Assess the arguments for and against further European integration
Since the
European Economic Community was formed in 1957, it has become more
integrated and allowed more people to join. Originally, as suggested in the
name, the group was an almost
purely
economic set-up. Now, with the signing of further treaties, notably the
Single European Act (1986) and the
Maastricht Treaty (1991), it has extended a long way into
Social and
Political matters. The UK has so far largely
integrated as much as the EU has suggested, despite
doubts in all the main
parties.
Recently, however, the
UK has been more
hesitant, delaying the signing of two essential parts of the
Maastricht Treaty – the
Social Chapter (since signed) and a commitment to join the
Euro, a move that, apparently, the
British public still oppose. There are many different implications and
benefits of further integration, but there is much controversy as to whether it is a good thing for the UK over all.
As European integration progresses further, both
physical and
economic trade barriers are
removed. Since the
Single European Act there are very few hold-ups when moving
goods across the
joined EU
countries. This leads directly to more
efficient business integration, and
increased efficiency is a good way of improving economies. Also,
trade tariffs and
quotas are removed, allowing for cheaper importing and exporting – this is also arguably good for
British business and the economy. However, the tariffs previously brought useful
money to the
government, and businesses trying to sell
products inside the
country can suffer from cheaper
imports due to the reduced
cost.
In
European Monetary Union, probably the next big
step if the UK does integrate further into Europe, which was planned in the Maastricht Treaty and we had to opt-out of, there would be no change in
exchange rates between us and the other countries. A very large proportion of our trade is with the present members of
EMU, and exchange rates with them are very important to many UK businesses. These businesses
productivity would be largely improved if they could
predict costs and
revenues more accurately, as would be the case with fixed
exchange rates. However, to achieve the same
value of
currency, it is likely that we would have to take the
value of the
pound down a long way, which would have
mixed effects of the economy – making exporting easier but importing not so cost
effective. It is also possible that in
EMU, if we needed to
adjust fiscal policy – put up interest rates in response to high
inflation for example – we would not be allowed to, as it would often be at the expense of other EU economies. We can see this
problem arising in
The Republic of Ireland at the moment – their
economy has been doing especially well due to EU
money, but now, as members of
EMU, they do not have the
power to increase
interest rates to stop
inflation rising.
Another
economic point against further integration is that the
UK has lost, and will
lose, a
great deal of money through supporting
poorer
members. Countries with
weaker economies than most in
Europe, the
Republic of Ireland and
Greece for example, have been ‘net winners’ of money from the EU. To provide this money,
relatively
rich countries such as our own have been paying more than they get back – ‘net losers’. Some are
worried that we will continue giving more and more money if the EU
expands – as is planned. The
expansion would
involve letting in more countries poorer than us, who the EU will have to give
funding to at our
expense. This
expansion also leads to worries about increased
illegal immigration and other abuse of
weak border controls. Some say that attempting to
merge our economies with such
poor ones could be compared to the re-union of
Germany, which has not been all good for the richer
west Germans. The addition of more and more
nations to the
group, however, will make it a more and more
powerful world force.
Further loss of
sovereignty to the European Union also has
debatable good and bad points. The
European Court’s powers to issue
warnings and
sanctions against us for breaking with
EU legislation protects us in two ways. Firstly, and most
likely to be of use to us, we are
protected against other EU countries behaving unhelpfully towards us, in any respect. Decisions taken by Europe of this kind, overriding the
sovereignty of national
Governments can, of course, go for and against us. For this reason,
Europhiles – pro Europe politicians – often prefer to describe the transfer of power as a ‘Pooling of sovereignty’ rather than a loss. We get some power over other countries, while they get a
little power over us. Secondly, the Court’s power over our
Parliament Acts, in a way, as a constitution, protecting the people by
limiting governments with too much power. It would act against any government that was unacceptable, for example the
far right Freedom Party, which on joining a
coalition government in
Austria caused the
EU to take serious
sanctions against the country.
