Ron Wagner + 649 December 2, 2023 (edited) https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/building-blocks/european-union-worlds-biggest-sovereignty BUILDING BLOCKS The European Union: The World’s Biggest Sovereignty Experiment Countries fight to protect their sovereignty. So why would they willingly give it up? Last Updated February 14, 2023 Pro-Brexit supporters gather in London, England, as the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union on January 31, 2020. Source: Jenny Matthews/In Pictures via Getty Images SHARE Teaching Resources—Building Blocks: Introduction (including lesson plan with slides)Higher Education Discussion Guide In the summer of 2016, bright red buses drove around the United Kingdom (UK), bearing a four-word slogan: “Let’s take back control.” The message aimed to rally support for the UK to leave the European Union (EU). Control, to the “Leave” campaign, meant the power to manage Britain’s own borders, health-care spending, and defense. Put simply, the slogan urged a restoration of sovereignty, and it worked: to the surprise of many, the UK narrowly voted for a so-called Brexit. The Value of Sovereignty—and of Giving It Up Sovereignty is considered to be a country’s fundamental principle. It means that countries get to control what happens within their borders and establishes the norm that they can’t interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs. When a country is recognized as sovereign, it can create its own laws, political infrastructure, education and health-care systems, and religious and social norms. In theory, sovereignty provides countries with an equal playing field, protecting countries from being invaded or controlled by other, stronger ones. While the concept is perfectly clear in the abstract, sovereignty in practice has never been respected quite so cleanly: countries violate each other’s sovereignty all the time, as illustrated in this module. But, less intuitively, countries also voluntarily give up a certain degree of their sovereignty. When countries enter into international treaties and join international organizations, they agree to forfeit their right to set their own rules and instead delegate specific powers to those bodies in return for the benefits of international cooperation. In international rulemaking organizations, like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization (WTO), countries are not always the ultimate decision-makers. They have agreed that, in certain cases, international rules on trade, the use of force, arms control, or human rights will dictate (or at least guide) their actions. Ceding a measure of sovereignty has precedent. But no organization has gone as far as the EU, a collection of European countries that have pooled their sovereignty to a great extent and handed certain powers over to a supranational authority. The EU represents an unparalleled experiment in balancing national and collective interests. A Brief History of European Integration After World War II, global powers created multiple organizations, in hopes of preventing another devastating conflict. These institutions and agreements included the United Nations, to create a peaceful form for dialogue and reduce the risk of war; the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which later became the WTO), to promote international trade by creating clear trade rules; and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to ensure international financial and monetary stability. Attempts at international cooperation had failed in the past: after World War I, the League of Nations (forerunner to the United Nations) fizzled out, in part because the United States, wary of foreign entanglements, refused to join. One world war later, leaders knew that for these efforts to work—to have legitimacy and authority—countries would have to grant these bodies certain powers, effectively giving up some of their own sovereignty. If the WTO concludes that a country violated trade rules, the infraction can result in fines. And if the United Nations believes a country is flouting international law, the Security Council can impose sanctions or even authorize the use of military force. However, Europe, the place of origin of both world wars, took the idea of international cooperation a step further. Countries decided to pool their sovereignty within a regional body with supranational characteristics. A European project, one that would bind countries in a political and economic union, was put in motion shortly after World War II with the goal of ensuring peace in the region—especially between France and Germany, whose rivalry was central to both world wars. In the early 1950s, European leaders regarded strong national interests with suspicion. The French diplomat Jean Monnet, who is considered the architect of European integration, believed his approach—building European interdependence—was the way to reconstruct the continent. Rather than promoting French interests or German interests, he advocated advancing a European agenda that would allow the continent at last to transcend the bloody rivalries that had brought such destruction. Central to his thinking was to link the economies of Germany and France so that war between them would become unthinkable. In his vision, a supranational body would craft laws for the benefit of all European countries, just as the U.S. government creates laws that are supposed to be for the good of all its states. The more policies European countries coordinated, the more each member would come to depend on the success of its neighbors, and the stronger, and safer, Europe would be. Monnet envisioned a United States of Europe, much like the United States of America. This increase in coordination is sometimes described as the bicycle theory of European integration. Just as a cyclist requires momentum, so too would Europe rely on ever-closer cooperation to propel it. Without cooperation, the whole endeavor could topple. But this model had its detractors, notably French President Charles de Gaulle, who rejected the idea of an eventual European—rather than French—identity and agenda. In his view, a “United Europe of States,” one in which national governments remained distinct, was the better way forward. He succeeded in imposing some limits on the organization’s power, like requiring unanimous votes on a number of decisions, which prevented a supranational body from having final say over the objections of any one member country. The first incarnation of this European project, born in 1951, was limited geographically to just six countries and administratively to the removal of trade barriers in the coal and steel industries. However, while it teetered at times, European integration did pedal forward. The organization that morphed into the EU added member countries as its mission expanded over the decades. In 1992, it officially began laying the groundwork for a single currency (the euro), requiring the EU to coordinate more closely than ever. But debates still rage over the direction of European integration—what’s called sovereignty-sharing or, in reality, sovereignty-ceding—as some European leaders decry the EU’s overreach on their national affairs while others lament the EU’s limited ability to hold members accountable on issues such as budget deficits and undemocratic domestic legislation. What Is the EU Today? As of 2020, the EU has twenty-seven member countries and works to ensure that workers, goods, capital, and services can move freely within its borders. These are known as the four freedoms. Source: European Parliament. SHARE