• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
1
The Political Dynamics of the European Project
Fuzzy Economic Review
, XII(2, Nov)3-43.
Maurice I. Yolles, prof.m.yolles@gmail.com
Abstract:
The formation of the European Project is a well established event on theinternational political horizon. However, its enlargement accommodating additional memberStates has made it more complex, and fundamental questions about its future developmenthave been raised. The creation of an entry point for a European Variable Geometry (EVG)was intended to simplify the political processes of the Project. However, some have beenconcerned EVG will spell its demise. This paper is interested in exploring the nature andpolitical dynamics of the European Project. To do this it adopts as a frame of reference aparadigm called Knowledge Cybernetics (KC), and it uses the rise of the EVG as anexamining trigger. The paper engages in theory building, requiring a development of the KCparadigm. It will show that the complexity of the Project can be reduced by exploring itscultural dynamics, and its interactive stability can be examined through joint alliance theory.
Keywords
: European Project, enlargement, complexity, European Variable Geometry,political dynamics, political culture, joint alliance theory.
1. A European Variable Geometry
The European Union was formed in 1957 and involved 6 countries with hopes for thecreation of a European wide project (Historymole, 2007), and its development occuredthrough five enlargements. In a speech on 10
th
July 2000 at a Ministerial meeting thePresident of the European Parliament by Nicole Fontaine asked whether an increase in thesize of the membership of the European Union to 27, 28 or even 30 Member States wouldchange its very nature. It is not only the nature of the European Project that is changing; it isalso its dynamics.In 1997 the Amsterdam European Union (EU) summit focussed on drafting a treaty to updateand clarify the Maastricht Treaty. It was also interested in preparing the EU for enlargementand the entry of some of the ‘Access countries’ from the former Soviet bloc that includeCountries of Central and Eastern Europe (CCEE), as well as Malta and Cyprus. The UKgovernment dropped its opt-out on the social charter, and sections on public health, consumerprotection and the powers of the European Parliament were strengthened in relation to a widerange of social policies. In the Council of Ministers, decisions were voted on by either by asimple majority vote or unanimity, but a ‘qualified majority’. Qualified majority voting(QMV) has effectively replaced unanimity voting, and has been applied to a range of issuesincluding social exclusion, customs and data protection. Also the Schengen Agreementsabolishing border checks were incorporated into law for all EU states except the UK andIreland, as well as enhanced co-operation on asylum, law enforcement and immigrationissues.With QMV the Treaty also provided for the conceptual emergence of a Europe of VariableGeometry (EVG) in which a variety of developmental profiles are able to co-existphenomenally enabling enhanced co-operation, permitting pioneer groups and a vanguard of developmental activity (Barbier, 2004).
 
2So what is the EVG? To adequately respond to this question there is a need to understandsomething of the procedures of the European Project. Under the Treaty of Nice there arethree pillars of policy provision: EC Treaty; common foreign and security policy; and policeand judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In the (first pillar) Treaty establishing theEuropean Community and (the third pillar) for police and judicial cooperation, the decisionto authorize enhanced co-operation is taken by (second pillar) common foreign and securitypolicy. Enhanced co-operation may relate to the implementation of a common action or acommon position, but not to matters with military implications or in the field of defense. If recourse is made to the possibility of referral to the European Council, that body then takesthe final decision and acts unanimously. In any event, only those members of the Councilrepresenting Member States participating in enhanced co-operation take part in adoptingthese decisions. Any country wishing to participate in enhanced co-operation may make arequest to the Council and to the Commission. The final decision is subject to differentprocedures from one pillar to another. The acts and decisions adopted do not form part of theUnion acquis
1
and are binding only on those Member States participating in the enhanced co-operation; they are directly applicable only in those countries. Expenditure arising from suchcooperation is to be borne by the participating Member States.The European Project is composed of two decision making bodies, the European Parliamentand the Council of Ministers, and a bureaucracy that carries out their requirements: theCommission. The main legislative procedure (introduced within the Maastricht Treaty) bywhich law can be adopted in the European Community is
codecision
