Written in 2012, this piece was and still is highly relevant to the controversial role that Britain plays in Europe today.
‘The Lisbon Treaty marks the end of the process of European Union integration.’
European integration has often been seen as the corner stone of many debates surrounding the EU and its member states. The current crisis has cast doubt on whether a European Union is viable, with claims that it is time to either stand by the idea of European integration or to remove it. Looking to the past, recent actions could be described as inevitable in particular following the conditions of the Lisbon treaty. It will be interesting to analyse the Lisbon treaty with regards to its effects on European integration and discover whether or not it can be held responsible for effectively bringing it to an end. The contrary view argues that European integration is not dead and that certain aspects can be salvaged given the correct actions. By combining the use of theory and real world events and positions, this essay will show what the future could potentially hold for Europe by debating whether the end of European integration is truly upon us. Both sides of the argument will have to be fully assessed before coming to a definitive conclusion.
It is easy to see why the idea of European integration is becoming less and less attractive. The theory of Intergovernmentalism depicts a structure of government processes that would appeal to those supporting of the national interest. Goodin explains, “The EU can plausibly be characterized as an intergovernmental organization of an advanced kind, a nascent federation of states and a new form of post-national, post-state entity” (Goodin, 2006, p. 257). The core claim of Intergovernmentalism is that the actions taken between states are of most importance and only with the cooperation of states can the pace of integration be controlled. Furthermore, it is seen that the roles of supranational institutions such as the European Commission are irrelevant according to the theory of Intergovernmentalism. A proponent of Intergovernmentalism therefore, would see the national interest as the most important factor when bargaining for negotiations. As Chryssochoou argues, “…a state centric theory of Intergovernmentalism, describes the Union as a regime that makes interstate bargaining more efficient, whilst enhancing the autonomy of national leaders…” (Chryssochoou, 2001, p. 18). Politicians in Europe then, are simply national actors and look only for benefits for their own country when debating law and policy. David Cameron’s recent decision to pull the UK out of European Union negotiations could be thought of as being in line with the idea of Intergovernmentalism. The whole justifications for the UK’s veto at the EU summit were arguably based around the national interests even if many, including Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, felt it was detrimental. Nevertheless there were cries from sections of the public, the media and certainly from the Conservative party for David Cameron to do what he did, thereby adhering to national goals. BBC News website summaries the Prime Minister’s actions, “David Cameron has said he ‘genuinely looked to reach an agreement’ at the EU summit but vetoed treaty change because it was not in the national interest” (anon, 2011). The example of David Cameron’s pullout from Europe shows the strength of a nation and as such, the Intergovernmentalism theory. Indeed, what Europe has been left with is a much talked about theory of a two speed Europe, with the countries on the inside integrating and functioning at a different rate from the UK who are now somewhat detached from Europe. Gaynor says, “…two tier systems all point to the acceptance that not only do members differ in their economic performance and structures, but that this difference must allow them different speeds of adjustment” (Gaynor, 1997, p. 34). This is not necessarily a problem for either tier but could potentially add to complications in future decision making especially if other nations decide to join the UK on similar grounds.
The main problem facing UK Prime Minister David Cameron and all European nation leaders is that a binding constitution will never be collectively signed. One of the reasons for this is because although there are many pro-European politicians within their respective governments, they are often outweighed by anti-European thoughts and public scepticism. Public scepticism of Europe is clearly present in today’s society due mainly to the reason that many members of the public do not truly feel like a European citizen. Although passports say otherwise, many UK citizens in particular feel at least a little detached from Europe even before considering the geographical issues. People feel this way due mostly to their feeling of national identity and to embrace a European citizenship of sorts would be to undermine their nationalistic values. When listing reasons for an apparent lack of a true European citizenship, Meeham explains, “…European citizenship would have to involve a transfer of legal and political powers from the national to the EC level…” (Meeham, 1993, p. 3). Consequently, British people find it difficult to really believe that they have a place in that society especially when they do not know about European politics and its potential impacts upon the national system. To make a comparison to America, which is a federal system, there are fifty separate states that may all have slightly different politics and yet all adhere to one central government and President. This is not the case in Europe, although it is in fact what many may want. As El-Agraa commented, “…the ‘founding fathers’ had the formation of a United States of Western (hopefully all) Europe as the ultimate goal…” (El-Agraa, 2004, p. 19). Indeed Winston Churchill once called for a United States of Europe but with the underlying public scepticism, which derives from national citizenship rights and laws; this is unlikely ever to happen.
Although the example of David Cameron’s recent pullout from Europe shows a direct reluctance to integrate, it could be argued that it was the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 that went much of the way in introducing the scepticism of integration we see today. This is because the Lisbon Treaty in and of itself shows a reluctance towards integration due to the fact that it was simply a compromise brought about by a failed proposal for an European Union constitution. The original plans for it were rejected and thus the Lisbon Treaty was little more than a half hearted effort to patch up any differences that the confiding nations may have had. Schubert outlines the main reasons for the Treaty’s rejection; “the incomprehensibility of the Treaty, too much concentration of power in Brussels with the consequence of a loss of democracy or participation, as much as the fear of further Eastern European expansion” (Schubert, 2008, p. 23). The main initiatives of the Lisbon Treaty were the change in voting system from unanimity to qualified majority voting, which means that decisions need not be unanimous. The treaty also gave further power to the European Parliament and amended some prominent positions such as the President of the European council of whom, is now to serve a longer term. Many of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty were designed to improve the efficiency of the institution, giving the European Union more power and enhancing its legitimacy. Despite many of these initiatives however, the simple fact remains that a truly binding constitution of Europe was never signed. Thus it is thought that the Lisbon Treaty has affected European integration both literally and impressionably due to the perceptions it gave to the public and politicians.