To that effect, the EU operates a single market (an economic zone designed to function with one set of regulations and no internal trade barriers), controls a visa-free area called the Schengen zone, coordinates labor laws to make working in other countries relatively seamless, and negotiates trade deals as a bloc, giving European countries more leverage when working with bigger economies. In practical terms, it is because of the EU that a German citizen can commute to work in the Netherlands and that goods can travel over country borders as if they were moving inside a country. A train ride from Vienna to Paris requires no passport or currency exchange. Products developed in Estonia adhere to the same rules as ones developed in Spain, and an Estonian company can easily sell in Spanish stores. To govern all of this activity, the EU operates institutions that have varying jurisdiction over certain policy areas. Monetary policy, trade, and fishing, for example, are exclusively under the control of the EU, and the European Court of Justice sets precedent for national judicial systems. Decisions over defense and security are shared between the EU and national governments–for example, the EU has collectively imposed sanctions in Russia in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Meanwhile in health care, education, and tourism, the EU merely supports national governments through funding or by setting guidelines. What Do EU Members Get Out of This Arrangement? EU member countries contribute to the EU budget, comply with EU laws, and vote to elect officials to its institutions. Why cede—or, to use the EU’s term, “pool”—sovereignty in this way? By cooperating closely and establishing some supranational policies, countries in the EU enjoy economic, political, and security benefits. Economic benefits Goods and services are cheaper when border controls are eliminated, trade barriers are lifted, and only one set of regulations must be met. A 2019 study found that the average EU citizen is 840 euros richer per year as the result of the single market. Nineteen countries in the EU use a single currency, the euro, which encourages tourism and makes it cheaper for poorer countries to borrow money, as they don’t need to account for exchange rate fluctuations. From a financial perspective, EU membership particularly benefits poorer countries, where the EU provides significant funding for public investment projects, including those that improve childcare options, increase internet access, and create jobs. Across the continent, the EU also provides agricultural subsidies, amounting to approximately $65 billion each year, that keep many European farmers afloat. Continued below. Political benefits EU countries gain political leverage by banding together. As the second-largest economy in the world, the EU negotiates better trade deals than a European country could if it were acting alone. In doing so, the EU helps create global standards. Countries that want to enter into trade deals with the valuable bloc often have to abide by strict regulations on data privacy, emissions standards, and human rights. Security benefits The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), another post–World War II initiative, binds the United States, Canada, and much of Europe in the world’s largest security alliance. But a defense agreement is also baked into EU membership: members are required to provide aid and assistance when another member asks, although countries with long-standing traditions of neutrality, like Ireland or Sweden, can get exemptions. The EU has entered into a debate over whether it should continue to rely on the United States for its security, or become more self-dependent—a concept referred to as strategic autonomy. Many smaller countries with unfriendly neighbors have rallied for ramped-up EU defense efforts. For instance, the EU introduced a military mobility initiative that allowed the union to quickly move troops and equipment across Europe to protect eastern European countries from Russian invasion following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Drawbacks of Ceding Sovereignty Despite its collective benefits, power-sharing can be a divisive endeavor, as the 2016 Brexit vote made clear. Several countries in Europe, such as Norway and Switzerland, have chosen not to join the EU (though they have coordinated in some policy areas, such as trade and travel). Some existing members, like Hungary, are deeply critical of it. The downsides affect member countries differently. Hazards of Economic Interdependence With economic benefits come risks. The nineteen countries that use the euro are bound to the same monetary rules. However, such close economic integration does not mean those nineteen national governments have the same political priorities, and it has proved difficult to create rules that work well for all economies. It also means that one tanking economy can bring down the entire union or at least amplify the effects of an economic downturn. In 2010, this scenario played out in the so-called eurozone crisis, when Greece’s cratering economy threatened the economic stability of much of the EU. When One Country Becomes Too Powerful Certain countries will always be more powerful than others, but sovereignty is supposed to be an equalizer. It prevents strong countries from changing the borders of their weak neighbors or meddling in their domestic politics and law (with specific exceptions). In the EU, countries cede some of the powers that sovereignty is designed to protect—national budget–making, monetary policy, and immigration and work authorization laws. Countries do so to reap the benefits discussed above and because they trust that the EU will use those powers to serve the interests of all members. But when one EU country exerts too much influence, it can set the bloc’s agenda to serve its own national interest more than that of the collective. Germany, the EU’s richest and most populous country, is considered to be the bloc’s most influential member; its longtime leader Angela Merkel is sometimes referred to as the chancellor of Europe. In 2015, more than one million migrants entered Europe, in the largest influx of people since World War II. In the midst of this migration crisis, Germany agreed to take in thousands of refugees and expected that other EU countries would do so as well. When some refused, Germany enlisted the EU to introduce quotas to force countries to accept refugees. This demand—eventually dropped after years of EU deadlock on migration issues—prompted countries like Hungary to accuse Germany of attempting to impose its national policies upon the entire bloc. When Sovereignty-Sharing and National Identity Struggle to Coexist In addition to its simple, primal slogan, the red Brexit bus advertised an eyebrow-raising claim: “We send the EU £350 million a week,” it read. “Let’s fund the NHS,” referring to the UK’s widely beloved health-care system. Fact-checkers later debunked the £350 million claim, but many people easily accepted it as true, because it fit with their belief that EU membership necessarily came at the expense of domestic programs—and national identity. To some critics, Brussels, where the executive branch of the EU is headquartered, evokes a nanny state—an overbearing authority that encroaches on sovereignty. Some still cling to the pervasive myths—essentially misinterpretations—like the EU forces Italians to make mozzarella from powdered milk or that it nitpicked on the name of a British snack mix. These complaints, though trivial, reflect larger questions about the