NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION BRIEF CONTENTS
Introduction
1
PART 1 HISTORY AND IDEAS
10
1. Understanding Integration
12
2. What is the European Union?
26
3. Who are the Europeans?
41
4. First Steps (1944–58)
58
5. Building the Community (1958–95)
74
6. From Community to Union (1989–2005)
90
7. Crisis and Opportunity (2004–present)
106
8. The Treaties
123
9. The Member States
139
PART 2 POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE
156
10. The European Commission
158
11. The Council of Ministers
178
12. The European Parliament
194
13. The European Council
211
14. The European Court of Justice
227
15. Specialized Agencies
244 v
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION vi
Brief Contents
16. Parties and Interest Groups
262
17. Elections and Referendums
278
18. Public Opinion
295
PART 3 POLICIES
312
19. Public Policy
314
20. Economic Policy
330
21. Inside the Euro Zone
346
22. Cohesion Policy
362
23. Agriculture and Fisheries
379
24. Environmental Policy
396
25. Justice and Home Affairs
410
26. The EU as a Global Actor
427
27. The EU and the World
443
Conclusions: Where next for the EU?
460
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION FULL CONTENTS Illustrations and Features About the Author Key Statistics Preface to the Third Edition Acknowledgements and Photo Credits Tour of the Book Acronyms and Abbreviations INTRODUCTION
xiv xix xx xxii xxv xxvi xxviii 1
PART 1 HISTORY AND IDEAS 1. UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATION States and nations International organizations From federalism to functionalism Neofunctionalism and integrative potential The spotlight moves to governments 2. WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN UNION? Where to start? The comparative approach The EU as a political system The EU as a federal system The EU as a confederal system
10 12 13 15 17 19 21 26 27 29 31 33 35 41
3. WHO ARE THE EUROPEANS? Where is Europe? What is a European? The idea of European citizenship Identifying with Europe Europe’s changing demography
42 44 47 50 51
4. FIRST STEPS (1944–58)
58
Europe before the Second World War The troubled state of post-war Europe vii
59 61
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION viii
Full Contents
Rebuilding economies (1944–51) Addressing external threats (1946–49) The Council of Europe (1946–50) The European Coal and Steel Community (1950–52) Internal and external shocks (1950–56) The European Economic Community (1955–58) 5. BUILDING THE COMMUNITY (1958–95) Teething troubles: The nervous 1960s Enlargement arrives on the agenda (1960–86) Exploring monetary union (1969–92) The Single European Act (1983–92) International developments: The end of the Cold War (1989–95) 6. FROM COMMUNITY TO UNION (1989–2005) More economic and political integration (1989–90) The spotlight shifts to Maastricht (1990–93) More enlargement (1990–95) The backlash against Europe From Amsterdam to Nice (1996–2003) Arrival of the euro (1995–2002) Shockwaves from Iraq (2003–07) 7. CRISIS AND OPPORTUNITY (2004–PRESENT) The EU looks east (1994–2013) The failed constitutional treaty (2001–05) The Treaty of Lisbon (2007–09) Crisis in the euro zone (2007–12) The perfect storm: Immigration, populism and Brexit 8. THE TREATIES Comparing constitutions and treaties Understanding the treaties The treaty-building epic Lisbon and beyond Other elements of the EU legal order 9. THE MEMBER STATES The legal position of the member states The place of the member states
63 64 65 66 67 69 74 75 77 81 83 85 90 91 93 95 97 99 100 102 106 107 109 111 114 117 123 124 126 129 132 134 139 140 143
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Full Contents
The membership process Prospects for future enlargement
PART 2 POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE 10. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Comparing executives How the Commission evolved Leadership: The president The College of Commissioners Supporting structure Directorates-general and services Committees Secretariat-General What the Commission does Powers of initiation Powers of implementation Managing EU finances External relations 11. THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS Comparing legislative functions How the Councils evolved Leadership: The presidency The Councils Supporting structure Permanent representatives Working parties and committees General Secretariat What the Council does 12. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Comparing legislatures How Parliament evolved Leadership: The president Members of the European Parliament Supporting structure Parliamentary committees Rapporteurs Secretariat
146 148
156 158 159 161 162 165 168 168 170 170 170 170 171 172 173 177 178 179 181 183 185 185 186 186 187 194 195 197 198 201 203 203 204 205
ix
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION x
Full Contents
What Parliament does Powers over legislation Powers over the budget Powers over other institutions 13. THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
205 205 207 207 211
Comparing summitry
212
How the Council evolved
215
Leadership: The president
216
Members of the Council
219
Supporting structure
221
What the Council does
221
Making strategic decisions
222
Making appointments
225
14. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
227
Comparing constitutional courts
228
How the Court evolved
230
Leadership: The president
232
Judges of the Court
233
Supporting structure
235
The advocates-general
235
The General Court
236
What the Court does
236
Preliminary rulings
238
Direct actions
239
Appeals and other cases
240
The European Court of Human Rights
240
15. SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
244
The expanding world of EU agencies
245
Financial bodies
246
European Central Bank
246
European Investment Bank
248
The new financial institutions
249
Decentralized and executive agencies
249
Decentralized agencies
249
Executive agencies
253
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Full Contents
Europol and Eurojust
254
Advisory bodies
256
Other institutions
257
European Court of Auditors
257
Eurocorps
258
European Space Agency
258
16. PARTIES AND INTEREST GROUPS Comparing political parties Political groups: Rules and trends The range of European political groups European United Left–Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) Greens–European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) Renew Europe (RN) European People’s Party (EPP) Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists (ACRE) Eurosceptic and nationalist groups Non-attached members (NI) Interest groups The political effect of interest groups 17. ELECTIONS AND REFERENDUMS Comparing elections European elections Voter turnout National referendums Membership of the EEC/EU or the euro Adoption of a new treaty The pros and cons of referendums 18. PUBLIC OPINION Comparing attitudes towards European integration Understanding Euroscepticism The knowledge deficit Does the knowledge deficit matter? What Europeans have in common
262 263 265 267 267 267 269 269 270 271 271 271 271 274 278 279 279 282 286 287 290 291 295 296 298 301 303 306
xi
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION xii
Full Contents
PART 3 POLICIES 19. PUBLIC POLICY Comparing public policy The policy cycle Agenda-setting Formulation Adoption Legitimation Implementation Evaluation The features of EU policy Compromise and bargaining Political games Incrementalism Differentiated integration Elitism and the democratic deficit The budget 20. ECONOMIC POLICY The dominating role of economic policy The single market Binding the single market The rise of corporate Europe Competition policy Restrictive practices Mergers State aid 21. INSIDE THE EURO ZONE Comparing monetary policy The origins of the euro Growing pains of the euro The crisis in the euro zone The euro as a global currency 22. COHESION POLICY Comparing economic equality The structural and investment funds Social policy Education policy
312 314 315 317 317 318 319 319 319 320 320 321 322 322 322 323 324 330 331 333 335 338 340 342 343 343 346 347 349 351 354 357 362 363 366 368 371
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Full Contents
23. AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES Comparing agricultural policy The Common Agricultural Policy Food safety Agriculture and the environment Fisheries policy 24. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Comparing environmental policy The shaping of environmental policy Climate change Energy policy 25. JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS Cooperating on home affairs Migration Authorized migration Unauthorized migration Evolving policies on asylum The struggle against terrorism 26. THE EU AS A GLOBAL ACTOR Understanding the global system The EU: Normative and liberal? Foreign policy Security and defence policy Trade policy 27. THE EU AND THE WORLD The EU and the United States Looking to the neighbourhood The EU and China: Uneasy new discoveries The EU and development cooperation 28. CONCLUSIONS
379 380 383 387 389 390 396 397 399 402 405 410 411 414 414 416 418 420 427 428 430 431 434 437 443 444 448 452 454 460
Bibliography
464
Index
477
xiii
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION ILLUSTRATIONS AND FEATURES
FIGURES
10.5 The EU’s legal tools 10.6 Workflow of the European Commission 10.7 Infringements of EU law, 2014–18 11.1 Structure of the Council of Ministers 11.2 Powers of the Council of Ministers 11.3 Workflow of the Council of Ministers 12.1 Structure of the European Parliament 12.2 Women in the European and national parliaments 12.3 Powers of the European Parliament 12.4 Workflow of the European Parliament 13.1 Structure of the European Council 13.2 Powers of the European Council 13.3 Workflow of the European Council 14.1 Structure of the European Court of Justice 14.2 Powers of the European Court of Justice 14.3 Workflow of the European Court of Justice 14.4 Cases heard by the European Court of Justice 14.5 Europe’s ten biggest human rights offenders 15.1 Gender equality in the EU 16.1 The changing balance of party power in the EP 16.2 Political groups in the European Parliament 16.3 Business and labour groups in Brussels 17.1 Comparing electoral systems 17.2 Turnout at European elections 17.3 Turnout at the 2019 European elections 17.4 The contrasting results of British general and European elections 18.1 What Europeans think: Image of the EU I 18.2 What Europeans think: Image of the EU II
1.1 The features of a state 13 1.2 The qualities of an international organization 16 1.3 Stages in the process of regional integration 17 2.1 Five approaches to understanding the EU 27 2.2 The competing dimensions of the EU 28 2.3 Comparing federations and confederations 35 3.1 What Europeans think: Feelings of attachment I 50 3.2 What Europeans think: Feelings of attachment II 51 3.3 What Europeans think: Citizenship of the EU 52 3.4 Comparing population change 54 3.5 Comparing ageing populations 55 4.1 Structure of the European Economic Community 70 5.1 The snake in the tunnel 82 6.1 Growth of the European Union 97 6.2 What Europeans think: The invasion of Iraq, 2003 103 7.1 The long road to enlargement 109 7.2 The changing place of the EU economy 117 7.3 Support for populist parties in the EU 119 8.1 Key qualities of a constitution 125 8.2 Sources of constitutional norms in the EU 126 8.3 A summary of the treaties 128 8.4 The three pillars 131 9.1 The division of policy authority 142 9.2 EU legislation in force, by subject 143 9.3 The Copenhagen conditions 148 10.1 Structure of the European Commission 159 10.2 The EU political system 162 10.3 Past presidents of the European Commission 164 10.4 Powers of the European Commission 171 xiv
172 173 174 178 188 189 196 203 205 206 214 221 222 230 237 238 239 240 253 266 269 273 281 282 283 286 297 298
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Illustrations and Features
18.3 What Europeans think: The meaning of the EU 18.4 Shades of Euroscepticism 18.5 Trust in government 18.6 What Europeans think: Understanding the EU I 18.7 What Europeans think: Understanding the EU II 18.8 What Europeans think: Misconceptions about the EU 18.9 What Europeans think: Religion 19.1 Models of the policy process 19.2 The EU policy cycle 19.3 The EU budget, 2021–27 20.1 Women in the workforce 20.2 The race between Airbus and Boeing 20.3 The world’s biggest corporations, by country/region 21.1 The value of the euro 21.2 What Europeans think: The euro I 21.3 What Europeans think: The euro II 21.4 The euro as a reserve currency 22.1 The structural and investment funds 22.2 Major recipients of EU structural funding 22.3 Poverty rates in the EU 22.4 Unemployment and the euro crisis 22.5 Most popular destinations for foreign students 22.6 Top home countries of students studying abroad 23.1 The world’s ten biggest agricultural traders 23.2 Europe’s changing farming population 23.3 The changing economic role of European farming 23.4 The top ten recipients of CAP funding 23.5 Global forest trends 23.6 The EU’s biggest fishing fleets 24.1 Comparing environmental performance 24.2 Greenhouse gas emissions: The five biggest producers 24.3 Trends in carbon dioxide emissions in the EU 24.4 Comparative energy use 25.1 The global share of migrants
