What Is The Future Of The European Union?

What Is The Future Of The europiuman magnetic north?The future europiuman Union what should it be? An integrated federal official rural area, a free trade atomic number 18a, whateverthing else? Since the first enlargement of the European partnership in 1973 northward, which saw the inclusion of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, the search for an ever encompassing(prenominal) compass north has been taking place. When EC recommended on 9th October 2002 that another ten countries should marry in 2004, it is believed that the integration of Eastern Europe depart push the European Union towards a saucy level, because it allow provide a big market place, which allow for be the moreover way for the EU to compete in the new global economy. However, mess cannot stop wondering, what the EU should be equivalent in the future, as the new Europe will be super diverse in all dimensions not only in the plain of sparings, but also geopolitics, and social conditions, p olicy-making priorities. In this essay, it will sprightliness at the future EU, being a state with liberty, democracy and solidarity. intimacy has two meanings. To start with, in terms of The Single European Act, the chapter on the private market committed the EC to remove all innate barriers by the end of 1992, enabling the free flow of in force(p)s, services, capital and people in the member countries. at that place is little doubt that the indwelling market will become the prime focus of economic interest and natural action over the next few years since it has given the EC a new lease of life. For example, potential microeconomic gains in welf ar of some ECU 216 billion pick up been estimated for the EC, equal to some 5.3 per cent of GDP. A pure circle of benefits is expected, especially in the long term, from industrial reorganization, the reaping of economies of scale and d one(a) greater innovation.However, the enlarged Community is likely to experience greater inte rnal problems since it now comprised a much less optimal multitudeing in its memberships. For example, doubts hold on about whether sufficient structural funding will be forthcoming for the weakest Southern European economies to enable them to participate fully in EMU. It wouldappear that only a looser pattern of integration is compatible and competent for the new Community in the future, particularly if it is to see continuing enlargement. Secondly, liberty requires openness and subsidiarity to be established as fundamental principles. citizens are informed of the remedies available if their rights, including fundamental rights, are not respected. These remedies include courts, ombudsmen and committees on petitions at all levels in the Union. A future Union should be a Union among the peoples of Europe, in which means decisions are taken as openly as manageable and as closely as possible to the citizen. European citizens in all Member States want a well-managed European adminis tration that is open, responsible and service-minded. In which means, it need to ensure the establishment of an open, accountable and service-minded administration through a European administrative law.Like a car being serviced and redesigned, but until we guide arrived, we dont know what the roads and dealing conditions will be like. Hence, a second important condition for get on towards ambient union is that since nobody knows for sure what the enlarged EU will be like, the work of the Convention should not be netherestimated. Much of it is needfully technical and legalistic. But a huge task of simplification is under way which will increase coherence, transparency and comprehensibility of the semipolitical and institutional structures of the EU. Complex and incoherent decision-making rules and multiple routes for law-making are all being radically streamlined. But simplification can be politically sensitive. For example, if the vast mass of decisions in future are to be m ade by mass voting, getting rid of each countrys veto, then the EU may live a chance of not seizing up, but governments and their publics will have to decide if they are ready for this kind of pooling of sovereignty and joint decision-making. Certainly, increase simplicity and transparency will help the enlarged EU be more parliamentary and more in touch with the public than the flow rate one.But much more is needed to build a democratic Europe. The European Council of heads of state and the European Commission (which with enlargement will have 25 commissioner) between them parcel out, in effect, the tasks of a European government theyshare the executive tasks for European policy. Increased democracy must mean these bodies are truly accountable. Currently, the Commission is weakly accountable to the European Parliament. The European Council is accountable to none as a whole though its someone heads of state are accountable separately to their own national parliaments. More political control and oversight is vital. Democracy is also about active participation and debate of the wider public, with trustworthy opportunities for access and input. Yet these aspects are also mostly being ignored or lacking- the convention is focused on the institutional and legal elements of a new constitution and so risks leaving to one side creative thinking on how to build participative democracy in European politics. It is not enough that a new constitution is honest and accessible that can only be the first step.Thirdly, the new Europe also risks failing to play a strong and progressive graphic symbol in the world despite the rhetorical commitments of Europes political leaders. The EU of 25 countries and half a billion people may be an economic giant but a political dwarf just at a time when global challenges and uncertainties call more than ever in the first place for a clear European voice. The future of Europe convention is mechanical drawing a statement of values and goals for Europes role in the world with gratifying emphasis on multilateralism, tackling poverty and discrimination and promoting peace and prosperity.But these good intentions run far ahead of the EUs ability to deliver a single common voice and strategy on the international stage. Countries like Britain and France remain highly reluctant to act together, even when their views converge, wanting their own individual profiles on the global stage. And they are even more reluctant to admit the in-depth political discussions that would be needed to come to common positions when their views diverge. Europes confusion and numerosity of views over the Iraq crisis show how far we remain from having a common and matching European position whether in the UN or in dialogue with the US. With enlargement, conversion of interests and views in Europe will grow. At the Copenhagen summit this week, the EU will invite 10 new members to join in 2004. This should be a beautiful, hist oric moment reuniting the European continent and healing the post-war divisions. But it is only the first step inmeeting the European and global political challenges that the new Europe must bring inress. If it fails, then this moment will be seen as a turning point that marked the start of the EUs defy and not its new beginning.Therefore, the capacity of the members of the Community to overcome their differences and move towards a common defence and security policy will provide a critical test in the coming years of their commitment to closer union. The prospects for this depend very much on the willingness of a core group among them and in particular France, Germany and Britain to concert policies and action. More than anything else it is the path they take on this set of issues which will determine whether or not a received European Union emerges, for without substantial progress towards a defence union it will remain seriously incomplete.The Convention on the Future of Eur ope is now drafting a new constitutional treaty that will address many of these problems. But its deliberations are focused on stream problems, with too little attention to the new challenges that enlargement will learn such as dealing with poor and potentially unstable countries along its new eastern border.The biggest danger to the timetable for enlargement is the unpreparedness of public opinion crosswise Europe. Half of the EUs population favours enlargement on average, but support varies a lot between countries. That matters because the accession treaty has to be ratified by all the member-states parliaments and the European Parliament, as well as by the 10 candidates parliaments following national referenda. At present, the risk of outright rejection appears small. But sharp battles about the EU budget have done nothing to please enlargement to the public. The EU is about to complete its biggest and most important regorge of the decade the re-integration of the former com munist countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the European fold. Institutional flaws and money wrangles should not be allowed to divert attention from the deduction of this achievement.Moreover, The EUs decision-making frameworks need a thorough overhaul. The most obvious problem present by enlargement is that of sheer numbers. With 25 voices competing to be heard, a real exchange of views will be next to impossible unless the EU undertakes only reform of the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. But the differences will be more than arithmetical. There will also be qualitative changes as the new members add their own priorities to the EUs agenda. The political balance will change as the new members weigh in on one side of the argument or the other on every issue. For example, Poland will join the UK in debate tax harmonisation and supporting NATO, but it could be a conversance of Spain on increasing the size of the EU budget. The suggestion for realising Europ ean Union depend on all members of the EC put their efforts toward this aim, hence the woolgather for an ever closer union will be achieved.