balance of power between the EU and national governments. In the 1950s, fiercely protecting national sovereignty was often considered distasteful compared to achieving regional peace. But recently this balance has undergone intense scrutiny. In the last several years, some politicians have gained traction—and votes—across Europe by pitting people against the EU elite. These messages have resonated in countries like Greece, where people mobilized against the EU’s demands to balance its budget; in Hungary, where leaders have rejected the EU’s migration quotas; and in Poland, where the far-right government has dismissed EU criticism of the country’s crackdown on the independence of its courts. Where Is the EU Headed? The EU’s challenges are far from settled. Some are old: grouping countries with different financial, cultural, and geographic realities has inherent difficulties. Others are new: the UK’s exit dealt a harsh blow to the bloc. Some experts feared the departure—the first in EU history—would make the institution seem like a hotel that countries could check in or out of at will. But the fact that the UK’s departure took years of difficult negotiations (and agreements on post-Brexit trade and travel relations have yet to be made) has also revealed just how interconnected Europe has become. In the midst of the coronavirus crisis, the EU announced a $2 trillion stimulus plan to help the region’s economies recover. With the support of powerful members, including Germany and France, the massive package would knit the EU together even more tightly. The EU stands alone as a sovereignty-pooling organization. No other region in the world operates such an ambitious endeavor. Indeed, while some international organizations have been unable to evolve as the world changes (e.g., the WTO has not agreed on comprehensive new trade rules since 1995), the EU has forged ahead, adding members and continuing to mostly deliver on its original promise: an enduring peace on the continent. Edited December 2, 2023 by Ron Wagner 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Smee + 13 SS December 2, 2023 The EU, ever expanding to drive wages into the ground. It worked when Western and southern Europe were part of it. The rest should have only been allowed to join when their gdp grew. Eastern Europe just suffers brain drain to the west. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,489 December 2, 2023 3 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said: https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/building-blocks/european-union-worlds-biggest-sovereignty BUILDING BLOCKS The European Union: The World’s Biggest Sovereignty Experiment Countries fight to protect their sovereignty. So why would they willingly give it up? Last Updated February 14, 2023 Pro-Brexit supporters gather in London, England, as the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union on January 31, 2020. Source: Jenny Matthews/In Pictures via Getty Images SHARE Teaching Resources—Building Blocks: Introduction (including lesson plan with slides)Higher Education Discussion Guide In the summer of 2016, bright red buses drove around the United Kingdom (UK), bearing a four-word slogan: “Let’s take back control.” The message aimed to rally support for the UK to leave the European Union (EU). Control, to the “Leave” campaign, meant the power to manage Britain’s own borders, health-care spending, and defense. Put simply, the slogan urged a restoration of sovereignty, and it worked: to the surprise of many, the UK narrowly voted for a so-called Brexit. The Value of Sovereignty—and of Giving It Up Sovereignty is considered to be a country’s fundamental principle. It means that countries get to control what happens within their borders and establishes the norm that they can’t interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs. When a country is recognized as sovereign, it can create its own laws, political infrastructure, education and health-care systems, and religious and social norms. In theory, sovereignty provides countries with an equal playing field, protecting countries from being invaded or controlled by other, stronger ones. While the concept is perfectly clear in the abstract, sovereignty in practice has never been respected quite so cleanly: countries violate each other’s sovereignty all the time, as illustrated in this module. But, less intuitively, countries also voluntarily give up a certain degree of their sovereignty. When countries enter into international treaties and join international organizations, they agree to forfeit their right to set their own rules and instead delegate specific powers to those bodies in return for the benefits of international cooperation. In international rulemaking organizations, like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization (WTO), countries are not always the ultimate decision-makers. They have agreed that, in certain cases, international rules on trade, the use of force, arms control, or human rights will dictate (or at least guide) their actions. Ceding a measure of sovereignty has precedent. But no organization has gone as far as the EU, a collection of European countries that have pooled their sovereignty to a great extent and handed certain powers over to a supranational authority. The EU represents an unparalleled experiment in balancing national and collective interests. A Brief History of European Integration After World War II, global powers created multiple organizations, in hopes of preventing another devastating conflict. These institutions and agreements included the United Nations, to create a peaceful form for dialogue and reduce the risk of war; the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which later became the WTO), to promote international trade by creating clear trade rules; and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to ensure international financial and monetary stability. Attempts at international cooperation had failed in the past: after World War I, the League of Nations (forerunner to the United Nations) fizzled out, in part because the United States, wary of foreign entanglements, refused to join. One world war later, leaders knew that for these efforts to work—to have legitimacy and authority—countries would have to grant these bodies certain powers, effectively giving up some of their own sovereignty. If the WTO concludes that a country violated trade rules, the infraction can result in fines. And if the United Nations believes a country is flouting international law, the Security Council can impose sanctions or even authorize the use of military force. However, Europe, the place of origin of both world wars, took the idea of international cooperation a step further. Countries decided to pool their sovereignty within a regional body with supranational characteristics. A European project, one that would bind countries in a political and economic union, was put in motion shortly after World War II with the goal of ensuring peace in the region—especially between France and Germany, whose rivalry was central to both world wars. In the early 1950s, European leaders regarded strong national interests with suspicion. The French diplomat Jean Monnet, who is considered the architect of European integration, believed his approach—building European interdependence—was the way to reconstruct the continent. Rather than promoting French interests or German interests, he advocated advancing a European agenda that would allow the continent at last to transcend the bloody rivalries that had brought such destruction. Central to his