299 301 302 303 304 305 309 316 318 326 335 340 341 351 352 353 359 366 367 370 371 373 376 382 383 385 387 391 392 398 403 404 406 415
25.2 Immigrants as a percentage of the population 25.3 Asylum applications to the EU, by country of origin 25.4 Asylum applications to the EU, by year 25.5 Terrorism: Western Europe in global perspective 26.1 Defence budgets: The six biggest spenders 26.2 The EU in the global economy 26.3 Disputes before the World Trade Organization 27.1 The EU’s ten biggest trading partners 27.2 What Europeans think: Obama and Trump 27.3 The EU’s development aid
416 419 420 422 434 439 440 446 447 456
TABLES 0.1 The EU in figures 1.1 Selected regional integration associations 2.1 The world’s federations 3.1 The states of Europe 3.2 Selected nations of Europe 3.3 Official languages of the EU 6.1 The convergence criteria 7.1 Key crises in European integration 9.1 EU member states by economy 9.2 EU member states by population 9.3 Potential members of the EU, 2020 10.1 Portfolios in the College of Commissioners 10.2 Commission directorates-general and services 11.1 Rotation of the presidency of the Council of Ministers 11.2 Configurations of the Council of Ministers 11.3 Secretaries General of the Council of Ministers 11.4 Qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers 12.1 Presidents of the European Parliament 12.2 Seats in the European Parliament 12.3 Committees of the European Parliament 13.1 Presidents of the European Council
6 18 33 45 46 47 100 114 145 145 151 167 169 182 184 187 190 200 202 204 217
xv
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION xvi
Illustrations and Features
13.2 Members of the European Council, by political system 13.3 Selected summits of the European Council 13.4 The European Council and senior appointments 14.1 Presidents of the European Court of Justice 14.2 Judges of the European Court of Justice, June 2019 15.1 Presidents of the European Central Bank 15.2 Decentralized agencies of the EU 15.3 Membership of the EESC and the CoR 16.1 Major Europarties 16.2 Political group numbers in the European Parliament, 2019 17.1 National referendums on EC/EU issues 20.1 Barriers to the single market 22.1 Selected rights under the Social Charter 24.1 Main areas of EU environmental policy 26.1 The world’s five biggest trading powers 27.1 The Africa Caribbean Pacific states
219 223 224 232 234 247 250 256 264 268 287 334 369 401 439 455
MAPS
0.1 3.1 4.1 4.2
5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1 9.1 21.1 22.1 22.2 26.1 27.1
The European Union 4 The borders of Europe 44 Europe after the Second World War 60 The European Economic Community, 1958 71 The first two rounds of enlargement, 1973–86 80 Cold War eastern Europe 86 The third enlargement, 1995 96 Eastern enlargement, 2004–13 108 Potential members of the EU, 2020 150 The euro zone 348 Economic wealth in the EU 364 The European Higher Education Area 375 NATO’s European members 437 The European neighbourhood 449
ILLUSTRATIONS 1.1 The United Nations 1.2 EU governments 2.1 Major EU institutions 2.2 Confederalism 3.1 Europe meets Asia 3.2 European passports 4.1 The Schuman Declaration 4.2 The Treaty of Rome 5.1 Britain joins the Community 5.2 The Berlin Wall 6.1 The Maastricht Treaty 6.2 Launch of the euro 7.1 The Constitutional Treaty 7.2 Brexit I 8.1 The Treaty of Amsterdam 8.2 The Treaty of Lisbon 9.1 France and Germany 9.2 Norway 10.1 The European Commission 10.2 The College of Commissioners 11.1 The Justus Lipsius building 11.2 The Council of Ministers 12.1 The European Parliament 12.2 The European Parliament in session 13.1 The European Council 13.2 European Council summit 14.1 The European Court of Justice 14.2 The Court deliberates 15.1 Frontex 15.2 Europol 16.1 EU political group 16.2 The European People’s Party 17.1 European elections 17.2 Brexit II 18.1 Frexit 18.2 Christianity in Europe 19.1 Economic policy 19.2 Policy-making in the EU 20.1 Border controls 20.2 European Space Agency 21.1 European Central Bank 21.2 Greek referendum 22.1 Cohesion policy 22.2 Education policy 23.1 The Common Agricultural Policy 23.2 Fisheries policy 24.1 Air pollution
15 23 32 37 43 49 68 69 78 87 94 101 111 120 127 132 146 147 161 166 180 185 197 201 213 220 228 237 245 255 265 270 280 289 300 308 315 319 333 337 349 355 365 374 380 393 399
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Illustrations and Features
24.2 Climate change 25.1 Refugee crisis 25.2 Terrorism 26.1 Multilateralism 26.2 Trade policy 27.1 Neighbourhood policy 27.2 Civil protection
405 413 423 431 438 450 457
DEBATES 1 2 3 4 5 6
Is the EU a confederation or a federation? 36 Does the EU need a constitution? 133 Does low voter turnout hurt democracy? 285 Is there a European democratic deficit? 323 Will the euro survive? 357 Does the EU need a common military? 436
UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
The role of theory International relations Comparative politics Constructivism Postfunctionalism Europeanization New institutionalism Intergovernmentalism Game theory Supranationalism Transactionalism International political economy Multilevel governance Spillover Liberalism
2 21 30 48 118 144 160 181 215 231 306 332 372 400 430
FOCUS
1 2 3 4 5 6
7
The European flag Intergovernmental conferences Leaving the EU The reach of EU law Europarties A case study of EU public policy: Research and innovation Explaining the euro crisis, by George Soros
53 93 149 208 264 321 356
8 9 10
Europe’s forestry policy Europe’s leadership on chemicals Police and judicial cooperation
390 402 421
PROFILES Jean Monnet David Mitrany Ernst Haas Winston Churchill Robert Schuman Charles de Gaulle Jacques Delors Ursula von der Leyen David Sassoli Charles Michel Koen Lenaerts Christine Lagarde Josep Borrell
19 19 20 66 67 76 84 163 199 218 233 248 433
TIMELINES First steps (1944–58) Building the Community (1958–95) From Community to Union (1989–2005) Crisis and opportunity (2004–present)
64 79 95 113
SNAPSHOTS Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
9 25 40 57 73 89 105 122 138 155 176 193 210 226 243 261 277 294 311 329
xvii
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION xviii
Illustrations and Features
Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia
345 361 378 395
Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
409 426 442 459
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
1
UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATION
Preview Understanding how and why regional integration has happened in Europe is key to understanding the roots, the evolution and the future of the European Union. There has been little agreement, though, on either the organizational origins of the EU or on how and why it has evolved the way that it has. The debate has centred on a complex set of theories and interpretations about the actions of states and nations, and about the motivation behind international cooperation. Much discussion has focused on the changing role of states, whose place in the world has changed in the wake of the growing interstate cooperation brought on by political and economic pressures and opportunities. Multiple theories and analytical approaches have been proposed in an effort to explain integration, but while they each offer valuable insights, they have each been criticized and challenged, and no grand theory of European integration has yet won approval. The earliest explanations came mainly out of the discipline of international relations (IR), and portrayed integration either as a process with its own internal logic or as a process in which the governments of the participating states were the key actors. These theories are reviewed in this chapter. As the reach of European integration expanded, though, so the focus switched to explanations coming out of comparative politics and public policy, which see the EU as a political system in its own right, and pay more attention to the character of its institutions, processes and policy dynamics. These approaches are reviewed in Chapter 2.
Key points • How we think about the EU and regional integration depends in large part on how we think about states and their changing role and powers in the world since 1945. • Since the Second World War there has been a growth in the number of international organizations set up to promote cooperation among states, and based on the principles of communal management, shared interests and voluntary cooperation. • Multiple theories have been developed to explain the motives that led to integration in western Europe, and the dynamics of integration. The academic debate came to be dominated by theories of international relations. • Functionalists argue that the best way to achieve global peace is through the creation of functionally specific interstate institutions, which bind states into a web of cooperation. • Neofunctionalists argue that multiple actors play a role in integration, which is driven by a process of spillover through which governments find themselves cooperating in a growing range of policy areas. • Intergovernmentalists take the focus back to the deliberate and conscious decisions of governments, and argue that the pace and nature of integration has been ultimately driven by state governments pursuing state interests.
12
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Understanding Integration
States and nations
13
CONCEPT
If you have travelled from one country to another, you will probably be familiar The Westphalian with the process of going through customs and immigration, and you might even system have had to purchase a visa. You will probably have shown a passport or some The international state form of government-issued identification, and it will be obvious as you cross the system is often known border (or walk through to the arrival hall in an airport or rail station) that you as the Westphalian after the 1648 have arrived in a place that is quite different in many ways from home. Locals system Peace of Westphalia. might be speaking a different language, there will be new procedures to learn for States had, however, taking public transport, the cuisine will be different, people might look and dress begun to emerge well 1648, and the differently, and there will be new customs and procedures to observe.You will be before worldwide reach of experiencing, at least superficially, the differences between states. the state system did However we choose to think about the European Union, or any other exercise not accelerate until the break-up of European in international cooperation or regional integration, we inevitably refer back to the empires after 1945. baseline of the state. For the past 300–400 years, the state has been the usual means Some now question the for organizing large-scale political communities. The modern state was born in health of the system, arguing that the state Europe in the Middle Ages as competition for power and influence among empires, is dying, and pointing kingdoms, duchies and the Catholic Church changed territorial boundaries. By the to the EU and other seventeenth century, the outlines of today’s European state system had become more examples of regional integration as proof of clear, the defining event being the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. This brought an end how government and to the Eighty Years War and the Thirty Years War, strengthened religious freedom, authority are being Others, adjusted the boundaries of Sweden, France and the German states, and confirmed the redefined. however, argue that independence of the Netherlands, Switzerland and the northern states of what is now states are becoming Italy. Borders and sovereignty achieved a new prominence, and the term Westphalian stronger, partly as a reaction to globalization. system is often used today as shorthand for the resulting international order. Although there is little agreement on the definition of the state, most scholars would agree that it is a legal and political entity that has five key features: government, The state A legal and arrangement population, legitimacy, territory and sovereignty (see Figure 1.1). None of these political through which all features has ever been static or absolute, because the boundaries of states change, the large-scale political authority of state institutions evolves, and there are many states whose international communities are organized, combining legal standing is disputed (including Taiwan, Northern Cyprus and Kosovo). government, population, In 1800 there were barely two dozen states in the world, and only 45 more had legitimacy, territory and been created by the outbreak of the Second World War. With decolonization and sovereignty. Figure 1.1 The features of a state Government
States have governments with the recognized authority to administer and to represent the state in dealings with other governments.