. This gives theEuropean Parliament the power to adopt legislation jointly with the Council of the EuropeanUnion, requiring the two bodies to agree on an identical text before any proposal can becomelaw.The codecision procedure was introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht, and gives theEuropean Parliament the power to adopt instruments jointly with the Council of the EuropeanUnion. The procedure comprises one, two or three readings, and has the effect of increasingcontacts between the Parliament and the Council, the co-legislators, and with the EuropeanCommission. In practice, it has strengthened Parliament's legislative powers in a variety of fields including: the free movement of workers, right of establishment, services, the internalmarket, education (incentive measures), health (incentive measures), consumer policy, trans-European networks (guidelines), environment (general action programme), culture (incentivemeasures) and research (framework programme).However, through various agreements the codecision procedure has been modified allowinggreater flexibility in the instruments of policy decision. It is now possible for differentmembers of the European Project to opt for policy distinctions on certain matters, forinstance with respect to Policing and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, asylum, andrefugees and displaced persons. Measures relating to agreed policy over such issues consistin laying down minimum standards, for instance with respect to temporary protection todisplaced persons unable to return to their country of origin. Policy provision can now bemade within a European Council Declaration for differential policy provision, for instance inrespect of free movement for nationals of third countries and for illegal immigration.Effectively then policy making and implementation can now operate in a contoured politicalplane, satisfying the requirements of political factions. For instance, a faction may be
1
The term
acquis
is used to refer to the total body of EU law accumulated so far.
 
3interested in enhanced co-operation for the specific area concerning refugees or displacedpersons, seeking faster policy integration, thereby creating a differential in the speed of European development. It is such differential that has been referred to as a two-speed Europe(TSE). Where several factions arise around a variety of issues, then it is a multi-speed Europethat is driven by EVG. For Missiroli, et al (1999) variable geometry is related to policies thatare more or less methodically carried outside the existing treaty rules, but they need tocomply with the spirit of the integration process, related to space and subject matter, and beopen to new 'opters-in'.EVG has its roots in the notion of the pioneer groups, when the then French PresidentJacques Chirac attempted to create the pre-requirements for the emergence of TSE. Thisresulted (in March 2004) in a mini-summit consisting of the leaders of France, Germany andthe UK. The purpose was to formulate a common position for the spring European Council.There are two positions on EVG:(1) Its supporters argued that it would create provision for closer co-operation between thosecounties wanting greater progress on certain issue connected with closer integration.(2) Its opponents feared that the factions that develop within EVG will result in a “vanguardof countries” whose obvious intention is to face up to the reality of an enlarged Europewithout reference to the constitutional Treaty conflicts.For Brandier (2004), position (2) is consistent with the formation of a process of “priorconsultation” that involves various Member States operating together as a precursor todiscussion in the Council. This process should, Brandier suggests, be seen as the start of aEuropean process from which EVG can arise. Policy issues that are in this position includethe single currency that not all Member States wish to join, and defense, police and judicialco-operation.Barbier’s proposition is that this process should not be seen as simply one of “differentiation”, but rather as the tool of a “Europe à la carte” that constitutes a multi-speedEurope. This would inevitably lead, it is suggested, to a loss of institutional cohesion, andultimately to the demise of the European Project. Barbier also suggests that to avoid this,there is a need for a process of reflection that offers prospects for everyone and is not merelydesigned to mask other interests.There are others with a similar view. For instance the Charperson for the EuropeanParliament's constitutional affairs committee and German Social Democrat MEP Jo Leinenwelcomed recent EU treaty reform discussed in London in 2007 but said concessions toBritain meant a "two-speed" Europe (EU Business, 2007). It was noted that EU Treatyconcessions agreed new guidelines for the 27 member European Project’s future on theoutline of a treaty of reform to replace the failed constitution. According to Leinen the newtreaty was agreed which in substance preserved the intended constitution. It unveiled a newvoting system to come into force and confirms the existence of a two-speed Europe. As partof this, Britain, for instance, has a four policy “red line”: it has not adopted the euro, not joined the Schengen visa-free travel zone; will not be bound by the charter on fundamentalrights, elements of judicial and penal policy; and will not attach to aspects of the commondefence policy. This development would appear to underscore the imminent arrival of bothEVG and a multi-speed Europe. Leinen notes that if participants are able to define their ownred lines and ultimatums then it’s the end of the European Union.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...