Another
strong argument against the giving of
sovereignty to European
institutions, which is involved in further
integration, is that the
people behind the decisions are
un-elected, and therefore
unrepresentative and not
accountable to the
people. It could be argued that the
governing bodies are just as
democratic as those involved in
national government. There is the
European parliament, consisting of elected
representatives from all around
Europe; the
Commission that has members appointed by democratic
Governments from each
member state; the
Council of Ministers consisting of representatives from all the members, who have all been democratically
elected by their home nations and made government
Ministers and finally the
European Court, who’s
judges are just as accountable as any at home – that is, not at all. More to the
point, perhaps, is that unlike
politician’s actions back in
Britain, the
public usually have little knowledge of what their ‘representatives’ are getting up to in
Europe. This is
particularly important for the
Council of Ministers, which
holds almost all of the important
legislative power in Europe, and for the
Commission, which has had large problems with
corruption. It is also often said that
Germany and
France have more influence on
EU decisions than other countries. In
theory this should be
false, as member’s representation depends only on
population size, but in reality the Eurosceptic’s
suspicions could well be true.
The
Social Chapter section of the
Maastricht Treaty, opted-out of by
John Major when the
treaty was first passed but signed by
Tony Blair almost as soon as he came to power, has clearly brought better
protection for
workers in the
United Kingdom. The most important things it
brought us were the
minimum wage and
maximum working hours. This
legislation is seen by some as only
fair, but as very
bad for
business by others. It was
argued that the
minimum wage would lead to high
unemployment, but this has so far not been the case at all, with our
unemployment rates dropping very low. This
record of
legislating in
favour of
workers could be taken as an
indication that the
EU will go even further with this as we
integrate further, but it is true to say this could not be right at all.
The
EU’s many
directives and
laws encourage (or force) countries to
share many things in different ways. In all the areas, this will continue if we integrate further. We are sharing
asylum seekers – although some would
argue that we are taking more than our
fair share, and some
view us having to take any as
unjust. We are
sharing responsibility for
pollution and our section of the
environment. We are also, on the more
controversial side, sharing
French UHT and our
fish. Most importantly, as discussed above, we are sharing
money. The
EU is, very indirectly, an
international distribution of
wealth, although the
UK government would never
admit to it.
Socialists and anyone to the
left may well see this as a
good thing, whilst many others are opposed to high
income tax – let alone giving to people tens of thousands of
miles (or, more appropriately,
kilometres) away. Whether we should be putting
money into other countries whilst we have large problems of our own is very
debatable, but we do so in many ways all the
time – e.g.
foreign aid money to
Africa and
military intervention costs in
Serbia – and at least with the
EU we are more likely to get something back in the
future.
Other
good points of the Union are that
international policing is easier, although this doesn’t apply too much between the
UK and
mainland Europe and
war in
Europe is much more unlikely – a
major reason the
EEC, as it was, began. A
favourite argument for the
Against is loss of ‘
National Identity’. Some worry that
European standards will be forced upon us, and
British traditions will be
forgotten. This is not usually a
particularly persuasive point, as there is little available supporting
evidence. One example could be the
United States though – few people around the
world know much about the
culture of separate
American states, rather they see the
USA as a whole. It is
understandable that the
prospect irritates some
patriots, but this also is not a well-supported point, and many would rather the
world forget our rather
dubious history.
An overall
example of how a
similar coming together can work well is the
USA, which
today is by far the most
powerful nation in the world,
economically and
politically.
At the
moment, a
majority of people in the
UK are
sceptical about the good
Europe has done. Perhaps this is because any
benefits it has brought us so far are not easy to
spot, and while the
Opposition is
fiercely campaigning as a quite anti-Europe
party, few other major
politicians risk promoting them. Unless the
public understand what effects
European integration has, and will have on us, they will tend to
doubt it is
worth while going
further.
By Me 2000