Population
States contain populations, whose needs and rights lie at the foundation of the work and the legal existence of states.
Legitimacy
The authority of a state and its institutions is recognized by the inhabitants of the territory and by the governments of other states.
Territory
States operate within fixed and populated territories marked out by legal boundaries.
Sovereignty
The institutions of the state have a monopoly over the expression of legal and political power within its boundaries.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 14
HISTORY AND IDEAS
Nation A community whose members identify with each other based on shared language, ancestry, history, culture, territory, religion, myths and symbols. Nationalism A belief in the value of preserving the identifying qualities of a nation and promoting its interests, founded on selfdetermination.
the break-up of European empires after the war, there was an explosion of newly independent states (80 emerged in the period 1950–79 alone, mainly in Africa), and more than 20 were added to the list in the 1990s with the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Today there are nearly 200 states in the world, with more in the pipeline as pressures grow for independence, secession or dissolution in Western Sahara, Kosovo, Palestine, Somalia, Belgium, Dagestan, Corsica and Catalonia. Alongside states, we must also understand – particularly in the European context – the distinctive claims and qualities of nations. If a state is a legal and political entity, then a nation is mainly a cultural entity. National identity began to grow rapidly at about the time of the French Revolution, soon becoming the main source of political legitimacy in Europe (Dunkerley et al., 2002), and the glue that many governments used to extend and define their power. It was also used by minorities to claim their right to self-determination and independence. The nineteenth-century French philosopher Ernest Renan (1882) described nations as ‘a soul, a spiritual principle’ driven by a legacy of memories and sustained by the willingness of individuals to live together and value their heritage. More recently, Benedict Anderson (2006) has described them as ‘imagined communities’. Pushed far enough, identification with nations may spawn nationalism. Because few states coincide with nations, nationalism has often sparked intercommunity conflict and political instability. In extreme cases, it has spilled over into ethnocentrism, racism, genocide, civil war and interstate war. It was at the heart of many of the disputes that destabilized Europe during the nineteenth century, and was at the heart of the pressures that led to the outbreak of the First World War. In the interwar years, it plumbed new depths with the Nazi interpretation of history as a racial struggle and Hitler’s belief in extending the Lebensraum (living space) of Germans and persecuting the Jews and the Roma. As late as the 1990s, nationalist violence tore apart Yugoslavia, and even today national minorities in several European states continue to campaign for self-government or even independence, and nationalism has come to be identified with the rise of right-wing anti-immigrant political parties. Despite the number of national minorities who would like their own states, and despite the role of European states in running public programmes such as welfare and social security, there are many doubts today about the health of the state. It has always had its critics, who accuse states of creating unnecessary divisions among humans, often being the major protagonists in war and conflict, often failing to deal with other states without building antagonistic alliances and using the threat of violence, and doing a poor job of working with other states to address shared problems such as terrorism, transboundary pollution, illegal immigration and the spread of disease. And in the globalized world of the twenty-first century, the lines that distinguish sovereignty, independence and legitimacy are becoming increasingly blurred. Some now argue that states have lost so much of their power and credibility that the Westphalian system may be on its way out (see Ohmae, 2005). Others are not prepared to go so far, arguing instead that the state is not declining so much as being transformed. States still have a monopoly over the control and use of militaries, they are still the major players in the management of economic production and international trade networks, their citizens still identify mainly with states and are subject to the authority and rules of the state, and the ability of states to respond to new challenges has grown thanks to technological innovation. Rather than the state being on its way out, perhaps its role is simply changing, as globalization, trade, international law, changes in national identity and modernization have changed the nature of state power, the relationship among states, and the relationship between states and citizens. (For a survey of the debate, see Jessop, 2016.)
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Understanding Integration
15
Illustration 1.1: Headquartered in New York, the United Nations is both the expression of the key role played by states in global governance and the ultimate expression of the desire to encourage cooperation through the work of international organizations.
Source: EC - Audiovisual Service
These debates matter in the European context, where the focus of people’s allegiance is now divided between states, nations and Europe. The implications are discussed in more depth in Chapter 3, but the rise of the EU must be seen not only as a reaction to the tensions created by states and nations, but also as a challenge to conventional ideas about political organization. Where once almost every European associated with a state or a nation, what may be happening today is the construction of the EU as a new kind of political organization, sitting alongside a revival of identification with nations and the relative decline of state power. Not everyone is pleased with the results.
International organizations Just as we have seen a growth since the end of the Second World War in the number of states, so we have seen the growth of interstate cooperation. The underlying motives have varied: states cooperate in order to promote peace, encourage trade, share ideas and resources, reduce duplication, and address shared problems such as illegal immigration, environmental decline, cross-border crime, terrorism and financial regulation. Most of their efforts have been channelled through bilateral and multilateral contacts between and among governments, but states have also sometimes found it more efficient to create international organizations (IOs), within which their representatives can work together and which can employ staff to manage joint programmes, gather data and monitor the progress of international agreements. The oldest IOs predate the First World War, but the real era of growth in international cooperation has only been since the Second World War. By one estimate, there were less than 220 IOs in existence in 1909, about 1,000 in 1951, and still only about 4,000 as late as 1972. By 1989, the number had risen to nearly 25,000, and today there may be as many as 70,000 (Union of International Associations, 2019). Most IOs fall into one of two major categories: 1. International nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), whose members are individuals or the representatives of private associations. They include interest groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the International Red Cross.
International organization A body set up to promote cooperation between or among states, based on the principles of voluntary cooperation, communal management and shared interests.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 16
HISTORY AND IDEAS
2. Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), whose members are states and whose goal is to promote cooperation among state governments. They include the United Nations, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Council of Europe and Interpol.
CONCEPT Regional integration The promotion of cooperation and collective action among a group of states based on the identification of shared interests, common goals, the promotion of efficiency, the pooling of resources, and the creation of opportunity. Although states may be motivated by broad philosophical goals such as peace and unity, integration is usually focused on economic cooperation, including the promotion of trade and investment. The arrangements made to achieve this usually include treaties outlining goals and terms, and the creation of new regional institutions charged with working towards those goals.
Regional integration association An organization within which independent states work to encourage cooperation and the pooling of authority and resources for the mutual benefit of its members.
Unlike states, IGOs do not control territory, nor do they have much opportunity for independent action, since they are based on the voluntary cooperation of their members, who define what the IGOs can and cannot do. Nor do they usually have much authority beyond the requirements of the terms of membership, which rarely provides them with independent powers or the ability to impose their rulings on their members. (The WTO is one notable exception; its dispute resolution procedure allows member states to use the WTO to help resolve trade disputes.) They do have legitimacy, though, at least among their members, because they are created through the free will of their members (see Figure 1.2). Taken far enough,international cooperation can evolve into regional integration, a process summarized by Haas (1958, p. 16) as one in which ‘political actors in several distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations, and political activities toward a new center, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states’. This usually happens when a group of states forms a regional integration association (RIA) designed to encourage collective action and develop common rules on shared interests (usually economic cooperation). (This use of the term regional should not be confused with cooperation among communities within states.) Regional integration involves the creation of institutions that have the authority (or ‘competence’, in EU terminology) to make new rules and policies in areas where their members have agreed to cooperate. However, the institutions are set up in such a way that the governments of the member states have the key role in the adoption and execution of those rules and policies. Regional integration is nothing new, and traces its roots back to the alliances that were once made among monarchs and imperial leaders. In the modern era, the first major exercises in integration date from the nineteenth century, and include the Zollverein (customs union) among German states dating from the 1820s that laid the foundations for the eventual unification of Germany, the Moldovian-Wallachian customs union of 1847 that was a key step on the road to the creation of Romania in 1878, and the 1848 constitution that formed the basis of the Swiss Confederation (Mattli, 1999).
Figure 1.2 The qualities of an international organization Voluntary cooperation
While states have governments and systems of law that can be used to compel or force their citizens, IOs rely on consent and voluntary cooperation.
Communal management While states are self-governing, IOs organize themselves and make decisions based on the shared views of their members.
Shared interests
While states will usually make decisions based on self-interest, IOs provide a forum within which members identify and work on shared interests.
Minimal autonomy
The institutions set up to manage or coordinate the interests of IOs have few, if any, independent powers, and can typically do only what the member states allow.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Understanding Integration
17
The motives behind integration vary by time and place, but in most cases involve CONCEPT economic cooperation, which – depending on political and economic circumstances – can lead to progressively deeper degrees of integration (see Figure 1.3). Although Federalism today there are few countries in the world that are not members of one RIA or Federalism means another (see Table 1.1), their prospects for success vary (see discussion later in this promotion of, or support for, the idea chapter about integrative potential), and the implications of states forming themselves of federation. For into regional blocs are debatable. The study of regional integration is still dominated European federalists, by the European case and by academics from Europe and the US, and the broader this means a belief in the merits of working implications of integration – and its sometimes-different motives outside Europe – towards replacing the European state system are not yet fully understood. (For one exception, see Krapohl, 2017.)
From federalism to functionalism In surveying the ruins left by the Second World War, many Europeans were prompted to argue that states had lost their credibility and their political rights because they could not guarantee the safety of their citizens (Spinelli, 1972). There was a concern that elites would rebuild the state system, raising the danger of a revival of interstate tensions and of renewed conflict and war. The answer to the problem – argued some – lay in federalism, or an effort to replace the European state system with a European federation. Hoping to build on this idea, and seeking particularly to address the perennial problem of tensions between France and Germany, members of the wartime resistance movements in 1946 created the European Union of Federalists, whose first congress met in The Hague in 1948. Among the ranks of the federalists was a French bureaucrat named Jean Monnet. He saw federalism as an end-state that could only be reached gradually: a federal Europe would not be created as a result of ‘some great political mutation’, he later argued (Monnet, 1978, p. 367), but the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952 would be the first small step, and the ECSC
with a new European federation, or a United States of Europe. In conceptual terms, however, it is not really a theory, and falls victim to the confusion between its explanatory role in analysing the nature of today’s EU and its prescriptive role in explaining what some would like the EU to become.