thinking was to link the economies of Germany and France so that war between them would become unthinkable. In his vision, a supranational body would craft laws for the benefit of all European countries, just as the U.S. government creates laws that are supposed to be for the good of all its states. The more policies European countries coordinated, the more each member would come to depend on the success of its neighbors, and the stronger, and safer, Europe would be. Monnet envisioned a United States of Europe, much like the United States of America. This increase in coordination is sometimes described as the bicycle theory of European integration. Just as a cyclist requires momentum, so too would Europe rely on ever-closer cooperation to propel it. Without cooperation, the whole endeavor could topple. But this model had its detractors, notably French President Charles de Gaulle, who rejected the idea of an eventual European—rather than French—identity and agenda. In his view, a “United Europe of States,” one in which national governments remained distinct, was the better way forward. He succeeded in imposing some limits on the organization’s power, like requiring unanimous votes on a number of decisions, which prevented a supranational body from having final say over the objections of any one member country. The first incarnation of this European project, born in 1951, was limited geographically to just six countries and administratively to the removal of trade barriers in the coal and steel industries. However, while it teetered at times, European integration did pedal forward. The organization that morphed into the EU added member countries as its mission expanded over the decades. In 1992, it officially began laying the groundwork for a single currency (the euro), requiring the EU to coordinate more closely than ever. But debates still rage over the direction of European integration—what’s called sovereignty-sharing or, in reality, sovereignty-ceding—as some European leaders decry the EU’s overreach on their national affairs while others lament the EU’s limited ability to hold members accountable on issues such as budget deficits and undemocratic domestic legislation. What Is the EU Today? As of 2020, the EU has twenty-seven member countries and works to ensure that workers, goods, capital, and services can move freely within its borders. These are known as the four freedoms. Source: European Parliament. SHARE To that effect, the EU operates a single market (an economic zone designed to function with one set of regulations and no internal trade barriers), controls a visa-free area called the Schengen zone, coordinates labor laws to make working in other countries relatively seamless, and negotiates trade deals as a bloc, giving European countries more leverage when working with bigger economies. In practical terms, it is because of the EU that a German citizen can commute to work in the Netherlands and that goods can travel over country borders as if they were moving inside a country. A train ride from Vienna to Paris requires no passport or currency exchange. Products developed in Estonia adhere to the same rules as ones developed in Spain, and an Estonian company can easily sell in Spanish stores. To govern all of this activity, the EU operates institutions that have varying jurisdiction over certain policy areas. Monetary policy, trade, and fishing, for example, are exclusively under the control of the EU, and the European Court of Justice sets precedent for national judicial systems. Decisions over defense and security are shared between the EU and national governments–for example, the EU has collectively imposed sanctions in Russia in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Meanwhile in health care, education, and tourism, the EU merely supports national governments through funding or by setting guidelines. What Do EU Members Get Out of This Arrangement? EU member countries contribute to the EU budget, comply with EU laws, and vote to elect officials to its institutions. Why cede—or, to use the EU’s term, “pool”—sovereignty in this way? By cooperating closely and establishing some supranational policies, countries in the EU enjoy economic, political, and security benefits. Economic benefits Goods and services are cheaper when border controls are eliminated, trade barriers are lifted, and only one set of regulations must be met. A 2019 study found that the average EU citizen is 840 euros richer per year as the result of the single market. Nineteen countries in the EU use a single currency, the euro, which encourages tourism and makes it cheaper for poorer countries to borrow money, as they don’t need to account for exchange rate fluctuations. From a financial perspective, EU membership particularly benefits poorer countries, where the EU provides significant funding for public investment projects, including those that improve childcare options, increase internet access, and create jobs. Across the continent, the EU also provides agricultural subsidies, amounting to approximately $65 billion each year, that keep many European farmers afloat. Political benefits EU countries gain political leverage by banding together. As the second-largest economy in the world, the EU negotiates better trade deals than a European country could if it were acting alone. In doing so, the EU helps create global standards. Countries that want to enter into trade deals with the valuable bloc often have to abide by strict regulations on data privacy, emissions standards, and human rights. Security benefits The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), another post–World War II initiative, binds the United States, Canada, and much of Europe in the world’s largest security alliance. But a defense agreement is also baked into EU membership: members are required to provide aid and assistance when another member asks, although countries with long-standing traditions of neutrality, like Ireland or Sweden, can get exemptions. The EU has entered into a debate over whether it should continue to rely on the United States for its security, or become more self-dependent—a concept referred to as strategic autonomy. Many smaller countries with unfriendly neighbors have rallied for ramped-up EU defense efforts. For instance, the EU introduced a military mobility initiative that allowed the union to quickly move troops and equipment across Europe to protect eastern European countries from Russian invasion following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Drawbacks of Ceding Sovereignty Despite its collective benefits, power-sharing can be a divisive endeavor, as the 2016 Brexit vote made clear. Several countries in Europe, such as Norway and Switzerland, have chosen not to join the EU (though they have coordinated in some policy areas, such as trade and travel). Some existing members, like Hungary, are deeply critical of it. The downsides affect member countries differently. Hazards of Economic Interdependence With economic benefits come risks. The nineteen countries that use the euro are bound to the same monetary rules. However, such close economic integration does not mean those nineteen national governments have the same political priorities, and it has proved difficult to create rules that work well for all economies. It also means that one tanking economy can bring down the entire union or at least amplify the effects of an economic downturn. In 2010, this scenario played out in the so-called eurozone crisis, when Greece’s cratering economy threatened the economic stability of much of the EU. When One Country