Name : Zulva Sasti Alysa

SID : 2590859

Final Exam

Question:
1)      Do you agree with the view that the EU is an efficient regulator but an inefficient
reformer? Discuss with reference to contending views of Dinan and Persson, and also by giving
concrete examples from the Single European Market.

Answer:

Yes I agree with that statement, Dinan argues that EU is this inefficient bureaucratic
monster because its members agree that EU gives them an advantage that they would not have
otherwise. In a broad sense, the EU increases national welfare. The dilemma for sovereignty-
conscious states is that they achieve their national interests by sharing precious sovereignty in the
EU. The European Union allows its members to benefit from the large economies of scale and
socio-political scope that covers almost the entire continent of Europe. Managing an area like
this is a big job. Any government with 28 different countries and 24 working languages is a
must, given that citizens have the right to understand EU decision-making procedures, rules and
regulations are bound to be inefficient. On the other hand, I also agree with Persson's opinion
that the EU is an efficient regulator, although his opinion tends to float, he can explain where the
efficiency lies. This demonstrates that the EU has broad regulatory authorities, ranging from
bankruptcies to working hours and driving exams. The amount of EU production legislation has
risen dramatically during the last decade. In fact, the EU's muddled structure makes it nearly
ideal for ramming through legislation and regulations, which are frequently scrutinized by the
public.

A concrete example of the EU is Efficient regulators that can be taken from a single
market is that they have a "Competition Policy". The goal of competition policy is to ensure that
the single market is policing itself and that enterprises and governments do not gain an unfair
advantage. While a concrete example of an inefficient reformer in a single market is when all EU
member countries can cross their member countries without passports, without even having to
stop at the immigration checkpoint at the border, is a bit of a sovereignty dilemma.

Question:

3)      Have the EU institutions and/or the member governments played a critical role in shaping
and/or constraining the EU’s reform agenda to the Schengen and refugee crisis in 2015-2016?

Answer:

In my opinion EU institution and the member governments is already played a critical

role in it even though still not optimal. The EU has a standard that must be fulfilled for refugees
called CEAS (Common European Asylum System), which demonstrates the efforts undertaken
by EU institutions and member governments . Since 2003, the European Union has had a well-
developed general asylum policy (CEAS), which is based on international treaties and
conventions as well as EU legislation. Non-refoulement is the basis of asylum in EU member
states until proper inspections are carried out in the receiving country's jurisdiction to establish
whether the asylum seeker fits the standards for international protection and can claim ‘refugee'
status.
In May 2016, the Commission proposed that the Dublin system be preserved. The
Dublin Regulation is a critical component of CEAS, as it applies to all EU member states. The
Dublin system uses a 'hierarchy of criteria' based on family units and valid or recently expired
residence documents or visas to determine where asylum claims should be filed. In May 2016,
the European Agency for Asylum (EAA) was proposed as a replacement for the European
Asylum Support Office (EASO), which was established in 2011. The EAA will run the Dublin
justice mechanism, work toward greater convergence in the evaluation of asylum applications,
and improve collaboration and information exchange on European asylum law.
 In the shape of CEAS recast, the AFSJ's Stockholm Programme Action Plan proposed a
new approach for asylum policy. It was distinguished by a compromise between the Commission
and the European Parliament's more cosmopolitan perspective of immigration (emphasized on
human rights and solidarity) and harder approach reflecting member states' need to cut budgetary
and political costs. The economic expenses were mostly made up of asylum determination and
social benefits, while the political costs were mostly made up of public opinion in Europe
favoring lower migration numbers. The Commission had offered a number of possibilities,
ranging from establishing collaborative teams to establishing a centralized EU processing
mechanism, but none of them made it into the final CEAS recast.