dwarf?

Politically Weak
Although in 1957 the Treaties of Rome were signed promising a common political and
economic market, they set up the EEC (European Economic Community), the name of which
hints that the main objective was to improve the European Economy.
In 1991 the Maastricht Treaty was signed creating the European Union, and the first
real step to improving the European Union's political function. This important step towards a
stronger European political community came 40 years after the setting up of the ECSC to
create a stronger European economy, and so it is not surprising that there are worries that
'Europe is an economic superpower but a political dwarf'.
The recent failure of the proposed European constitution seems to yet again reflect the
political weakness of the European Union.
The French (and consequent Dutch) no vote shows that the European Union is
politically unstable.
The French 'No' vote was considered a "real crisis" (Paul Reynolds, BBC) and even
though the European Union consists of many countries, it only took one negative vote on the
constitution by the people of one country, for 'the future direction of the European Union [to
be thrown] into doubt.' (Paul Reynolds).
One of the major factors contributing to the political failings of the European Union is
the conflicting aims of the member states. Franco-British confrontations over what the
European Union should be deter any political developments.
Britain aims for 'a free trade zone and economic union with little political integration'
(Lithuania's Lietuvos Rytas, via BBC), a stance which is supported by various European
countries like Lithuania and Latvia. *Conversely France aims for a strong political and
economic union, according to Caroline Wyatt at the BBC; 'French politicians have long seen the
European Union as a deeply political project'. This vision is strongly supported by Germany,
Luxembourg and Belgium.
These conflicting objectives do little to help the European Union politically, as one side
wants a political union and the other doesn't. The result is a week political union with limited
powers, and a democratic deficit.
 Economically Strong
The European Union's roots are in the creation of a European common market.
The first step towards a united Europe was in 1948 when the Benelux (Belgium,
Netherlands and Luxembourg) Customs Union was established.
In 1952 the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) was created by Benelux,
France, Germany and Italy.
The ECSC, founded with the aim of establishing a common market, had a
supranational structure, and it is most likely that the idea that Europe was economically strong
and politically weak began here, as industries had powers above that of individual nations'
governments.
The European Union's share of the world's total trade in services is greater by a fifth to
that of the United States', and is more than 3 times larger than that of Japan's.
Also the purchasing power parity (The purchasing power parity measures how much a
currency can buy in terms of an international measure, since goods and services have different
prices in some countries than in others. purchasing power parity exchange rates are used in
international comparisons of standard of living.) of Europe is $10,840 billion which is higher
than that of the United States ($10,400 billion), Japan ($3,550 billion), or any country in the
world.

Not Economically Strong

However, many statistics also support the claim that the European Union isn't an
economic superpower. If you compare the purchasing power parity per capita of the world's
countries, the United States is far ahead of any other country with $37,000. Europe comes
third to Canada, but has no distinct lead over *Japan, and Germany, France, United Kingdom
and Italy aren't much lower.
Moreover, since 1997 the United States has had a greater GDP than the European
Union, and the margin between the two countries grew between 1997 and 2001 by 2.4 trillion
euros, an amount which even before 1997 the European Union had never had over the United
States.
If you then compare the GDP per capita in 2001, it is clear that the United States is far
richer than the European Union, as the United States has 39,023.5 per capita, and the
European Union has a mere 23,360.7 per capita, an amount which is beaten by the United
Kingdom's 26,641.6 per capita, and it is true to say that the United Kingdom, although rich,
is not considered an economic superpower.
When one looks into the motives behind the no-votes, 'both in France and the
Netherlands, economic weakness was a major factor in popular disillusionment.' (Lord William
Wallace, the World Today).
In France, a founding member of the European Union and a country which is supposed
to be extremely pro-European, the constitution was greeted with a strong 'non' campaign.
 Although there were various reasons for the negative result on the referendum, including
rebellion against French President Jacques Chirac, Lord William Wallace claims that the main
motive behind the resounding no vote is that the proposed liberalisation of European Union
services, which was used to symbolise the threat to employment in a country where 11% are
already unemployed, double the amount unemployed in the United Kingdom.
In the Netherlands, also a founding member of the European Union, 'economic
grievances focused around the Dutch contribution to the EU budget, now the highest per
head.' (Lord William Wallace)
Problems over the contribution to the European Union budget have regularly arisen
during the lifetime of the European Union. "The Single European Act. Followed Franco-British
confrontation over budget contributions" (Lord William Wallace) and even now the rebate
given to the United Kingdom due to our excessive contributions to the budget is a hotly
debated topic.