Figure 1.3 Stages in the process of regional integration Regional integration is not necessarily a linear process, and different groups of states will have different ideas about the appropriate steps to take. If there is a European model of integration, it would be as follows: Agreement of free trade area with the easing of internal barriers to trade (such as tariffs and border restrictions) while maintaining a common external tariff against non-members
The creation of a single market with the removal of internal barriers to the free movement of people, capital, goods and services.
Efforts to promote monetary union, where smaller currencies are tied to a leading currency or efforts are made to agree a single currency.
RIAs often talk in general terms about the value of peace and political cooperation, and even of political ‘unity’, but so far the idea of political union has been too controversial to be anything more than a theoretical goal.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 18
HISTORY AND IDEAS
Table 1.1 Selected regional integration associations Year of founding
Name
1952
European Union
28
1967
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
10
1967
East African Community (defunct 1977–99)
1973
Caribbean Community (Caricom)
15
1975
Economic Community of West African States
15
1980
Latin American Integration Association (ALADI)
13
1985
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
1989
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
1991
Southern Common Market (Mercosur)
1992
Southern African Development Community
16
2002
African Union
55
2019
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (superseded 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement)
Functionalism The theory that if states create functionally specific interstate institutions and agencies, regional integration will develop its own internal dynamic, and peace can be achieved through the creation of a web of interstate ties without the need for grand intergovernmental agreements.
Membership in 2019
6
8 21 4
3
experience would spread to other areas of policy, with the eventual achievement of a European federation. Looking beyond the state to solve common problems could encourage new cooperative links and new habits of working together, the commitment to which would be strengthened as results started to be felt. This so-called ‘Monnet method’ of ‘federalism by instalments’ was criticized by the Italian politician Altiero Spinelli, who argued that Monnet’s proposal suffered from the lack of a political centre, or the leadership to push the process along. Strong and independent institutions were needed, otherwise the process of integration would be run by state governments (see Burgess, 2009). The idea of transferring power to such institutions has always been anathema to many, however, and even today there remains much resistance to federalist ideas among Europeans. Even Monnet’s idea of federalism by stages is widely regarded with suspicion. Another critic of federalism was David Mitrany, a Romanian-born British social scientist whose treatise A Working Peace System became the basis of functionalism. Criticizing the ‘fixation’ with states that had become central to studies of international relations (Rosamond, 2000), Mitrany argued that the key challenge was ‘to weld together the common interests of all without interfering unduly with the particular ways of each’. He claimed that federalism was too rigid in its framework, its constitution, and in the limits it placed on action, and that it would be difficult to maintain against a background of political nationalism (Mitrany, 1966, pp. 68, 155–6). The best way to bring about peace was not through alliances and agreements among governments, but by setting up a network of functionally specific international institutions dealing with relatively non-controversial matters such as postal services or the harmonization of weights and measures, and managed by bureaucrats. Mitrany (1966, pp. 92, 163) argued that within their separate arenas, these agencies would find themselves coordinating their functions across state lines, then coordinating with other groups of functional agencies, then working together with international planning agencies. Success in one area would encourage ties in others, building a network of cooperation that would result in the decline of
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Understanding Integration
19
PROFILE Source: EC - Audiovisual Service
Jean Monnet Jean Monnet (1888–1979) is often regarded as the founding father of Europe, his main contribution being the ideas that lay behind the ECSC. A committed internationalist, he was born in western France, working for his family’s cognac business and picking up valuable skills in sales and languages, as well as travelling widely and learning the benefits of open borders and free trade. He became an adviser to the French government during the First World War, and was then named first deputy secretary-general of the League of Nations. He later worked as a financier, advising eastern European governments and living and working in the US and China. He was behind a proposal for an Anglo-French union in 1940, then served as a representative for the British government in Washington DC. He headed France’s post-war planning commission, and oversaw the discussions that led to the creation of the ECSC, becoming first president of its High Authority.
national sovereignty and its replacement by a new international community. In time, the economic and functional ties built among states would lead to political ties, because governments would find themselves living in a web of international agencies, leaving them less capable of independent action. In short, peace was more likely to be achieved through stealth by ‘doing things together in workshop and marketplace than by signing pacts in chancelleries’, and this web of cooperation would result not in a ‘protected peace’ but in a ‘working peace’.
Neofunctionalism and integrative potential Mitrany was interested in how to achieve world peace, not just European peace, and his arguments were not so much a theory as a suggested course of action, spelling out what should be done to achieve peace rather than explaining the conditions needed to make his scheme succeed (Mattli, 1999). This perceived shortcoming was addressed in 1958 by the American political scientist Ernst Haas in his book The Uniting of Europe, which set out to develop a grand theory of regional integration using the case of the still new ECSC. Haas’s work (which made no mention of Mitrany) asked how cooperation in specific economic policy sectors led to deeper economic integration in Europe, and then to wider political integration, giving birth to the theory of neofunctionalism. Haas was among the first to realize that reducing the barriers to the crossborder flow of money and people might transform the European state system. Questioning the core ideas of realism (see Understanding Integration 2), he
Grand theory A theory that explains the entirety of a phenomenon, which has so far been lacking in efforts to explain and understand European integration. Neofunctionalism The theory that states are not the only important actors in efforts to integrate, and that supranational institutions, interest groups and political parties all play a key role.
PROFILE
David Mitrany David Mitrany (1888–1975) was a historian and political theorist best known today as the pioneer of integration theory. Born in Romania, he studied sociology at the London School of Economics before serving in British government intelligence during the First World War, and then working as a journalist on The Guardian and on the faculty of several British and American universities. He became a naturalized British citizen. At the core of his scholarly interests was the question of how states could work together to address transboundary problems, and the approach he adopted became known as functionalism. His best-known publication was A Working Peace System, first published in 1943.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 20
HISTORY AND IDEAS
PROFILE
Ernst Haas (1924–2003) was the author of the theory of neofunctionalism. Born in Germany, he emigrated to the US with his family in 1938, and studied at Columbia University before joining the faculty of the University of California at Berkeley in 1951. He has been credited with helping ‘invent’ the study of European integration, mainly through his development of neofunctionalism (which he insisted was not a theory). The best known of Haas’s many publications was The Uniting of Europe, published in 1958 and later chosen by the journal Foreign Affairs as one of the 50 most important books on IR of the twentieth century (see Ruggie et al., 2005).
Spillover A key element in neofunctionalist theory, describing the pressures through which cooperation among states in one area of policy will lead to pressures to cooperate in other areas. Integrative potential A measure of the extent to which states will be able to integrate successfully, based on a combination of economic and political factors.
Source: University of California, Berkeley
Ernst Haas
wanted to understand how and why states voluntarily cooperated with their neighbours while acquiring new techniques for resolving conflict (Haas, 1970). He concluded that in addition to the cooperation that would automatically arise from functional links, integration would need to be deliberately encouraged by political and economic actors pursuing self-interest. These actors worked mainly at the subnational level (including interest groups and political parties) and at the supranational level (the new regional institutions). The role of state governments was only to respond to these developments, by accepting, ignoring, sidestepping, or trying to sabotage the efforts of the regional institutions (Mattli, 1999). Haas (1958) argued that if two or more states agreed to cooperate in a particular area of activity, and created a new regional organization to oversee that cooperation, the full benefits of integration would not be felt until there was cooperation in other, related areas of activity. Governments would soon find themselves subjected to growing regional pressures, and obliged to give more authority to regional organizations. The expectations of citizens would shift increasingly to the region, and satisfying those expectations would increase the likelihood of economic and social integration evolving into political integration (Ruggie et al., 2005). Integration would take on a life of its own (an ‘expansive logic’) through the phenomenon of spillover, described as a process by which ‘a given action, related to a specific goal, creates a situation in which the original goal can be assured only by taking further actions, which in turn create a further condition and a need for more action’ (Lindberg, 1963). (For more discussion, see Understanding Integration 14, Chapter 24.) Haas and Schmitter (1964) had begun to wonder how far theories of European integration could be applied elsewhere in the world. This encouraged Joseph Nye (1970) to argue that attempts to understand neofunctionalism were too driven by the European case, and that it could stand to be used comparatively and applied to non-European cases. Building on Haas, Nye argued that regional integration involved an integrative potential that determined the extent to which different groups of states were likely to succeed in their efforts, and that this depended on several conditions: • The economic equality and compatibility of the states involved. • The extent to which the elite groups that controlled economic policy in the member states thought alike and held the same values. • The presence and the extent of interest group activity, the absence of which made integration more difficult.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Understanding Integration
21
UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATION 2 International relations Theoretical debates about the EU have long been dominated by the academic discipline of international relations (IR). Born after the First World War as international cooperation entered its initial phase of growth, the study of IR accelerated after the Second World War as cooperation spawned many new international organizations and sparked the signature of international agreements. It is hardly surprising that studies of the European Economic Community (EEC) were long dominated by scholars of IR, given that the early EEC was always – despite the dreams of European federalists – an international organization at heart. It may have had supranational qualities and aspirations, but integration was driven primarily by the decisions of governments negotiating with one another. As a result, theories of European integration were focused on decisions taken by governments, the dynamics of diplomacy and summitry, and the ways in which the governments of member states related to one another. Realism has long been the foundational theory in the study of IR. With a heritage dating back to the ancient Greeks, this argues that because humans are by nature self-centred and competitive, rational self-interest and conflicting objectives encourage states to protect their interests relative to other states and not to trust longterm cooperation and alliances. Today’s realists talk of an anarchic global system in which there is no authority above the level of states that is capable of helping them manage their interactions with one another, and believe that states must use conflict and cooperation to ensure their security through a balance of power among states. An alternative understanding is offered by liberalism, which also talks of an anarchic international system but believes in the possibility of cooperation to promote change; see Understanding Integration 15 in Chapter 26. Meanwhile, idealism emphasizes the role of ideas in shaping international relations. Where realism has been most actively promoted by American scholars, idealism has its strongest supporters in Europe, where – as Snyder (2003) puts it – the increasingly legalistic approach to international relations that was reflected in the process of forming the EU provided fertile soil for idealist conceptions. A response to the dominance of IR theory in integration studies began to emerge in the 1990s, when it was argued that the EU could be understood as a political system in its own right. This nudged EU studies more towards the interests and approaches of comparative politics (see discussion in Chapter 2), but much of the research on the EU is still dominated by the approaches and preferences of scholars of international relations.