Contrary views argue that European integration is not dead and that we have seen much since the Lisbon Treaty and are highly likely to see more in the future. Bobica explains the original purpose of the European Union, “The creation of the European Union began as a process of sectorial economic, the main objective at that time being ensuring peace on the European continent that had been already devastated by the two world wars” (Bobica, 2010, p. 212). In opposition to Intergovernmentalism, Neofunctionalism assumes the decline of nationalism and the nation state but also that the individual ideological positions of the respective member states are diminishing in favour of a more collective approach. This leads on to supranationalism which, as a key theoretical factor with regards to a pro-integration position, depicts a Europe that thrives on centralisation and disregards the importance of the nation state. Indeed, just because a constitution was never signed does not mean that integration can never happen and does not happen. Throughout the past decades, there have been many examples of cooperation between states that could be described as effective integration that has brought about significant change. Perhaps the main achievement of Europe in recent years is the introduction of the Euro currency which, despite recent criticisms, has proven on the whole to be strong. The common currency provides Europe with a collective identity and eases trading between states, so to be competitive on the global front as a single continent. Mirrow argues, “The euro’s increasingly important role brings stability, something that is never more important than in times of upheaval” (Mirrow, 2009, pp. 42-43). With regards to the current Euro crisis, the theory of spillover could offer some justification as to why European integration could be the best way forward. If recent issues surrounding Europe had been resolved more effectively, perhaps this is where spillover could have occurred. As Agraa states, “Some of the benefits of EU regional policy are in the form of non-economic spillover gains. Reduced regional disparities can help in achieving greater social and political cohesion in Europe.” (Agraa, 2004, p. 403). The theory of spillover argues that integration in one area often leads to greater integration in another. The argument being that there is still a place for effective integration within the European Union, contrary to the recent actions of the UK.
Moreover, the ever growing feeling of general globalisation shows just why European integration is not dead and that the Lisbon Treaty and its impact could be viewed in a different light. Some of the actions of the Lisbon treaty could be viewed, despite the initial disappointment, as a good step in the right direction towards integration. Schubert explains, “With respect to the adaptation of institutions to an expanded Europe and in relation to an improvement of democratic structures (inclusive of fundamental rights protection), the Treaty undeniably, provides the means whereby progress can be achieved” (Schubert, 2008, p. 28). Indeed, even in the difficult time of the current EU crisis and moreover with the UK pullout, all of the other twenty six member countries continue in an attempt to resolve the issues surrounding the Eurozone. Looking to the future, cooperation between states will be vital in order to achieve growth across world markets; as it always has been. Although it may seem unlikely at the moment, considering the current crisis, many countries in the future may want to join the European Union and indeed the Eurozone should it survive. Independent states could feel that there are benefits to being a member of an institution such us the EU, as many countries do presently, due in many parts to the benefits of having more solid trade routes. However, there is a big difference between European integration and what could be described as simply European expansion. Whilst the vision for Europe to accommodate more countries in the future may still proceed, it is perhaps more vital for the current crop of EU member states to cooperate and integrate through treaty’s such as that of Lisbon if we are to see real progress in Europe.
To conclude, it could be argued that European integration is currently in a receding state and that it was the Lisbon Treaty and its subsequent effects that marked that the start of this process. The whole reason the treaty was devised was due to an initial demonstration of anti-integrationist thoughts, when the European constitution failed to be signed. Therefore it is easy to see, that since this instance and up to the present day, why there may well be a certain degree of public scepticism towards Europe. It would also seem that many countries in Europe, and particularly the UK, adhere to the theory of Intergovernmentalism that prioritises the national interest over those of the supranational. The contrary argument suggests though, that there have been many examples of European cooperation since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty and certainly when considering the future and the ever increasing sense of globalisation, the integration of European states will be vital for trade and thus economic growth. However, even when considering the current Euro crisis, there has been a clear indication of cooperation between states in an attempt to resolve pressing issues despite the recent withdrawal of the UK. What Europe has been left with is the theory of a two speed Europe being realised and although this does give Euro-sceptics opportunity for criticism, it is not necessarily a bad thing for Europe. This situation could serve even to add to the opportunity for countries to become, or remain, integrated in Europe even if the strength of the European Union is not able to be enhanced much beyond the improvements laid out by the Lisbon Treaty.
Bibliography
Books
Chryssochoou, D. N. (2001), Theorizing European Integration, DawsonEra [online], Available at: http://www.dawsonera.com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780203946107
Denton, G. R. (1969), Economic Integration in Europe, University of Reading: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Dryzek, J. S. (2006), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
El-Agraa, A. M. (2004), The European Union, 7th Edition, Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Gaynor, K. B. (1997), Economic Convergence in a Multispeed Europe, Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Meeham, E. (1993), Citizenship and the European Community, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Roche, M. (1997), European Citizenship and Social Exclusion, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Journals
Bobica, D. (2010), ‘European Integration and Globalization’, European Integration – Realities and Perspectives, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 210-215.
d’Artis, K. (2010), ‘European Integration and Labour Migration’, European Integration online papers, Volume 14, article 16, pp. 1-24.
Hansen, R. (1998), ‘A European citizenship or a Europe of citizens? Third country nationals in the EU.’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Volume 24, Number 4, pp. 1-12.
Hefeker, C (2002), ‘European Integration Under Pressure’, Intereconomics, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp. 122-123.
Mirrow, T. (2009), ‘European Integration, RIP?’, The International Economy, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. 42-43.
Schubert, J. M. (2008), ‘Lisbon – The End of European Integration?’, European Law, Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 23-32.
Online
Anon, (2011), EU veto: Cameron says he negotiated in ‘good faith’ [online], Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16134496
The Word Stable 