Becomes Too Powerful Certain countries will always be more powerful than others, but sovereignty is supposed to be an equalizer. It prevents strong countries from changing the borders of their weak neighbors or meddling in their domestic politics and law (with specific exceptions). In the EU, countries cede some of the powers that sovereignty is designed to protect—national budget–making, monetary policy, and immigration and work authorization laws. Countries do so to reap the benefits discussed above and because they trust that the EU will use those powers to serve the interests of all members. But when one EU country exerts too much influence, it can set the bloc’s agenda to serve its own national interest more than that of the collective. Germany, the EU’s richest and most populous country, is considered to be the bloc’s most influential member; its longtime leader Angela Merkel is sometimes referred to as the chancellor of Europe. In 2015, more than one million migrants entered Europe, in the largest influx of people since World War II. In the midst of this migration crisis, Germany agreed to take in thousands of refugees and expected that other EU countries would do so as well. When some refused, Germany enlisted the EU to introduce quotas to force countries to accept refugees. This demand—eventually dropped after years of EU deadlock on migration issues—prompted countries like Hungary to accuse Germany of attempting to impose its national policies upon the entire bloc. When Sovereignty-Sharing and National Identity Struggle to Coexist In addition to its simple, primal slogan, the red Brexit bus advertised an eyebrow-raising claim: “We send the EU £350 million a week,” it read. “Let’s fund the NHS,” referring to the UK’s widely beloved health-care system. Fact-checkers later debunked the £350 million claim, but many people easily accepted it as true, because it fit with their belief that EU membership necessarily came at the expense of domestic programs—and national identity. To some critics, Brussels, where the executive branch of the EU is headquartered, evokes a nanny state—an overbearing authority that encroaches on sovereignty. Some still cling to the pervasive myths—essentially misinterpretations—like the EU forces Italians to make mozzarella from powdered milk or that it nitpicked on the name of a British snack mix. These complaints, though trivial, reflect larger questions about the balance of power between the EU and national governments. In the 1950s, fiercely protecting national sovereignty was often considered distasteful compared to achieving regional peace. But recently this balance has undergone intense scrutiny. In the last several years, some politicians have gained traction—and votes—across Europe by pitting people against the EU elite. These messages have resonated in countries like Greece, where people mobilized against the EU’s demands to balance its budget; in Hungary, where leaders have rejected the EU’s migration quotas; and in Poland, where the far-right government has dismissed EU criticism of the country’s crackdown on the independence of its courts. Where Is the EU Headed? The EU’s challenges are far from settled. Some are old: grouping countries with different financial, cultural, and geographic realities has inherent difficulties. Others are new: the UK’s exit dealt a harsh blow to the bloc. Some experts feared the departure—the first in EU history—would make the institution seem like a hotel that countries could check in or out of at will. But the fact that the UK’s departure took years of difficult negotiations (and agreements on post-Brexit trade and travel relations have yet to be made) has also revealed just how interconnected Europe has become. In the midst of the coronavirus crisis, the EU announced a $2 trillion stimulus plan to help the region’s economies recover. With the support of powerful members, including Germany and France, the massive package would knit the EU together even more tightly. The EU stands alone as a sovereignty-pooling organization. No other region in the world operates such an ambitious endeavor. Indeed, while some international organizations have been unable to evolve as the world changes (e.g., the WTO has not agreed on comprehensive new trade rules since 1995), the EU has forged ahead, adding members and continuing to mostly deliver on its original promise: an enduring peace on the continent. There is nothing exceptional about Europe's divides at all. Sounds just like the US that has pooled state sovereignty. Blue states pay for red states, they argue with each other, etc etc. Brexit is the failed experiment that pushes the EU together. What even is your point in posting this? How is this relevant to anything? Italy elected a right winger and she immediately had to take a centrist line, the Dutch elected a right winger and he had to immediately take a centrist line. Insignificant Hungary was told to F off. Rinse and repeat. Here is what leaving the EU does for you: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,542 December 2, 2023 24 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said: There is nothing exceptional about Europe's divides at all. Sounds just like the US that has pooled state sovereignty. Blue states pay for red states, they argue with each other, etc etc. Brexit is the failed experiment that pushes the EU together. What even is your point in posting this? How is this relevant to anything? Italy elected a right winger and she immediately had to take a centrist line, the Dutch elected a right winger and he had to immediately take a centrist line. Insignificant Hungary was told to F off. Rinse and repeat. Here is what leaving the EU does for you: 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,489 December 2, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said: So just personal incredulity with nothing intelligent or interesting to say on the topic. Keep it up, we love laughing at you. 🙂 Edited December 2, 2023 by Jay McKinsey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 649 December 2, 2023 Freedom is worth the price of inconvenience and does not lead to slavery as does socialism. The European Union is an option but it is continually fighting internally for dominance. The United Nations does the same. It is behind ESG and many other programs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay McKinsey + 1,489 December 2, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said: Freedom is worth the price of inconvenience and does not lead to slavery as does socialism. The European Union is an option but it is continually fighting internally for dominance. The United Nations does the same. It is behind ESG and many other programs. All you do is spout incoherent nonsense. What inconveniences are you babbling about? Europe is free and the US is continually fighting internally for dominance. I guess you forgot that a couple years ago your crew led a coup and tried to overthrow the government. ESG is a product of people being free to choose what to buy. Edited December 2, 2023 by Jay McKinsey 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 440 December 3, 2023 Attached an image showing natural tendency of things... " Water evaporates in uniformity as gasified molecule H2O. Upon touching a cold, flat surface, molecules clustered in to water patches of different sizes." Location of origin, attracting force of cluster that draws the similar and the opposite kind, adjacency etc...are factors affecting clusterism. Human beings behave likewise. The bigger the group, the more diverse the group, the tendency to fight and split increases. Are they trying to form a second United States, but of Europe, is interesting itself... England might have done it right. England used to have the largest empire in history. The elders can manage with mild set back. Unless they have chosen the compliances to rule and abide by their orders. They chose abdicated Prince Charles for this reason ( a repeat of movie made during era of war in the 40s or era of Churchill. Roughly on overcoming dyslexic and on lives of royalty back then). So is big spender Rishi. EU council has just released a publication on "road to further expansion of EU"... In there, they are reviewing problems and how to move forward with 13 experts. EU, at this stage of infancy, could go both ways. Turning good, or the other way. Particularly for both leading countries of Germany and France. In the midst of change, anything is possible. Do what you want. But try not to aim at the smallest and the weakest to bully. People won't be interested to know what you are up to. 99.999% are busy earning their dimes and living their own lives. Not many chances to look at their surrounding or time to know what happens outside of their work. But a few might turn curious. They want to know why do you keep aiming at the smallest and impotent. Consequently, they would discover your aims. They either would join you or terminate you and your kind. Therefore, leave it untouched as soon as you can... It should never be your target of ruin. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zlganmaarleyo8961 0 II February 29 Can someone help how to answer a new topic ?? What am I doing wrong? Please help. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Selva + 252 SP February 29 Hello zlganmaarley8961, to start a new topic you need to click on start a discussion , select topic, type in a title of your topic and submit. If you need more assistance with it, you can message me and I can help you with it. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,635 RP March 13 On 12/2/2023 at 6:41 PM, Ron Wagner said: https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/building-blocks/european-union-worlds-biggest-sovereignty BUILDING BLOCKS The European Union: The World’s Biggest Sovereignty Experiment Countries fight to protect their sovereignty. So why would they willingly give it up? Last Updated February 14, 2023 Pro-Brexit supporters gather in London, England, as the United Kingdom prepares to leave the European Union on January 31, 2020. Source: Jenny Matthews/In Pictures via Getty Images SHARE Teaching Resources—Building Blocks: Introduction (including lesson plan with slides)Higher Education Discussion Guide In the summer of 2016, bright red buses drove around the United Kingdom (UK), bearing a four-word slogan: “Let’s take back control.” The message aimed to rally support for the UK to leave the European Union (EU). Control, to the “Leave” campaign, meant the power to manage Britain’s own borders, health-care spending, and defense. Put simply, the slogan urged a restoration of sovereignty, and it worked: to the surprise of many, the UK narrowly voted for a so-called Brexit. The Value of Sovereignty—and of Giving It Up Sovereignty is considered to be a country’s fundamental principle. It means that countries get to control what happens within their borders and establishes the norm that they can’t interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs. When a country is recognized as sovereign, it can create its own laws, political infrastructure, education and health-care systems, and religious and social norms. In theory, sovereignty provides countries with an equal playing field, protecting countries from being invaded or controlled by other, stronger ones. While the concept is perfectly clear in the abstract, sovereignty in practice has never been respected quite so cleanly: countries violate each other’s sovereignty all the time, as illustrated in this module. But, less intuitively, countries also voluntarily give up a certain degree of their sovereignty. When countries enter into international treaties and join international organizations, they agree to forfeit their right to set their own rules and instead delegate specific powers to those bodies in return for the benefits of international cooperation. In international rulemaking organizations, like the United Nations or the World Trade Organization (WTO), countries are not always the ultimate decision-makers. They have agreed that, in certain cases, international rules on trade, the use of force, arms control, or human rights will dictate (or at least guide) their actions. Ceding a measure of sovereignty has precedent. But no organization has gone as far as the EU, a collection of European countries that have pooled their sovereignty to a great extent and handed certain powers over to a supranational authority. The EU represents an unparalleled experiment in balancing national and collective interests. A Brief History of European Integration After World War II, global powers created multiple organizations, in hopes of preventing another devastating conflict. These institutions and agreements included the United Nations, to create a peaceful form for dialogue and reduce the risk of war; the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which later became the WTO), to promote international trade by creating clear trade rules; and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to ensure international financial and monetary stability. Attempts at international cooperation had failed in the past: after World War I, the League of Nations (forerunner to the United Nations) fizzled out, in part because the United States, wary of foreign entanglements, refused to join. One world war later, leaders knew that for these efforts to work—to have legitimacy and authority—countries would have to grant these bodies certain powers, effectively giving up some of their own sovereignty. If the WTO concludes that a country violated trade rules, the infraction can result in fines. And if the United Nations believes a country is flouting international law, the Security Council can impose sanctions or even authorize the use of military force. However, Europe, the place of origin of both world wars, took the idea of international cooperation a step further. Countries decided to pool their sovereignty within a regional body with supranational characteristics. A European project, one that would bind countries in a political and economic union, was put in motion shortly after World War II with the goal of ensuring peace in the region—especially between France and Germany, whose rivalry was central to both world wars. In the early 1950s, European leaders regarded strong national interests with suspicion. The French diplomat Jean Monnet, who is considered the architect of European integration, believed his approach—building European interdependence—was the way to reconstruct the continent. Rather than promoting French interests or German interests, he advocated advancing a European agenda that would allow the continent at last to transcend the bloody rivalries that had brought such destruction. Central to his thinking was to link the economies of Germany and France so that war between them would become unthinkable. In his vision, a supranational body would craft laws for the benefit of all European countries, just as the U.S. government creates laws that are supposed to be for the good of all its states. The more policies European countries coordinated, the more each member would come to depend on the success of its neighbors, and the stronger, and