• The capacity of the member states to adapt and respond to public demands, which depended in turn on levels of domestic stability and the capacity – or desire – of decision-makers to respond. On almost all these counts, the EU has a relatively high integrative potential, in contrast, for example, to the African Union. The latter was created in 2002 to replace the Organization of African Unity, and is an almost exact copy – institutionally speaking – of the EU. However, it has 54 members that vary widely in their economic wealth and potential, are often divided by race and religion, include authoritarian regimes in which no formal opposition or independent group activity is allowed, and where levels of freedom of expression vary. Where western Europe had, early on, many of the necessary preconditions for successful integration, Africa faces a longer uphill struggle.
The spotlight moves to governments Neofunctionalism dominated early studies of European integration, but by the 1970s was beginning to fall out of favour, thanks in part to Haas’s own loss of faith in his creation, which he felt lacked strong predictive abilities (Haas, 1975). Neofunctionalism did not adequately explain the role of governments in the process of integration, or show how the preferences of subnational and supranational actors would translate into political action. There also seemed to be little prospect of the
International relations (IR) The study of relations among states, focusing on alliances, diplomacy, war and peace, and the dynamics of decisions reached by states working together or in competition with each other. Realism A theory which argues that we live in an anarchic global system (one without rules or an authority above the level of the state), and that international relations are driven by a struggle for power among self-interested states.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 22
HISTORY AND IDEAS
CONCEPT Intergovernmentalism This is both a theory and a model, underpinned by realism, which sees the EU primarily as a meeting place in which representatives from the member states negotiate with each other in an attempt to achieve a consensus, but pursue state interests while paying less attention to the broader interests of the community of states. Key cooperative decisions are made as a result of negotiations among representatives of the states involved. (For more discussion, see Understanding Integration 8, Chapter 11.)
Supranationalism Another theory and model based on the idea that IGOs become the forum for the promotion of the joint interests of the states involved in cooperation, and that there is a transfer of authority to those IGOs. In the example of the EU, governments of the member states compromise state interests in the common good, and transfer authority to institutions that work in the interests of the EU as a whole. (For more discussion, see Understanding Integration 10, Chapter 14.)
western European experience being replicated anywhere else in the world, and the process of European integration itself – after early optimism – had entered stormy waters (see Chapter 5), including political disagreements among its members, economic difficulties, and the failure of early efforts to build a single currency. These problems seemed to suggest that the role of national governments in the process of integration had been underestimated. Prompted by such developments, the American political scientist Stanley Hoffmann argued that neofunctionalism concentrated too much on the process of integration without paying enough attention to the global context. Hoffmann also questioned the automatic nature of spillover, and argued that the importance of state actors and the persistence of nationalism had been overlooked by neofunctionalists. He argued that national interests still played an important role in European politics, and that while spillover had worked in some areas of ‘low politics’ (such as agriculture and trade), it had slowed to a trickle in areas of ‘high politics’ (such as foreign and security policy). It had become easier for the EEC to agree negative measures (such as eliminating tariffs and quotas) than positive measures that required a more painful transformation of existing practices; the first integrative steps had been easiest, but as more vital interests began to be at stake, so the process became more difficult (Hoffmann, 1965). Hoffmann (1966) now asked whether the states of western Europe should be regarded as obstinate rather than obsolete, and focused instead on the idea of intergovernmentalism. He argued that while non-state actors played an important role in the process of integration, state governments alone had legal sovereignty, the political legitimacy that came from being elected, and the authority to decide the pace of integration. Alan Milward (1984) later agreed, his study of the early years of integration leading him to the conclusion that national governments and bureaucracies were the key actors in the process of integration, the extent of integration being determined by national self-interest. Intergovernmental ideas stand in contrast to supranationalism, which sees the EU as the meeting place of the representatives of the member states. As we will see in Chapters 10–13, European interests may tend to dominate the work of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, but the defence of national interests dominates the work of the Council of Ministers and the European Council. Just how much the institutions work independently of the member states, or are still ultimately contained in their actions by the wishes of the member states, is debatable. As with all theories of regional integration, intergovernmentalism has its critics. The main problem is that decisions among governments cannot be treated in isolation, and governments are subject to economic and social forces that either encourage them to cooperate or discourage them from cooperating. The motives behind cooperation also vary; governments may be responsible for making key decisions, but they are often forced into making those decisions by circumstances, a prime example being the start of the Greek debt crisis in 2009 (see Chapter 7). The history of the EU offers numerous cases where governments have been pushed into cooperating by the external logic of economics and efficiency. Spillover, for example, has been at the core of the construction of the European single market, which generated many unanticipated hurdles. These include different environmental standards, different educational systems, different technical standards, and the pressures created by different levels of unemployment and different sets of working conditions. (This understanding has generated a revival of neofunctionalist ideas since the 1990s, although it is argued that they explain only some elements of European integration, and are not a grand theory.)
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Understanding Integration
23
Illustration 1.2: Intergovernmentalism and supranationalism meet at a 2019 meeting of the European Council in Brussels. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez (left) and French President Emmanuel Macron (right) confer with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Source: EC - Audiovisual Service
Logically, then, the key to understanding the EU is probably to combine intergovernmentalism and supranationalism, seeing them not as two points on a spectrum of cooperation but as complementary aspects of the process of integration. Mitrany (1970, p. 103) argued that cooperation among governments was ‘not a matter of surrendering sovereignty, but merely of pooling as much of it as may be needed for the joint performance of the particular task’. As outlined in the Schuman Declaration (see Chapter 4), the creation of the ECSC was all about the pooling of decisions over coal and steel production. Haas (1964, p. 66) argued that supranationalism did not mean that European Community institutions exercised authority over national governments but rather that it was a style of decision-making in which ‘the participants refrain from unconditionally vetoing proposals and instead seek to attain agreement by means of compromises upgrading common interests’. Later, Keohane and Hoffmann (1990, p. 277) agreed that the Community could be seen as ‘an experiment in pooling sovereignty, not in transferring it from states to supranational institutions’. A new theoretical approach emerged in the 1980s and 1990s in the form of liberal intergovernmentalism, associated mainly with the American political scientist Andrew Moravcsik. This combines the neofunctionalist view of the importance of domestic politics with the role of the governments of EU member states in making major political choices. Moravcsik (1993, 1998) talks of a twolevel game, the first involving a combination of national preferences generated by the pressures of domestic politics in the member states. Governments want to keep themselves in office, which means they need the support of voters, parties, interest groups and bureaucracies at home. The pressures created show themselves at a second level, by determining the positions that governments take in international negotiations. Governments have the advantage of having more information available to them in EU-level negotiations, and they can use this information to reach agreements they can then sell to domestic audiences. In other words, the positions of member states’ governments are decided at the domestic level, and European integration then moves forward as a result of bargains reached among those governments negotiating at the European level.
Liberal intergovernmentalism A theory combining elements of neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism, arguing that intergovernmental bargains are driven by pressures coming from the domestic level.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 24
HISTORY AND IDEAS
Discussion questions 1. Which features of a state apply also to the European Union, and which do not? 2. In what ways (if any) has the EU gone beyond being a conventional international organization? 3. Are there any aspects of Mitrany’s ideas about functionalism that continue to help us understand the EU?
4. How far do realist and liberal ideas from international relations continue to shed light on the dynamics of European integration? 5. How are intergovernmentalism and liberal intergovernmentalism different?
Key terms Functionalism
Liberal intergovernmentalism
Regional integration association
Grand theory
Nation
Spillover
Integrative potential
Nationalism
The state
International organization
Neofunctionalism
International relations
Realism
Concepts Federalism
Regional integration
Intergovernmentalism
Supranationalism
Westphalian system
Further reading • Haas, Ernst B. (1958) The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957 (Stanford University Press). The first systematic study of the process of European integration. • Laursen, Finn (ed.) (2010) Comparative Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond (Ashgate). An edited collection that looks at European integration in its global context.
• Wiener, Antje, Tanja Borzel, and Thomas Risse (eds) (2019) European Integration Theory, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press), and Sabine Saurugger (2013) Theoretical Approaches to European Integration (Red Globe Press). Two surveys of theories of European integration, outlining the major theories and the responses to them.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION Understanding Integration
SNAPSHOT: BELGIUM NETHERLANDS
North Sea
BELGIUM
GERMANY
Brussels
FRANCE
Joined EC/EU
March 1957
Image of the EU
41% positive, 41% neutral, 18% negative
Member of euro zone?
Yes (since 1999)
Capital
Brussels
Form of government
Federal parliamentary system with constitutional monarchy
Representative in European Council
Prime minister
Seats in European Parliament
21/705
Turnout at 2019 EP elections
88.5% (highest in the EU)
Votes in Council of Ministers
12/316 (pre-Lisbon numbers)
11.4m
Population
$495bn
Gross Domestic Product
Profile Belgium has long stood at the political centre of European affairs, with many of the battles of the First World War being fought on Belgian soil, for example, and Brussels being home since the creation of the European Economic Community to most of the major EU institutions. (It is also the site of the headquarters of NATO.) It is ironic, then, that in spite of Belgium’s credentials in the world of international cooperation, it is a deeply divided society, with a Dutch-speaking north, a mainly French-speaking south, a German-speaking minority in the east, and a remarkably diverse population in Brussels. Liberated from German occupation in 1944, Belgium was one of the early champions of European integration, and has typically being governed by coalition governments that have often been fractious. Political deadlock, for example, left the country without a government for 541 days in 2010–11.
