Europe: In or Out?- Preview

GOLD MERCURY INTERNATIONAL Europe: In or Out?

Europe: GLOBAL GOVERNANCE POLICY SERIES

In or Out? Euroscepticism and Europhelia in various European States: the Similarities, Differences and Consequences.

Keywords: Euroscepticism> europhelia> for and against Europe> development of EU> common perception of the European Union> EU as abstract theory> Anti-

EU stance> the power of the European Parliament> costs and benefits of EU> European politics> European governance> single market economy> social values

of democracy and human rights> EU as safeguard mechanism for peace in Europe> states and EU> country scepticism> ideas of European integration.

26 MINUTES

GOLD MERCURY INTERNATIONAL Europe: In or Out?

Creating a Vision of Europe Project EU citizens are not excited, not emotionally involved, bored, despondent and uninspired by the union’s institutionalism. Is there a shared vision for Europeans, a European identity?

European citizens are disenfranchised and distant from the overall EU project. Having successfully accomplished several goals such as preserving peace, increasing human rights, and solidifying democracy, the now larger EU is in need of a vision and brand that clearly communicates its future role, purpose and value to its citizens. A vision that connects with the needs and requirements of the European and global civil society and responds to the challenges facing a globalised world.

GOLD MERCURY EU PROJECT SERIES

aims to analyse and create the basis for a larger debate about Europe, the EU and its future vision and identity.

Following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, this series aims to reveal the often underestimated issues that need to be taken into account to start a constructive debate about the future of the EU which includes creating a future EU identity and brand.

By analysing the current citizens’ perception of Europe, this series will include: an exploration of the meaning and significance of EU identity today, and an analysis of current citizens’ perception of EU. It showcases what the EU has done in the past and what it is doing now to create a European identity. This series aims to present a new framework to understand the complexity that lies behind the EU identity, suggesting new standards to start a constructive debate on EU citizenship and EU identity and drawing on new insights regarding the current situation of EU identity.

The EU PROJECT SERIES shines a new spotlight and revitalizes the debate on the EU’s vision and future, suggesting new grounds and parameters to build a fresh paradigm for the EU to clarify its role on the world stage.

  GOLD MERCURY INTERNATIONAL  Europe: In or Out?

Introduction This paper considers the similarity and difference between arguments for and against Europe in certain key member states, where their focus of the criticisms lie (whether at European or national level) and what a consideration of trends behind these criticisms, when considered in light of the current situation and the development of the European project, will mean for public opinion towards the EU. It begins by summarizing the various positions and arguing that in fact the same arguments, generally summarized, are present in all considered states. It goes on to consider the impact of certain key factors, unique in each state, in the shaping and weighting of specific forms of an argument and the preference of one argument over another and suggests that it is a result (and against a backdrop) of these specific shaping factors that the position and opinion in each nation is formed and is thus unique. It goes on to consider what this means in terms of where the criticisms are directed and concludes that although arguments and stances may be philosophically focused at the EU, national government or both, the political practicalities and structure of the EU and its relationship to member states means that issues will normally manifest themselves on a national level. Finally, it suggests that the EU is at a point in its development where the rapid expansion has naturally brought certain issues to the fore, and although the development and continued clarification and socialisation of the EU may serve and temper their effect and severity, should the EU overstep its philosophical or developmental limits with over rapid overexpansion, or by ignoring poignant issues in its apparatus, the tide of public opinion may easily turn negative.

GOLD MERCURY INTERNATIONAL Europe: In or Out?

Summary of Positions Around the EU states there are various positions for and against the EU. These range from the very general, which consider the EU as an abstract theory, to more specific or very local concerns, including the peculiar side effects the development of the EU has on individuals. They take a variety of starting points and build on a variety of assumptions (some of which are false).

However, when one considers these conglomerate positions on the level of states, many of the more specific concerns can be summarized as occupying a position within wider issues and arguments that appear to be present in one way or another across all EU states. Of course it can be argued that if one takes an increasingly relative stance on any set of issues, eventually, common ground will be found. However in this case, the specificity and clarity with which most arguments can be subsumed makes the assumption legitimate.

That the issues can be considered with a degree of unity at a European level could be considered as an argument for the existence of a foundation of common understanding of the European Project or a common perception of the European Union. This piece makes no in depth judgement on this position, but certainly the ability to consider issues at a supra-state level is perhaps reflective of certain unifying issues that have allowed the project to develop thus far, or perhaps have developed as a result of the unification the project has brought, as well as perhaps being indicative of its breaking points. It would, for example, not be an impossible leap of logic to suggest that the base level of structural adherence in the states has brought about its own reality in perception after 60 years of development that now found common cause in thought on EU issues, nor is it that the proximity of certain of the EU states and their degree (if difficult to isolate) of shared history highlights in the minds of their inhabitants a common thought process out of which a commonality of issues surfaces.