As previously mentioned France has 11% unemployed. Figures like this are reflected
all over Europe. In Germany the national level of unemployment is also 11%, moreover some
regions, especially the East, have unemployment levels of over 20%.
In Italy 'economic problems have just contributed to the collapse of its government'
(Ben Richardson, BBC). These are supposed to be the better off West European countries, yet
they are economically weak compared with the USA where unemployment is at 5.3% and in
Japan where the rate is 4.5%.
In fact the unemployment rate for the whole European area is a terrible 8.6%.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, GDP
growth among the 12 countries that use the Euro as their common currency, was only 2.5% in
the last quarter, whereas in America the GDP growth was 3.4%. This begs the question of
what will happen when the proposed Eastern European countries join the EU, as these
countries are economically weaker than the West.
From these figures it is hard to believe that Europe could be alleged to be an economic
superpower, as 'Europe's economic performance has left much to be desired in recent years'
(Pennsylvania University), and it is unlikely that Europe's performance will improve with the
joining of Eastern European countries like Turkey, with unemployment rates of 10% plus
underemployment rates of 4%, and 18% of the population below the poverty line.

What are the attitudes to, and problems of, enlargement?

=Duncan Watts
Expansion is an important topic because the European Union has to fulfil and reconcile
two requirements:
1. It must unhesitatingly and in accordance with article 237 confirm its openness
to new applications
2. It must take care to strengthen its own structures sufficiently to maintain the
momentum of its own integration.
Germany believes in enlargement , but would like to see the more economically
advanced countries such as the Czech Republic and Slovenia come in first
France has been uneasy about the prospect of having first and second class applicants
France fears that the strength of the inner core of the Community might be sapped by
too wide an expansion which allowed in poorer eastern countries.
Union policies such as the CAP are likely to be placed under heavy strain with the
arrival of new members, which are likely to be a drain on funds.
Polands, the largest of the would-be members, large farming sector could pose the
greatest problems for the overstretched EU agricultural and development budget.
Mitterrand also recognised that in a broader Europe, French influence would be
diminished, so that he placed the emphasis of deeper political integration before expansion.
Britain likes the idea of extending deregulated trading areas, and welcomes the fact
that the new democracies see free-market solutions as being British driven. Also enlargement
to the east might make it possible to slow the pace of integration in the West.
Britain believes that enlargement will make concentration on economic rather political
issues more likely.
As there has been difficulty in agreeing what powers the institutions of the Union
should be allocated already, the problem is likely to be aggravated in an enlarged grouping.
Expansion could make QMV becomes even more necessary
Some would argue that rapid expansion makes it inevitable that the Union will have to
develop into a more federal structure at some point in the future. Such an arrangement would
provide a central body to take major decisions on a limited range of economic, political and
security policies, whilst leaving other matters to be handled on a national level.
Just as the accession of Greece, Portugal and Spain had an impact on the character of
the Community, by increasing the number of less prosperous and more agrarian economies,
so too will the addition of further new members have a decisive effect.
Allowing the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to play their part in the
institutions of Europe will encourage them in their attempts at economic and political reform
and conducted at an appropriate pace will help to promote stability on the continent. It will
also create a larger market for Union produce.
Not to assist them would mean the emergence on EU borders of an economically
depressed and marginalised region, with shrinking markets and mass unemployment. This
would do little for the prosperity and security of the Union.