$43,470
Per Capita GDP
31,000 sq km Area
25
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION INDEX
Notes: references for key entries, terms and concepts indicated in bold; entries for countries are limited to major references to those countries. A accession agreement, 134 Acheson, Dean, 66, 77 acquis communautaire, 97, 148, 413 Adenauer, Konrad, 61, 180 Africa Caribbean Pacific programme, 454–55 agricultural policy, 146, 380–3 and food safety, 387–9 and food security, 381, 383, 389, 454 and the environment, 389–90 comparing, 380–3 see also Common Agricultural Policy Airbus, 321, 339–40, 341 Albania, 87, 88, 148, 419 Amsterdam, Treaty of (1997), 84, 93, 99, 131, 134, 135, 198, 290, 369, 370, 400, 412, 434 Armenia, 148–49 asylum, 418 EU policy, 118, 412, 417, 418–20 Atlantic Alliance, 61, 65, 69, 76, 102, 445 Atlanticists, 432 austerity, 116, 117, 119, 292, 355 Austria, 61, 86, 134 Snapshot, 9 Azerbaijan, 149 B Balkans, 43, 88, 107, 148, 417 banking union, 247 Barcelona Process, 448–9 Barroso, José Manuel, 114, 163, 275 Belarus, 149–50 Belgium, Snapshot, 25 benchmarks, 147–8 Benelux states, 62, 66–7, 161, 179, 216 Berlaymont building, 160, 161 bicameral legislature, 178 bipolarity, 428 Blair, Tony, 103, 217, 350, 435 Blue Card, 417 Bologna Process, 373–4 Borrell, Josep, 201 Profile, 433
Bosnia and Herzegovina, 88, 107, 150 Brandt, Willy, 76, 77 Bretton Woods system, 63, 81, 102, 215, 349, 358 Brexit, xxiii, 1, 119–20, 134, 149, 215, 220, 284–5, 289, 291, 292, 296, 304, 305, 331, 459, 460 Britain, see United Kingdom Brown, Gordon, 350 Brussels, Treaty of (1948), 68 Brussels, Treaty of (1965), see Merger treaty budget, see European Union, budget Bulgaria, 112, 363 Snapshot, 40 Bush, George W., 102, 444, 446 Buzek, Jerzy, 199 C cabinet (of advisors), 168, 170, 171, 221, 235 cabinet (of ministers), 159, 165, 167–8 candidate country, 43, 109, 147, 148–53 central bank, 81, 92, 246, 347, 353 Charter of Fundamental Rights, see Fundamental Rights, Charter of Charter of Fundamental Social Rights for Workers, see Social Charter checks and balances, 207, 324 chemicals policy, see environmental policy China, 116, 315, 340, 359, 390, 428, 429, 433, 439 and the EU, 452–3 Chirac, Jacques, 102, 110, 248, 304, 435 Christian democracy, 270 Churchill, Winston, 64, 65, 463 Profile, 66 citizen initiative, 285–6 citizenship, 14, 20, 35, 38, 45, 47–8 European, 3, 48–9, 84, 94, 183, 207, 222, 336, 413 civil society, 274, 275
477
climate change, 222 248, 315, 327, 402–5, 406 20-20-20 Strategy, 403, 405, 407 and agriculture, 389–90, 397, 401 Emissions Trading Scheme, 403, 404 coalition government, 219, 220, 266, 281, 321, 399 co-decision procedure, 198 Cohesion Fund, 85, 365 cohesion policy, 85, 222, 327, 364–5, 367–8 Cold War, 3, 62, 76, 77, 102, 393, 398, 415, 428, 434 effects of the end of, 85–8, 103, 107, 418, 432, 434, 446, 451 College of Commissioners, see European Commission comitology, 170, 316 Committee of Permanent Representatives, see Council of Ministers, Coreper Committee of the Regions, 93, 256–7, 372 Common Agricultural Policy, 70–1, 141, 324, 381–7 and food safety, 387–9 and the environment, 389–90 Common Commercial Policy, 70, 141, 438 see also trade policy common external tariff, 70, 327 Common Fisheries Policy, 141, 391–92 Common Foreign and Security Policy, 93, 141, 187, 207, 208, 217, 300, 412, 432–3 High Representative for, 99, 432 common market, see single market common pool resources, 393 Common Transport Policy, 70, 141 communitarianism, 307 Community method, 144, 316 comparative method, 29, 30 comparative politics, xxiii, 1, 2, 29–31
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 478
index comparing agricultural policy, 380–3 attitudes towards European integration, 296–8 comparative approach, 29–31 constitutional courts, 228–9 constitutions and treaties, 124–6 economic equality, 363–5 elections, 279–82 environmental policy, 397–9 executives, 159–61 legislative functions, 178–9 legislatures, 195–7, 203 monetary policy, 347–8 most different/most similar systems, 30 political parties, 263–5 public policy, 315–17 summitry, 212–14 competence, 16, 140, 141, 142, 173, 214, 231, 297, 414, 440 competition policy, 340–4 confederation/confederalism, 32, 35, 181 EU as confederal system, 35–8 Conference of Presidents, see European Parliament conferral, 141 consensus, 98, 188, 189, 213, 214, 218, 281 consent procedure, 206–7 constitutional courts, 8, 228–9, 237 comparing, 228–9 constitutionalization, 125 Constitution for Europe, Treaty Establishing a, 109–11, 112, 118, 131, 162, 189, 216–17, 290, 291, 303, 304 constitutions, 61 comparing, 124–6 EU, 124–6, 129, 132–3, 134, 412 US, 36, 124, 141, 233 constructivism, 44, 48, 191 consultation procedure, 198, 206 convergence criteria, 100, 350 cooperation procedure, 198, 206 Copenhagen conditions, 97, 147–48 Coreper, see Council of Ministers corporate Europe, 338–40, 342 corporate mergers, 3, 338–40 cosmopolitanism, 309, 376 Cotonou agreement, 454 Council of Europe, 42, 43, 65–6 and education, 374 and EU flag, 53, 84 and human rights, 135, 241 Council of Ministers, 5
Coreper, 182, 184, 185–6, 188, 272 councils, 183–4 evolution, 179–80 General Secretariat, 186–7, 212, 221, permanent representatives, 77, 182, 184, 185–6, 212, 213 powers and role, 187–91 presidency, 181–3 qualified majority vote, 75, 92, 99, 112, 134, 165, 189–90, 217, 369 trio system, 183 voting options, 188–9 working parties and committees, 186 Council of the European Union, see Council of Ministers Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, 423 Counter-Terrorism Strategy, 423 Court of Auditors, 195, 257–8, 337, 367 Court of First Instance, see General Court Court of Justice of the European Union, see European Court of Justice crises in the EEC/EU, 429 Brexit (see Brexit) empty chair, 75–6, 161 euro zone/sovereign debt crisis, 3, 22, 115–16, 129, 135, 193, 247, 248, 249, 302, 335, 351, 352, 354–6, 359–60, 370–71, 400 refugee/migration crisis, 118–19, 416, 419 Suez crisis, 68–9 see also global financial crisis Croatia, Snapshot, 57 Crotty, Raymond, 130 customs union, 16, 36, 62, 70, 237, 333, 342, 384 Cyprus, Snapshot, 73 Czechoslovakia, 76, 77, 86–7 Czech Republic, Snapshot, 89 D Day, Catherine, 170 Dayton Peace Accords, 88 decentralized agency, 8, 249–53 deepening vs. widening, 147, 316, 462 defence policy, see security and defence policy De Gaulle, Charles, 75–6, 78, 145, 215, 325, 384 Profile, 76
Delors, Jacques, 83, 87–8, 162, 369 plan for monetary union, 92, 170, 349, 350 Profile, 84 democratic deficit, 279–80, 286, 301, 323–24 demographic trends in Europe, 51–6, 414, 463 Denmark, 62, 78, 350 and national referendums, 83, 94, 98, 131, 149, 287, 290, 291, 292 Snapshot, 105 derogation, 322–3 development policy, 454–7 differentiated integration, 322–3 direct actions, 239–40, 319 direct effect, 231 directives, 172, 208 directorate-general, see European Commission Dublin Convention on Asylum (1990), 412 E echo chamber, 301 economic and monetary union, 81, 82, 92, 93, 102, 170, 349, 354, 365, 445 see also euro economic liberalization, 334 economic policy, 81, 330–44 education policy, 334, 363, 371–7 elections, 86, 219 comparing, 279–82 European, 49, 94, 98, 118–19, 159, 165, 195, 198, 202, 203, 263, 264, 266, 267–71, 279–82, 324 first and second order, 282–3 voter turnout, 282–6, 304 elites/elitism, 3, 17, 111, 117–18, 324 employment policy, 368, 370–1 empty chair crisis, 75–6, 161 energy policy, 338, 339, 390, 405–7 enhanced cooperation, 99 enlargement of the EEC/ EU, 77, 81, 99 1960–86 rounds, 77–81 1990–95 round, 95–7 benchmarks, 147–8 candidate countries, 43, 109, 147, 148–53 eastern, 97, 107–9, 134, 172, 336, 366, 451 effects of, 82, 130, 143, 144, 297, 368, 462 future prospects, 148–53 membership process, 146–8
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION index widening vs. deepening, 147, 316, 462 see also neighbourhood policy environmental policy, 141, 256, 269, 272, 327, 366, 397–405 and agriculture, 71, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389–90 and energy, 406 chemicals policy, 246, 387, 401, 402 comparative, 397–99 see also climate change, sustainable development, Erasmus generation, 375–6 Erasmus programme, 372–3, 375 Estonia, Snapshot, 122 euro, 347–8 convergence criteria, 100, 350 costs and benefits, 352–3 crisis in euro zone (see crises in the EEC/EU) evolution, 81–2, 91–2, 100–02, 349–53 future prospects, 357 public opinion on, 101–2, 290, 351–3 referendums on, 289–90 as reserve currency, 357–60 Eurobarometer, 50–1, 296–7, 301, 302, 333 see also public opinion in Europe Eurocorps, 258, 435 Eurojust, 255 Europa building, 179, 213 Europarty, 264 Europe boundaries/borders, 42–4 citizenship, 3, 48–9, 84, 94, 183, 207, 222, 336, 413 demography, 51–6, 414, 463 identification with, 50–1, languages, 47, 376–7 nations, 45–7 Europe 2020 strategy, 334 European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), 339 European arrest warrant, 421, 424 European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), 69–70, 126, 161, 179, 197, 230 European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 107 European Central Bank, 92, 101, 116, 202, 245, 246–9, 347–8, 359–60, 400 president, 207, 212, 248 European Coal and Steel Community, 3, 5, 17, 66–7, 263, 325, 364 European Commission, 5, 22, 253 College of Commissioners, 165–8