safer, Europe would be. Monnet envisioned a United States of Europe, much like the United States of America. This increase in coordination is sometimes described as the bicycle theory of European integration. Just as a cyclist requires momentum, so too would Europe rely on ever-closer cooperation to propel it. Without cooperation, the whole endeavor could topple. But this model had its detractors, notably French President Charles de Gaulle, who rejected the idea of an eventual European—rather than French—identity and agenda. In his view, a “United Europe of States,” one in which national governments remained distinct, was the better way forward. He succeeded in imposing some limits on the organization’s power, like requiring unanimous votes on a number of decisions, which prevented a supranational body from having final say over the objections of any one member country. The first incarnation of this European project, born in 1951, was limited geographically to just six countries and administratively to the removal of trade barriers in the coal and steel industries. However, while it teetered at times, European integration did pedal forward. The organization that morphed into the EU added member countries as its mission expanded over the decades. In 1992, it officially began laying the groundwork for a single currency (the euro), requiring the EU to coordinate more closely than ever. But debates still rage over the direction of European integration—what’s called sovereignty-sharing or, in reality, sovereignty-ceding—as some European leaders decry the EU’s overreach on their national affairs while others lament the EU’s limited ability to hold members accountable on issues such as budget deficits and undemocratic domestic legislation. What Is the EU Today? As of 2020, the EU has twenty-seven member countries and works to ensure that workers, goods, capital, and services can move freely within its borders. These are known as the four freedoms. Source: European Parliament. SHARE To that effect, the EU operates a single market (an economic zone designed to function with one set of regulations and no internal trade barriers), controls a visa-free area called the Schengen zone, coordinates labor laws to make working in other countries relatively seamless, and negotiates trade deals as a bloc, giving European countries more leverage when working with bigger economies. In practical terms, it is because of the EU that a German citizen can commute to work in the Netherlands and that goods can travel over country borders as if they were moving inside a country. A train ride from Vienna to Paris requires no passport or currency exchange. Products developed in Estonia adhere to the same rules as ones developed in Spain, and an Estonian company can easily sell in Spanish stores. To govern all of this activity, the EU operates institutions that have varying jurisdiction over certain policy areas. Monetary policy, trade, and fishing, for example, are exclusively under the control of the EU, and the European Court of Justice sets precedent for national judicial systems. Decisions over defense and security are shared between the EU and national governments–for example, the EU has collectively imposed sanctions in Russia in response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Meanwhile in health care, education, and tourism, the EU merely supports national governments through funding or by setting guidelines. What Do EU Members Get Out of This Arrangement? EU member countries contribute to the EU budget, comply with EU laws, and vote to elect officials to its institutions. Why cede—or, to use the EU’s term, “pool”—sovereignty in this way? By cooperating closely and establishing some supranational policies, countries in the EU enjoy economic, political, and security benefits. Economic benefits Goods and services are cheaper when border controls are eliminated, trade barriers are lifted, and only one set of regulations must be met. A 2019 study found that the average EU citizen is 840 euros richer per year as the result of the single market. Nineteen countries in the EU use a single currency, the euro, which encourages tourism and makes it cheaper for poorer countries to borrow money, as they don’t need to account for exchange rate fluctuations. From a financial perspective, EU membership particularly benefits poorer countries, where the EU provides significant funding for public investment projects, including those that improve childcare options, increase internet access, and create jobs. Across the continent, the EU also provides agricultural subsidies, amounting to approximately $65 billion each year, that keep many European farmers afloat. Continued below. Political benefits EU countries gain political leverage by banding together. As the second-largest economy in the world, the EU negotiates better trade deals than a European country could if it were acting alone. In doing so, the EU helps create global standards. Countries that want to enter into trade deals with the valuable bloc often have to abide by strict regulations on data privacy, emissions standards, and human rights. Security benefits The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), another post–World War II initiative, binds the United States, Canada, and much of Europe in the world’s largest security alliance. But a defense agreement is also baked into EU membership: members are required to provide aid and assistance when another member asks, although countries with long-standing traditions of neutrality, like Ireland or Sweden, can get exemptions. The EU has entered into a debate over whether it should continue to rely on the United States for its security, or become more self-dependent—a concept referred to as strategic autonomy. Many smaller countries with unfriendly neighbors have rallied for ramped-up EU defense efforts. For instance, the EU introduced a military mobility initiative that allowed the union to quickly move troops and equipment across Europe to protect eastern European countries from Russian invasion following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Drawbacks of Ceding Sovereignty Despite its collective benefits, power-sharing can be a divisive endeavor, as the 2016 Brexit vote made clear. Several countries in Europe, such as Norway and Switzerland, have chosen not to join the EU (though they have coordinated in some policy areas, such as trade and travel). Some existing members, like Hungary, are deeply critical of it. The downsides affect member countries differently. Hazards of Economic Interdependence With economic benefits come risks. The nineteen countries that use the euro are bound to the same monetary rules. However, such close economic integration does not mean those nineteen national governments have the same political priorities, and it has proved difficult to create rules that work well for all economies. It also means that one tanking economy can bring down the entire union or at least amplify the effects of an economic downturn. In 2010, this scenario played out in the so-called eurozone crisis, when Greece’s cratering economy threatened the economic stability of much of the EU. When One Country Becomes Too Powerful Certain countries will always be more powerful than others, but sovereignty is supposed to be an equalizer. It prevents strong countries from changing the borders of their weak neighbors or meddling in their domestic politics and law (with specific exceptions). In the EU, countries cede some of the powers that sovereignty is designed to protect—national budget–making, monetary policy, and