New Pattern of Integration Through Governmental Coordination: European Perspective
The beginning of the European Union was with the coalition of six nations (namely France, Germany, Italia, Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg) who entered into a treaty back in the year 1951 to determine the ECU Coal and Steel Community. The next signed treaty was in the year 1957 to determine the ECU Economic Community. The Coal and Steel Community were also built with a firmer incentive to improve political stance as oppoed to the economic goals: to attain a peace settlement mainly between the countries of France and Germany. The treaty creating the ECU Economic Community was more motivated towards the achievement of the economic objectives, on the other hand, but had strong political stance as well. It basically aimed to determine a typical or single market by which goods, capital, services, amongst other things could move freely inside the European Community. Additionally, the treaty also aimed to attain "ever closer union" between all of the member states and the masses from within the European Community (Wim Kok, 2004).
To be able to exceed a customs union and go ahead and take steps essentially to eradicate nontariff, behind-the-border obstacles towards the free movement of capital, services, amongst other things was the reason that the member states decided to share sovereignty or national authority in a few policy areas. Only in so doing could they lock themselves right into a lengthy-term procedure for market integration depending on treaty commitments and requirements, joint sovereignty, and also the rule of the new format of worldwide law. Government authorities weren't passionate about discussing sovereignty but appreciated it at their national interests to form a national ruling group like the European Union. There were quite a few member states that were not willing to handing over authority in a few policy areas unreservedly towards the supranational European Commission, which is why they maintained considerable national control with the Council of Ministers, a vital EU making decisions body. Additionally they decided to begin a parliament to improve the democratic authenticity from the Community (Wim Kok, 2004).
Tension between the general state-to-state associations (also known as intergovernmentalism) and the topic of national integration or sovereignty (also known as supranationality) have been two aspects that have permeated and dominated most of the responsibilities of EU from its inception. Yet, both these concepts aren't conflicting in nature as they more often than not complement each other instead of creating hindrances within the day-to-day procedures from the EU. On the other hand, it is important to note here that the association of the two concepts hasn't continued to be static with the passage of time either. The Commission has been capable of attaining additional supranational authority over time, nevertheless its influence within the EU system has had its ups and downs over the years; however, in the past decade, the pattern has been one where the authority is fading more strongly than (Wim Kok, 2004).
In many policy areas local government administrators are prepared to be outvoted within the Council, but the elected representatives in the EU structure rarely pass a bill when confronted with strong national resistance, especially from large member states. The fact of the matter is that the EU cannot force integration policies on the states unless they agree with the integration structure first. This has been the key behind its early successful integration initiatives. The ECU Council, a strong and dominant entity composed of national leaders and also the Commission leader, is easily the most effective body within the EU today. The ECU Parliament is increasingly more influential, yet its people are motivated by national, in addition to supranational, factors (Wim Kok, 2004).
The membership and also the policy scope from the EU have elevated significantly from the initial structure in the 1950s because of altering political and economic conditions in Europe and beyond (Table 1). Some of these structural changes are listed below:
1951 saw the formation of the Coal and Steal Community
1957 was the year when the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community were formed
The Common Agricultural Policies were structured in 1962
The most important policy making structure was formed in 1970 when the European Political Cooperation was formed to ensure the integration of the foreign policy
The formation of the European Monetary System was the next significant policy structured formulated in 1979
The year 1986 was by far the most important year in terms of sustainable policies. This was the year that the Single European Act was launched whereby the single-market project surfaced. This project allowed the integration to expand into the domains of policymaking for the environment, economy, social structure, research and technology.
The year 1992 saw the coalition of the European Political Cooperation with the Common Foreign and Security Policy to establish an intergovernmental structure that focuses on the justice and internal security of the member states
The Treaty of Amsterdam was signed in 1997 which further extended the penetration of EU in handling the justice and internal security of the member states
The Convention on the Future of Europe began in the year 2002
The next significant move made in EU was the signing of the Constitutional Treat in 2004
Sometimes the rise in policy scope continues to be incremental, in other cases member states discussed treaty changes to be able to refresh European integration or expand the remit from the EU into currently important policy areas. Every time they transformed the treaties to broaden a policy scope from the EU, member states also changed the EU's institutional plans. This was done to primarily enhance the efficiency and democratic authenticity (two objectives which are frequently hard to reconcile) (Dinan, 2005).
It is fairly apparent that the expansion of functions is directly proportional to the increase in membership instead of being contradictory. Sometimes expanding the functions has attracted new member states for instance, completing the single-market project within the late eighties and early the nineteen nineties were built with an effective magnetic impact on Austria, Finland, Norwegian and Sweden. Sometimes it has worked the other way round i.e. enlargement or increase in member states has forced EU to increase the functions of the Commission for instance, the imminent accession from the Central and Eastern European nations in early 2000s spurred member states to accentuate integration in the region of justice and home matters mostly to improve (immigration facilities as well as internal security) (Wim Kok, 2004).
Omnipresence of the European Union
A first-time flier or customer to Europe would soon understand that something known as the European Union (EU) exists but may not decipher precisely what it is (Dinan, 2005).
Signs in the airport terminal within an EU member condition (undoubtedly nearly all European states) would guide the customer in to the "Non-EU" customer services line for security inspection by the local immigration officials (you will find no EU immigration officials). Once the customer needs to change money, he will notice that in twelve from the EU's twenty-five member states he would get euro currency however in other remaining member states he would get the national currency only (Dinan, 2005).
Traveling round the country, the customer would begin to see the distinctive EU flag, which is basically 'a circle of twelve gold stars' set against an in-depth blue background, conspicuously displayed everywhere. Within the regions where EU's presence is limited, the customer would still be able to notice signs embellished using the EU flag, happily stating that various infrastructural projects were being funded simply through the EU. Remaining inside the territory that is primarily dominated by the EU standards and principles, the customer would have the ability to travel unimpeded across some, although not all, national edges (Dinan, 2005).
An inquisitive and discerning customer would uncover that all national political systems prevalent in the country perform well within the principles outlined by the EU, but that there's a complementary political system dedicated to each city. It is important to note here that Brussels serves as the headquarters for the European Union and hence is more than just the political capital of Belgium. National government authorities, parliaments, courts, along with other departments take part in the entire EU system, just like distinct EU establishments like the European Commission and also the European Parliament. Further inquiry would demonstrate that an intricate system of EU governance produces rules and principles covering a number of policy areas varying from agriculture to antitrust, the atmosphere, immigration, and worldwide development. The customer, who has flown in for the first time into Europe, would soon understand that there's considerable variation of the usefulness and practical application of the EU policy between the different member states (Dinan, 2005).
Why, the customer might request, does this kind of elaborate system exist? The answer, basically, is coded in the reaction to the national governments' efforts to improve their own states' security, financial growth, investment and economic well-being in a progressively co-dependent and aggressive global market and atmosphere.…