committees, 170 directorates-general and services, 168–70 evolution, 71, 129, 161–2 powers and role, 116, 170–74, 272, 316, 340, 347, 348 president, 162–5, 207, 264 presidential candidates, 159, 162, 163, 165, 166, 212, 225 Secretariat-General, 170 European Convention on Human Rights , 66, 100, 112, 135–6, 240, 241, 431 European Council, 5, 179, 181, 195, 231, 297, 422 evolution, 85, 92, 99, 215–16 meetings, 92, 97, 99, 100, 109, 110, 147, 325, 369, 370, 413, 417, 419 membership, 219–21 powers and role, 129, 147, 149, 165, 180, 221–25, 317, 435 president, 162, 216–18 see also summitry European Court of Human Rights, 136, 240–1 European Court of Justice, 8, 22, 257 advocates-general, 235 direct actions, 239–40, 319 direct effect, 231 evolution, 71, 85, 126, 230–32, 342 General Court, 8, 236, 240 judge-rapporteurs, 232–3 judges, 233–35 powers and role, 166, 236–40, 319, 320 preliminary rulings, 238–9 president, 232–33 supremacy of EU law, 231 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 375 European Currency Unit (ecu), 82, 92 European Defence Community, 67–8, 434 European Development Fund, 457 European Economic and Social Committee, 256, 272 European Economic Area, 91, 96, 98, 151 European Economic Community, 5, 21, 22, 27, 29, 37, 69–71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 91, 92, 127, 143, 160, 161, 173, 180, 315, 325, 365, 381, 384, 432, 445, 454 Membership referendums, 287, 289
European Employment Strategy, 370 European Environment Agency, 400–01 European evidence warrant, 421, 424 European External Action Service, 112, 221, 433 European flag, 51, 53, 84 European Free Trade Association, 77, 96 European Higher Education Area, 374, 375 European Investment Bank, 70, 229, 248–9, 363 Europeanism, 307 Europeanist, 432 Europeanization, 144, 265, 316, 398 European Judicial Network, 255, 421 European Monetary Agreement, 81, 349, 351 European Monetary System, 82, 83, 92, 349 European Movement, 65, 66 European Neighbourhood Policy, 450 European ombudsman, 208–09, 235 European Parliament, 5, 165, 231, 304 candidates, 202, 280, 282, 305 committees, 203–04 comparing legislatures, 195–7 Conference of Presidents, 201 elections, 49, 94, 98, 118–19, 159, 165, 195, 198, 202, 203, 263, 264, 266, 267–71, 279–82, 282–6, 304, 324 evolution, 71, 85, 93, 99, 197–98 legislative procedures, 206–7, 316 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), 144, 201–03, 263 political groups in, 165, 197, 198, 199, 201, 204, 205, 219, 263, 265–71, 279, 283, 322 powers and role, 165, 178, 205–09, 257 president, 198–201 rapporteurs, 204–05 Secretariat, 196, 205, 229 site, 5, 196–7 European Police Office, see Europol European Political Community, 68 European Political Cooperation, 91–2, 432 European Regional Development Fund, 82, 85, 365
479
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 480
index European Securities and Markets Authority, 116, 249 European Security and Defence Policy, 435 European Security Strategy, 435 European Semester, 116, 334 European Social Charter, 85, 135, 369–70 European Social Fund, 70, 85, 365, 368 European Space Agency, 8, 258–9, 337 European Space Policy, 254, 259 European System of Financial Supervision, 116, 249 European Union and China, 452–3 and Israel, 43, 69, 451 and Russia, 338, 406, 407, 451–2 and United States, 444–8 as global actor, 428–31 as political system, 31–2 budget, 172, 324–7 citizenship, 3, 48–9, 84, 94, 183, 207, 222, 336, 413 confederal features, 35–8 constitution, 124–6, 129, 132–3, 134, 412 enlargement (see enlargement of the EEC/EU) federal features, 33–5 flag, 51, 53, 84 languages, official, 47, 376–7 law, 126, 142, 170, 172, 173, 208, 229, 231, 238, 239 membership requirements (see Copenhagen conditions) military power, 434–7 passport, 49, 51, 84 policies agricultural, 146, 380–3 asylum, 118, 412, 417, 418–20 climate change, 222 248, 315, 327, 402–5, 406 cohesion, 85, 222, 327, 364–5, 367–8 competition, 340–4 defence (see security) development, 454–7 economic, 81, 330–44 education, 334, 363, 371–7 employment, 368, 370–1 energy, 338, 339, 390, 405–7 environmental, 141, 256, 269, 272, 327, 366, 397–405 fiscal, 347, 348, 356 fisheries, 390–3
foreign, 91, 117, 130, 207, 431–3 immigration, 52, 108, 299, 308, 309, 413, 414–18 justice and home affairs, 411–24 monetary, 101, 246, 347 neighbourhood, 152, 327, 448–52 regional, 365, 368 security (see Common Foreign and Security Policy) single market, 70, 333–8 social, 368–71 terrorism, 411, 412, 413, 420–4, 435, 445, 446, 450, 451 trade, 222, 437–40 treaties (see treaties (EU)) European Union, Treaty on (1992), 5, 93–4, 98, 99, 100, 111, 126, 127, 130–1, 146, 198, 206, 207, 246, 290, 292, 299, 369, 400, 412, 432 three pillars, 130–1 Europol, 93, 254–5, 412, 414, 421, 422 Euroscepticism, 98, 114, 271, 283, 296, 297, 298–301, 309 Eurosclerosis, 83, 333 Eurosystem, 247 Eurotunnel, 248, 337 Exchange Rate Mechanism, 82, 299, 349 Exchange Rate Mechanism II, 350 executive, 159 comparing, 159–61 executive agency, 253–4 external relations, see foreign policy F federation/federalism, 17–19, 92, 93, 296, 299, 461 EU as federal system, 33–5 Finland, 96, 97 Snapshot, 138 fiscal compact, 116, 135 fiscal policy, 347, 348, 356 fisheries policy, 390–3 see also Common Fisheries Policy food safety, 387–9 food security, 381, 383, 389, 454 foreign policy, 91, 117, 130, 207, 431–3 see also Common Foreign and Security Policy forestry policy, 390 France, 46, 61, 68, 69, 118 and Airbus, 339
and the CAP, 146, 380–81, 384 and Germany, 17, 82, 92, 117, 118, 143, 145, 351, 356 and national referendums, 94, 98, 110, 111, 290, 292, 304 and security policy, 434–5, 437, 446 and terrorism, 411 Snapshot, 155 Frontex, 246, 414, 417, 419 functionalism, 18–19, 118 see also neofunctionalism, postfunctionalism Fundamental Rights, Charter of, 99–100, 135 G Galileo satellite navigation, 259, 321, 337–8, 453 game theory, 214, 215 Gates, Robert, 310 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 63, 386 General Court, 8, 236, 240 genetically modified organisms, 388 Georgia, 150 Germany, 61, 65, 68, 76, 77, 87, 144, 189, 202, 258, 339, 363–4, 437 and the euro, 92, 347, 349, 350, 353, 355 and France, 17, 82, 92, 117, 118, 143, 145, 351, 356 confederation, 36 reunification, 81, 82, 86 role in EEC/EU, 66–7, 220, 228–9, 383, 384 Snapshot, 176 Giscard d’Estaing, Valéry, 110, 216 global financial crisis (2007–09), 114–15, 116, 124, 144, 151, 246, 249, 332, 334–5, 344, 354, 355, 356, 359, 367, 370–71, 404, 407, 428, 438 Globalization Adjustment Fund, 367 global system, 21, 428 Google, 342 governance, 32, 245, 253, 265, 414 government, 3, 22, 23, 28, 31–2, 34, 35 see also intergovernmentalism head of, 219, 267 grand theory, 2, 19, 22 Greece, 62, 79–80, 100, 152, 297, 347, 352, 391 debt crisis, 3, 115–16, 350, 354 Snapshot, 193
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION index Greenland, 149, 289 Green politics, 269, 399 H Haas, Ernst, 16, 19–20, 23, 400 Profile, 20 Hague Programme, 413 Hallstein, Walter, 75 head of government, 219, 267 head of state, 219 Heath, Edward, 82, 289 High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy 99, 112, 113, 168, 181, 184, 186–87, 207, 212, 213, 217, 432, 433 Hoffmann, Stanley, 22, 23 Human Rights, European Convention on, see European Convention on Human Rights Hungary, 87 Snapshot, 210 I Iceland, 391 and EU membership, 151, 354 constitution, 124 idealism, 21, 59, 430 identity, European and national, 14, 44–7, 48, 50–1, 118, 297, 308–9, 353, 376, 415, 461, 462 immigration, 52, 108, 299, 308, 309, 413, 414–18 refugee/migration crisis, 118–19, 416, 419 incrementalism, 144, 246, 322, 414 institution, defined, 28 integrative potential, 20–1 interest groups, 271–5 intergovernmental conference, 83, 92–3, 99, 129, 132 intergovernmentalism, 2, 5, 22–3, 28, 35, 48, 68, 71, 118, 131, 180, 181, 231, 332, 412, 413 liberal intergovernmentalism, 23 internal market, see single market International Court of Justice, 241 International Criminal Court, 241, 432, 447 International Monetary Fund, 63, 81, 115, 248, 359 international organizations, 1, 15–17 EU as an example, 27, 124, 125, 303 international political economy, 118, 332 international relations, 1, 2, 21, 48, 181, 332, 430, 431 see also liberalism, realism
Iraq 1990–91 Gulf War, 87 2003 invasion of, 102–4, 223, 307, 420, 444, 447 Ireland, 61, 78, 84, 87, 135, 183, 343 economic problems, 115, 116 national referendums, 83, 94, 99, 112–13, 130, 162, 290, 291, 292, 305–6 Snapshot, 226 Israel, and the EU, 43, 69, 451 Italy, 61–2, 115, 241, 375 Snapshot, 243 J judicial authority, 229 Juncker, Jean-Claude, 114, 165, 199 justice and home affairs, 411–24 Justus Lipsius building, 179, 213 K Kissinger, Henry, 432 knowledge deficit, 301–04 Kosovo, 88, 350, 419, 445 potential candidacy of EU, 151 Kurz, Sebastian, 134 L Lagarde, Christine Profile, 248 language in EU/Europe, 47, 376–7 Latvia, Snapshot, 261 law, see European Union, law legislative function, 178–9 legislatures, 178, 195–6 comparing, 195–7, 203 Lenaerts, Koen Profile, 233 liberal intergovernmentalism, 23 liberalism, 21, 332, 430–1 Lisbon, Treaty of (2007), 48, 111– 14, 118, 127, 129, 132–3, 135, 136, 140, 141, 162, 165, 170, 181, 183, 184, 187, 189, 216, 217, 219, 221, 230, 285–6, 303, 305–6, 406, 413, 433 content and effects, Lisbon Strategy, 100, 334, 373 Lithuania, Snapshot, 277 lobbying, 168, 257, 271, 272, 274, 275, 324 Lomé conventions, 91, 454 Luxembourg, 62, 363, 370, 415 as base of EU institutions, 8, 126, 161, 169, 196, 203, 205, 229, 248, 257 Snapshot, 294 Luxembourg Compromise, 76, 190
M Maastricht treaty, see European Union, Treaty on Macedonia, North, 152 Malta, Snapshot, 311 Marshall Plan, 63, 67, 445 Members of the European Parliament, see European Parliament member states attitudes to integration, 296–8 division of policy authority (competence) 16, 140, 141, 142, 173, 214, 231, 297, 414, 440 future members (potential), 148–53 leaving the EU, 149 legal status, 140–3 membership process, 146–8 place within the EU, 143–6 subsidiarity, 141 see also enlargement, Europeanization mergers and acquisitions, see corporate mergers Merger treaty (1965), 71, 93, 126, 129, 161, 165, 180 Merkel, Angela, 133, 220 221 Michel, Charles Profile, 218 Microsoft, 342 migration, see immigration Mitrany, David, 18–19, 23, 430 Profile, 19 mixed system, 432 Moldova, 152 monetary policy, 101, 246, 347 comparing, 347–8 see also euro, European Central Bank monetary union, 81–2, 92, 93, 102, 170, 349, 354, 365, 445 see also euro Monnet, Jean, 17–18, 66, 67, 78, 93, 120, 144, 161, 215 Profile, 19 Montenegro, 152 multiannual financial framework, 325–6 multiculturalism, 308–9 multilateralism, 307, 310, 430, 446 multilevel governance, 32, 118, 372 multipolarity, 428, 430 mutual recognition, 228, 229, 231, 373, 421 N Naples Convention (1967), 411–12
481
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 482
index nation, 14, 45–7, 50, 309 national contributions, 75, 324–5 nationalism, 14, 22, 45, 59, 60, 62, 86, 88, 155, 210, 271, 298, 299, 332, 336, 418, 460, 462 see also patriotism, populism neighbourhood policy, 152, 327, 448–52 neofunctionalism, 19, 20, 21, 22, 118 Netherlands and national referendums, 110–11, 145, 290, 291 Snapshot, 329 new institutionalism, 31, 160 Nice, Treaty of (2001), 99–100, 135, 161, 189 and Irish referendum, 131, 290, 305 Nobel Peace Prize, for EU, 117 normative power, 430, 462 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 25, 65, 68, 80, 87, 88, 102, 117, 258, 431, 434–5, 437, 445, 446, 447, 452 Norway, 407 and EEC/EU membership, 75, 78, 91, 96–7, 152, 287 O Obama, Barack, 444, 447 official development assistance, 454–7 open method of coordination, 318, 370 opt-out, 94, 131, 135, 290, 292, 413 ordinary legislative procedure, 190–1, 198, 206, 316 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 63 Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, 63 own resources, 75, 129, 324–5, 430 P Paris, Treaty of (1951), 3, 5, 67, 126, 141, 230, 341 passport, European, 49, 51, 84 path dependence, 160, 322 patriotism, 50–1, 308 permissive consensus, 98, 111, 118 Peter Principle, 332 Petersberg tasks, 434, 436 pillars, see three pillars Poland, 85–6, 172, 189–90, 363, ‘Polish plumber’, 336 Snapshot, 345 police and judicial cooperation, 412, 420, 421
policy convergence, 274, 316, 398 policy diffusion, 274, 316, 398 political economy, 332 political games, 214, 215, 322 political groups in European Parliament, 165, 197, 198, 199, 201, 204, 205, 219, 263, 265–71, 279, 283, 322 political parties, comparing, 263–5 polity, 28 Poos, Jacques, 87, 88 population trends, see demographic trends in Europe populism, 116, 118–19, 210, 243 298, 299, 309, 418, 444 see also nationalism Portugal, 62, 183 Snapshot, 361 postfunctionalism, 118 poverty, 334, 370 power, 429 preliminary rulings, 231, 238–9 proportionality, 141 proportional representation, 280, 281 Prüm Convention, 134–5 public opinion in Europe, 292, 388, 399 about the United States, 447 commonalities, 306–10 comparing, 296–8 misconceptions about the EU, 303–6 on the constitutional treaty, 110, 111, 118 on the euro, 101–2, 290, 351–3 on European integration, 29, 97–8, 146, 296–8 on identification with Europe/EU, 50–1 on invasion of Iraq, 102–3 see also Euroscepticism, knowledge deficit public policy, 315 comparing, 315–17 public policy in the EU, agenda-setting, 317–18 features, 320–4 policy cycle, 317–20 policy evolution, 318 for specific policies (see by subject area or European Union, policies) see also policy convergence, policy diffusion public sphere, 307 Q qualified majority vote, 75, 92, 99, 112, 134, 165, 189–90, 217, 369 quasi-federation, 34, 38
R realism/realist theory, 19, 21, 332, 430, 431 Red Bull, 228, 238–9 referendums, 286–92 Brexit, xxiii, 1, 119–20, 149, 215, 220, 284–5, 289, 291, 292, 296, 304, 305, 331, 459, 460 on adoption of new treaties, 110–11, 131, 132, 284, 290 in Denmark, 83, 94, 98, 131, 290, 291, 292 on EU membership, 287–90 on the euro, 289–90 pros and cons, 291–2 in France, 94, 110, 287, 290, 304 in Ireland, 83, 94, 99, 112–13, 130, 162, 290, 291, 292, 305–6 in Netherlands, 291 in Norway, 78, 91, 152, 287 in Switzerland, 152–3 regime, 30, 31, 34, 125 regional integration, 16–17, 18, 315, 332, 428 see also integrative potential, spillover, theory/theories regional integration association, 16, 27–8, 31 regional policy, 365, 368 regulations (EU), 97, 172, 208, 246, 316, 334, 343, 387, 402, 405, 412 renewable energy, 403, 407 reserve currency, 357–60 Romania, 87 Snapshot, 378 Rome, Treaty of (1957), 5, 69–71, 83, 93, 98, 146, 173, 228, 231, 248, 253, 333, 342, 368, 371, 381, 384, 386, 391, 399, 438 Rumsfeld, Donald, 446 Russia, 42–3, 119, 148, 150, 152, 207, 213, 241, 304, 447 and the EU, 338, 406, 407, 451–2 and Ukraine, 117, 153, 436 S Sarkozy, Nicolas, 133, 248, 449 Sassoli, David Profile, 199 Schengen Agreement, 84, 99, 129, 134–5, 151, 152, 153, 317, 322, 411, 412 Schuman, Robert, 66, 197 Profile, 67 Schuman Declaration, 23, 66 Second World War, 21, 61, 62, 430
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION index secularism, 307, 309 security policy, 435 see also Common Foreign and Security Policy Selmayr, Martin, 170 Serbia, 88, 151, 152 Single European Act (1986), 30, 70, 83–5, 94, 127, 198, 206, 290, 365, 400, 432 single market, 5, 22, 70, 83, 100, 254, 298, 299, 316, 317, 333–8, 341, 364, 366, 368, 369, 370, 399–400, 406, 439 Slovakia, Snapshot, 395 Slovenia, 88 Snapshot, 409 snake in the tunnel, 81–2, 349, 351 Social Charter, 135, 369 social construction, see constructivism social dumping, 368 social media, 292, 301, 303–4 social movement, 274–5 social policy, 368–71 social values, see Europeanism Solana, Javier, 163, 187, 432–3 Solidarity Fund, 366 Soros, George, 82, 356 sovereign debt crisis, see crises in the EEC/EU, sovereignty, 3, 13, 19, 23, 38, 81, 83, 91, 181, 214, 231, 461 Spaak, Paul-Henri, 66, 75 Spain, 62, 77, 80, 103, 104, 115, 365, 390, 391, 404, 462 Snapshot, 426 spillover, 20, 22, 141, 400 Spinelli, Altiero, 18 Spitzenkandidaten, see European Commission, presidential candidates Stability and Growth Pact, 133, 350, 354, 355 state, 13–15 head of, 219 Stockholm Convention (1960), 77 structural and investment funds, 366–8 subsidiarity, 141, 270 Suez crisis, 68–9 summitry, 21, 212–15, 224 superpower, 56, 62, 428, 429, 444, 452 supranationalism, 22, 23, 77, 181, 231 sustainable development, 400
Sweden, 62, 96, 97 Snapshot, 442 Switzerland, 35, 152–3 T terrorism, 102, 103–4, 120, 411, 412, 413, 420–4, 435, 445, 446, 451 Thatcher, Margaret, 83–4, 221, 325 theory/theories, constructivism, 44, 48, 191 federalism, 17–18, 33–5 functionalism, 18–19, 118 game theory, 214, 215 idealism, 21, 59, 430 intergovernmentalism, 2, 5, 22–3, 28, 35, 48, 68, 71, 118, 131, 180, 181, 231, 332, 412, 413 liberal intergovernmentalism, 23 liberalism, 21, 332, 430–1 neofunctionalism, 19, 20, 21, 22, 118 new institutionalism, 31, 160 postfunctionalism, 118 realism, 19, 21, 332, 430, 431 role of, 2 supranationalism, 22, 23, 77, 181, 231 transactionalism, 304, 306 think tank, 273–4 three pillars, 130–1 trade policy, 222, 437–40 Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, 187 transactionalism, 304, 306 trans-European networks, 336–7 treaty/treaties (EU), 125 comparing, 124–6 evolution, 66–7, 69–70, 83–5, 93–4, 99–100, 109–14, 129–34 related agreements, 134–6 understanding the treaties, 126–9 see also individual treaties: Amsterdam, Constitution for Europe, European Union, Lisbon, Merger, Nice, Paris, Rome, Single European Act Truman Doctrine, 65 Trump, Donald, 213, 405, 428, 433, 444, 445, 446, 447–8, 460, Turkey, 42–3, 241 and EU membership, 108, 109, 153 Tusk, Donald, 218
U Ukraine, 117, 153, 255, 338, 436, 452 Union for the Mediterranean, 449 unitary administration, 33 United Kingdom, 34, 48, 61, 110, 145, 291, 325, 339, 388 and Brexit, xxiii, 1, 119–20, 134, 149, 215, 220, 284– 5, 289, 291, 292, 296, 304, 305, 331, 459, 460 and EEC/EU membership, 75, 77–8, 82 and the euro, 82, 102, 290, 350–1, 353 and European integration, 296 and Schengen, 84 and security policy, 68, 87, 435, 437 Snapshot, 459 see also Suez crisis United States, 36, 124, 275, 301, 307, 371 and the EU, 444–8 global role, 116, 212–13, 405, 428, 433, 434 and role in European integration, 63–5, 76, 102–4 V value added tax, 325 van der Woude, Marc, 236 Van Rompuy, Herman, 113, 218 Vietnam War, 76, 81, 102, 444, 445 Von Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard, 59, 65 von der Leyen, Ursula, 165 Profile, 163 W Warsaw Pact, 65, 76 Weiss, Louise, 197 Welle, Klaus, 205 Werner Committee, 81, 349 Western European Union, 68, 434 Westphalian system, 13, 14, 37, 412 White Papers, 83, 253, 316, 317, 333 widening vs. deepening, 147, 316, 462 World Bank, 63 World Trade Organization, 16, 140, 173, 389, 440 Y Yom Kippur War (1973), 81, 445, 451 Yugoslavia, 14, 57, 88, 107, 152, 409
483