The UK and the EU – the Mutual and Unusual Relation
The prevailing trend in the international environment in the recent decades has provided greater openness in various aspects such as socio-politics, economics and trade, investment, finance and technology resulting in increased international integration and interdependence between states. Further, the growing culture of globalization and its perceivable effects in several areas of the world overlay the contemporary changes in the existing world economy and standards (2003). Globalization is currently the tag for the promises as well as risks facing humanity in the modern era (1999;2000; 2000; 2000). As a result, there is global cooperation among independent states directed to improved socio-political, economic, and cultural progression. The presence of communal relationships through organizations represents such movement like the European Union (EU) and its members. For instance, with the given existence of federal state like United Kingdom of Great Britain, or the UK, the EU policies are subject to discussion in terms of the responsibility of the UK’s national government.
This paper aims to discuss the framework of EU, its functions and other related mechanisms affecting its immediate members and the world. Specifically, this paper presents the mutual and unusual relation of United Kingdom (UK) to the said organization.
European Union – the Big League United in Diversity
The European Union, commonly known as EU, is a popular communal organization of European democratic countries dedicated to increasing economic prosperity, lasting peace, and strengthening cooperation among its members (. It is perhaps the most important agent of change in contemporary government and policy-making in Western Europe (2000). As unique body ( 2006), it is composed of 25 countries and 450 million people that are diverse but united in purpose. Accordingly, it is not a state intended to substitute existing states but just a body aiming for international cooperation. The EU and its member states have set up common institutions with equal delegation of sovereignty that will serve the general welfare of its people at European level (2006). Primarily, it works to promote and expand cooperation among its members in areas, including economics and trade, social issues, foreign policy, security, and judicial matters.
According to (2000), there are five variants of the EU policy process namely – a distinctive Community method; the EU regulatory model; multi-level governance; policy coordination and benchmarking; and intensive transgovernmentalism. Among the activities that the Union is doing are regional actions, extension of structural policy to embrace the new member states, social dimension, employment policy, financing the common policies, reforming the common agricultural policy, sustainable development, and technological innovation ( 2006). Its progress, however, has not been consistent, with spurts of activity separated by more-dormant periods (2001).
Today, the most immediate challenge that the EU faces is to make a success of the euro, but the future of the single currency rests in part upon how acceptable it proves to world financial institutions and markets. In the long term, enlarging the EU by including Eastern Europe should improve economic prospects by extending the single market and stimulating economic growth and trade. The EU hopes that enlargement will raise the EU’s standing as the major European voice in world affairs and contribute to security and stability on the entire continent ( 2001). Conversely, the EU now stands on the edge of an eastwards expansion, perhaps to embrace a number of central and east European countries, with very different inheritances. One important question which follows is whether this fit between country characteristics and European process will be sustainable in a larger and more diverse Union.
The EU and the United Kingdom – the Large but Indefinite Effect
In the overall political setting of the state, policies governing the operations of the government create a significant impact to the entire population. These policies include ratified government legislation – both locally and centrally, that is geared towards addressing the needs of the population. To a certain extent these legislations are considered policies attempting to enhance the welfare of the public. Aspects such as social security, housing, healthcare, and education constitute these social policies. In the current trend of internationalization and globalization, the said concepts are continuously changing to adapt to the existing situations that states have to contend with.
Perhaps the fundamental point of diversity in British politics is that the UK is a multinational state composed of four parts – England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. A major change in the political environment of the UK was its entry into the EU, or the Common Market two decades ago (1998). Joining the EU introduced a whole new level of government to the UK. With the given truth, the importance of Europe for Britain is increasing, and pressures toward full integration of the European market place even more economic decision-making power especially in Brussels (1998). Historically, the UK has been one of the more reluctant members of the EU to accept that integration (1992). Accordingly, the British people express reluctance about any greater economic and political unification of the EU more than the people of any other European nation (1998). The UK may be a fraction of Europe, but it maintains some considerable distance (psychological as well as geographic) from its partners on the entire Continent. Conradt and colleagues also claimed that it is safe to say that British society is actually rather heterogeneous – characterized by the division of four separate countries within the borders of the UK and made more multipart by millions of immigrants who came form their former colonies that have flocked there.
Working on the argument that there is indeed hesitation on the UK in joining the EU, there are some conflicting policies that are involved in the UK’s national government and the Union. For instance, the expansion of EU in 2004 risks the food and drinks industry of UK (2006). As stated by Simon, when the Union added ten new members, it was predicted to open better opportunity for the UK especially on business. According to his article, “Jim Dougal, head of the European Commission in the UK, said at the time that the creation of a single market of 455 million consumers would allow UK industry to tap into new markets, thereby boosting UK GDP by 1.75bn (pounds sterling)”. But now, the threat of competition among products from member states as a result of free trade is hunting UK’s food and drink industry due to the fact that democracy is highly proliferated within the borders of the continent as well as the members of the Union.
