Tweet
Actually, there are two levels of power-struggle when it comes to the future of the EU :
- between countries : France and Germany have traditionally been the motor of the European Integration, and can be credited with nearly everything ambitious the EU has done (enlargment, common agriculture policy, development policy, common monetary policy, common currency etc.). However, other big countries now are tired to modify French-German longrange decision only at the margin. This especially goes for Britain, which has lost its willingness to let the EU being a free-trade zone, and which now wants to get much more involved.
Also, small States fear to become completely unsignificant with the enlargement.
- between indicidual countries and supranational institutions. This is a bit tricky to explain. There are two different logics in the EU : intergovernmentalism and supranationalism.
Intergovernmental relations means the haggling between countries (represented by miniters) has the most power. In the end, Nation-states get to decide according to their specific interests.
Suprnational decisions are taken by EU-institutions who look for the greater good of the Union, and not the good of individual countries. The European Parliament, for instance, is a supranational institution.
Until now, all important steps have followed the intergovernmental logic, i.e they are treaties which can or cannot may be ratified by the countries. All the founding texts of the EU are treaties mangled together. These treaties delegate power to supranational institutions (Eurozone States have no monetary sovereignity anymore, for instance), but these supranational institutions cannot get more responsibilities without a new treaty needing to be signed.
The incoming European constitution may give much more weight to supranational institutions in deciding the future of Europe. To most State leaders, that's a danger.
- between countries : France and Germany have traditionally been the motor of the European Integration, and can be credited with nearly everything ambitious the EU has done (enlargment, common agriculture policy, development policy, common monetary policy, common currency etc.). However, other big countries now are tired to modify French-German longrange decision only at the margin. This especially goes for Britain, which has lost its willingness to let the EU being a free-trade zone, and which now wants to get much more involved.
Also, small States fear to become completely unsignificant with the enlargement.
- between indicidual countries and supranational institutions. This is a bit tricky to explain. There are two different logics in the EU : intergovernmentalism and supranationalism.
Intergovernmental relations means the haggling between countries (represented by miniters) has the most power. In the end, Nation-states get to decide according to their specific interests.
Suprnational decisions are taken by EU-institutions who look for the greater good of the Union, and not the good of individual countries. The European Parliament, for instance, is a supranational institution.
Until now, all important steps have followed the intergovernmental logic, i.e they are treaties which can or cannot may be ratified by the countries. All the founding texts of the EU are treaties mangled together. These treaties delegate power to supranational institutions (Eurozone States have no monetary sovereignity anymore, for instance), but these supranational institutions cannot get more responsibilities without a new treaty needing to be signed.
The incoming European constitution may give much more weight to supranational institutions in deciding the future of Europe. To most State leaders, that's a danger.
thanks for reminding me my first year in university 
Comment