immigration and work authorization laws. Countries do so to reap the benefits discussed above and because they trust that the EU will use those powers to serve the interests of all members. But when one EU country exerts too much influence, it can set the bloc’s agenda to serve its own national interest more than that of the collective. Germany, the EU’s richest and most populous country, is considered to be the bloc’s most influential member; its longtime leader Angela Merkel is sometimes referred to as the chancellor of Europe. In 2015, more than one million migrants entered Europe, in the largest influx of people since World War II. In the midst of this migration crisis, Germany agreed to take in thousands of refugees and expected that other EU countries would do so as well. When some refused, Germany enlisted the EU to introduce quotas to force countries to accept refugees. This demand—eventually dropped after years of EU deadlock on migration issues—prompted countries like Hungary to accuse Germany of attempting to impose its national policies upon the entire bloc. When Sovereignty-Sharing and National Identity Struggle to Coexist In addition to its simple, primal slogan, the red Brexit bus advertised an eyebrow-raising claim: “We send the EU £350 million a week,” it read. “Let’s fund the NHS,” referring to the UK’s widely beloved health-care system. Fact-checkers later debunked the £350 million claim, but many people easily accepted it as true, because it fit with their belief that EU membership necessarily came at the expense of domestic programs—and national identity. To some critics, Brussels, where the executive branch of the EU is headquartered, evokes a nanny state—an overbearing authority that encroaches on sovereignty. Some still cling to the pervasive myths—essentially misinterpretations—like the EU forces Italians to make mozzarella from powdered milk or that it nitpicked on the name of a British snack mix. These complaints, though trivial, reflect larger questions about the balance of power between the EU and national governments. In the 1950s, fiercely protecting national sovereignty was often considered distasteful compared to achieving regional peace. But recently this balance has undergone intense scrutiny. In the last several years, some politicians have gained traction—and votes—across Europe by pitting people against the EU elite. These messages have resonated in countries like Greece, where people mobilized against the EU’s demands to balance its budget; in Hungary, where leaders have rejected the EU’s migration quotas; and in Poland, where the far-right government has dismissed EU criticism of the country’s crackdown on the independence of its courts. Where Is the EU Headed? The EU’s challenges are far from settled. Some are old: grouping countries with different financial, cultural, and geographic realities has inherent difficulties. Others are new: the UK’s exit dealt a harsh blow to the bloc. Some experts feared the departure—the first in EU history—would make the institution seem like a hotel that countries could check in or out of at will. But the fact that the UK’s departure took years of difficult negotiations (and agreements on post-Brexit trade and travel relations have yet to be made) has also revealed just how interconnected Europe has become. In the midst of the coronavirus crisis, the EU announced a $2 trillion stimulus plan to help the region’s economies recover. With the support of powerful members, including Germany and France, the massive package would knit the EU together even more tightly. The EU stands alone as a sovereignty-pooling organization. No other region in the world operates such an ambitious endeavor. Indeed, while some international organizations have been unable to evolve as the world changes (e.g., the WTO has not agreed on comprehensive new trade rules since 1995), the EU has forged ahead, adding members and continuing to mostly deliver on its original promise: an enduring peace on the continent. Ron the main difference between the EU and the US is you have 27 different countries with different cultures and values, there is always going to be division, its obvious. The US is 1 country and therefore all states should be as much aligned as possible with similar culture and values. The fact that politically the US has never before (civil war apart) been so entrenched in being either a blue or a red is worrying. EU countries have lurched from 1 disagreement (war) for the last 10 thousand years or more and that isnt going to change unfortunately IMHO. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 649 March 13 9 hours ago, Rob Plant said: Ron the main difference between the EU and the US is you have 27 different countries with different cultures and values, there is always going to be division, its obvious. The US is 1 country and therefore all states should be as much aligned as possible with similar culture and values. The fact that politically the US has never before (civil war apart) been so entrenched in being either a blue or a red is worrying. EU countries have lurched from 1 disagreement (war) for the last 10 thousand years or more and that isnt going to change unfortunately IMHO. Rob, you try to be fair, but you do not really understand the United States any better than I understand Europe. I will try to find a map for you to show you how many counties cover how much land in America. We are nearly as large of all of Europe. Only the urban areas support Democrats with few exceptions. We have completely different mindsets although there are about one third of urban Americans are more liberal and one third of urban people are conservative. Collar counties of cities have many bedroom suburbs of cities and vote liberal by smaller numbers. Many are also "swing" counties that might vote liberal or conservative. Our conservatives are more conservative than those in Europe or Canada. Go to this map for a high quality image from 2016 when Biden "won" : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/2016_Presidential_Election_by_County_(Red-Blue-Purple_View).svg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marcin2 + 725 MK April 6 On 3/13/2024 at 11:08 AM, Rob Plant said: Ron the main difference between the EU and the US is you have 27 different countries with different cultures and values, there is always going to be division, its obvious. The US is 1 country and therefore all states should be as much aligned as possible with similar culture and values. The fact that politically the US has never before (civil war apart) been so entrenched in being either a blue or a red is worrying. EU countries have lurched from 1 disagreement (war) for the last 10 thousand years or more and that isnt going to change unfortunately IMHO. Europe was the area of constant war at least since 700 BC, that is 2700 years ago. Now we have the longest period without major war on the territory of EU (79 years since WW2). It is a great achievement. I fill like a European citizen, although in my heart I am Polish. But EU enabled me to work in Germany, Netherlands, Switherland and France, and SLovakia earlier. EU is the best what Europer could design. We should be more integrated in military sphere, against Russia. Together with NATO it will make paradise on Earth. Of course if only we will not allow money immigrants that call themselves refugees( It is strange that 90% are 20-40 years males?!!!!). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,635 RP April 8 Marcin you forget the war in the Balkans in the 1990's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members