Furthermore, it is a known fact that the Parliament government of the UK is sometimes in conflict with some policy decision making and taking due to the considerations given by the EU (e.g. the case of European Convention on Human Rights). With this reality, the potentials of political diversity serve as barrier to eventual communal relationship. According to (2006), the UK as a member state of EU is itself constrained in its policy actions by virtue of its membership. Further, the legal primacy of agreements reached in that arena is also controlled. Thus in areas such as rural affairs, fisheries, or the environment, British policy are constrained by EU commitments. Given the pervasive impact of the EU, it is critical to an understanding of how decentralization works generally to see it in this multileveled context (2006).
In the same reference, and colleagues (1998) noted some actions of the EU are considered undemocratic and intrusive by many British politicians and citizens. The evidences of frequent close door arrangement and negotiations are apparent. With such incidents, the UK is not extricating themselves from Europe because it does not appear to be a desirable option for most state officials. The nature of British government within an expanding Europe is not yet known, but it is likely to be different from that existing today. It also could be argued that the most important problem for government in the UK is its ability to make and implement unpopular policies with little effective restraint and thereby to reduce the legitimacy of government with the population.
With the given diversity, the challenge of supranational participation in EU policy is not unique to the UK (2006). Supranationalism is a principle used in decision making of international organizations. It characterizes power as held by independent appointed officials or by representatives elected by the legislatures or people of the member states. Supranational institutions, on the other hand, can be defined as decision-making structures in international organizations that possess legal authority to make rules that are binding on the nation-states that belong to the organization in question (1998). Supranational laws and policies thereby transcend national policymaking autonomy to a greater degree than intergovernmental treaties or agreements whose enforcement is contingent on the willingness of individual countries to comply with their terms. The EU combines supranational and intergovernmental features in its institutional arrangements and decision-making powers. Alongside national governments in the UK, France, Germany, and other West European countries, the EU constitutes a crucial organization for the coordination and implementation of economic, social, and foreign policies on the regional level of governance (1998). The significance of the EU lies not only in its economic status as the nucleus of the world’s largest trading bloc and integrated regional market but also in the declared intentions of political leaders in both the EU and its member countries to achieve economic, monetary, and political union by the end of the I990s (1992). Implementing these objectives will entail the further transfer of significant degrees of national decision-making authority to supranational institutions – a process that began when the European integration movement was launched during the early I950s (1991). Once it is fully attained, economic, monetary, and political union will firmly establish the EU as a powerful governmental system in its own right.
On the flip side, the effects of the EU in the UK are also remarkable. The EU serves as a strong ally of the UK in proliferating continuous growth in their economy and global competition. UK’s membership to the Union is directed to sustainable development not only within the limits of the territory but also to the world economy as a whole. For instance, the agricultural groups have traditionally been successful in obtaining subsidies for their crops and have been especially advantaged by UK’s entry into the Union and the access to the subsidies of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (1998). Further, the EU’s decisions in 1988 to reform the CAP, and the more equitable basis for budgetary contributions in the period since 1984 have weakened some of Britain’s grievances against the Union (1992). Moreover, the programme for completion of the Union’s internal market has brought a much closer identity of purpose between its objectives and those of the Conservative Government. They have shifted a good deal of their lobbying focus to the European level.
In conclusion, the EU is a communal organization that works to the overall welfare of the European continent and its members. The governing powers of EU is not mere political in nature but directed to economic, social, cultural, etc. progression. Diversity, as a known quality of some members of the Union makes this organization unique. The presence of national government among its state members is sometimes considered as source of controversies and conflicts as seen in the case of the UK. In the EU, there are some set standards that every state member must comply with but with the given conventions of government, there are unavoidable conflicts of policy integration. The UK national government is sometimes contradictory in terms of policy making and taking. The particular history of reluctance in the integration of the UK is evidence that there is indeed ambivalence of the mutual and unusual relation of these two individually governing state and organization.
But all in all, the welfare of the European community – may it be Western or Eastern regions, is the main priority of the Union and its branches. Along with the situational cases of the UK, the Union’s role in the overall stability of economy, politics, security, and many other parts of the member states is foremost. Therefore, there is a need for collective bargaining and cooperative movement to reconcile the contradictions and other problems of the UK and the EU. In the first place, there is mutualism among them – the one benefit from the other and vice versa.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment