|
Political scientist John T. S. Keeler of the University of Washington in Seattle answers a number of commonly asked questions about the political and economic situation facing the European Union (EU). Keeler also addresses the reasons for governmental instability in Italy and high unemployment in many European countries.
Q: How large is the European Union (EU) likely to become?
 |
|
Also on Encarta |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
A: By the end of 2001, the EU included 15 members. Most observers expect the EU to expand to at least 25 members within the next two decades.
Further enlargement has been a vitally important agenda item for the EU since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in the early 1990s. In 1998 the EU began talks on full membership with six additional countries: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia. In 2000 membership negotiations also began with Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, and Slovakia. All of the candidate countries will be required to complete a host of economic, political, and social adjustments before being deemed ready for membership. At the same time, the current EU members will be compelled to shoulder new burdens and face new risks in dealing with enlargement.
Q: Are nations within the European Union (EU) becoming more like states in the United States?
|
|
Also on MSN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A: In certain respects, this is true. Over the past two decades, EU member states have agreed to create a single market (eliminating most nontariff barriers to trade), a single currency, a more powerful European Parliament, a European Central Bank (ECB), and the foundations of a common European security and defense policy. Still, the EU remains less unified than a federation of states. The legal basis of the EU is not a constitution, but a series of treaties. Member states still retain far more autonomy and power regarding the EU’s central institutions—especially in the crucial areas of taxation, public expenditure, and security—than do U.S. states regarding the federal government. A vivid reminder of this fact is that only 12 of the EU’s 15 member states have so far agreed to adopt the single currency, the euro.
Q: Why have some European nations backed the creation of a military structure for the European Union (EU) that is independent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)?
A: The United States has long contended that European nations need to increase their share of the burden for European defense within NATO. In the early 1990s, the French government argued that Europeans should respond to this challenge, but largely for their own reasons. The French government wanted to enhance their influence over European security policy and to guard against a possible future withdrawal of U.S. forces in Europe.
From 1992 to 1996 some progress was made toward developing a European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI), a project designed to enhance Europe’s role within NATO. Procedures were put in place to allow—with American approval—European peacekeeping missions employing NATO assets. NATO’s 1999 war in Kosovo accelerated and redirected the ESDI movement. The Kosovo experience convinced France and the United Kingdom that Europe was too dependent on the United States for security purposes and that Europe needed to enhance its military capabilities and its ability to act in a collaborative fashion.
Since 1998 the EU has formally committed itself to the step-by-step development of what is now known as a Common European Security and Defense Policy (CESDP). The CESDP now has an institutional structure and control over a modest rapid deployment force. Its official spokesman, Javier Solano, contends that this initiative serves not to undermine but to strengthen the Atlantic Alliance. United States officials have offered guarded support coupled with caution regarding future moves toward European autonomy.
Q: Why have some Scandinavian nations been reluctant to join the European Union (EU)?
A: The Scandinavian nations, located on the periphery of Europe, generally support minimal European integration. These nations have unique social democratic institutions and, in the case of Sweden and Finland, a tradition of neutrality. They remain skeptical about ambitious projects, such as the European Union (EU), that seem to threaten their distinctive social, cultural, and economic traditions.
In 1973 Denmark was the first Scandinavian nation to join the EU—then called the European Community (EC). Sweden and Finland joined only in 1995. Norwegian governments have twice sought membership and received the green light from the EU, but both times the citizens of Norway rejected membership in popular referenda. Despite Denmark’s early entry, its citizens appear to remain wary of increased integration. In 1992 Danish voters narrowly rejected the Maastricht Treaty, the foundation of the EU. The Danes only voted to approve membership in the EU in 1993 after the treaty was modified to exempt Denmark from certain standards.
Q: Is it true that the presidential election system in France is more fair and democratic than the presidential election system in the United States?
A: Many people think so. One illustration of this belief is that a number of the new democracies to emerge in Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism adopted a French-style presidential election system while none adopted a U.S.-style system.
In the French system, as instituted by popular referendum in 1962, presidential elections have two ballots. On the first ballot voters typically choose among eight or nine candidates. If no candidate wins a majority of the nationwide votes on the first ballot, then a runoff election is held two weeks later. On this second ballot, voters choose between the two candidates who received the most votes on the first ballot. The ultimate winner is thus assured of receiving a majority of what Americans call the popular vote. As we were reminded in the U.S. presidential election in 2000, this is not always true in the United States. With the U.S. electoral college system, it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of electoral votes but lose the popular vote.
Q: Why are dramatic protest demonstrations so common in France?
A: Several reasons should be noted. First, with a long history of uprisings—from the French Revolution of 1789 through the student riots of May 1968—the French are unusually prone to consider street demonstrations a legitimate or normal form of civic activity. After all, the national anthem contains the words, “To arms, citizens! Form your battalions!”
Second, the structure of the French government plays a role. The Fifth Republic, created in 1958, has a powerful executive branch and a relatively weak parliament. The parliament often lacks the power to prevent the government from launching bold or controversial new initiatives. When this happens, the disenchanted often see protest as their only option.
Third, French citizens know that protest has proven to be an effective means of winning concessions from the government. It should be noted, however, that the image of the French as uniquely prone to protest is to some degree a result of the heavy concentration of political power—and protest activity—in Paris. French protests are also unusually visible to foreigners, because Paris is the world’s most popular tourist destination. Still, scholars have produced data showing that, contrary to the image generated by this “Paris effect,” the Swiss and Americans are by some measures even more prone to protest than the French.
Q: Is nationalist sentiment on the rise in Germany?
A: This was certainly true in the early 1990s. Much of this sentiment can be traced to Germany’s post-World War II constitution (known as the Basic Law), which made Germany the most welcoming state in Europe to asylum seekers and refugees.
The disintegration of the Soviet Bloc in 1991 triggered an enormous influx of asylum seekers to Germany. At the same time, the negative economic consequences of German unification—underway since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989—began to be evident. In this context, electoral support for the anti-immigrant parties on the extreme right increased, and the country was plagued with a wave of violent attacks on foreigners.
In 1993 the mainstream political parties were compelled to respond to public discontent by amending Article 16 of the constitution to restrict the right of foreigners seeking asylum from political persecution. This amendment, along with the substantial reduction in the rate of immigration that it produced, dampened support for extreme right-wing parties such as the Republikaner. However, Germany has continued to receive refugees in recent years, especially from Bosnia and Kosovo, and it now contains an unprecedented number of ethnic minority citizens and foreigners. Heated debate thus continues over alleged threats to the German national identity and the pros and cons of multiculturalism.
Q: Why do governments change so frequently in Italy?
A: Italian governments seldom endure for more than a year, if that. There are several key reasons for this.
Italy has many political parties, and Italian governments are typically coalition governments that include as many as five different political parties. The proliferation of parties is due in part to a system of partial proportional representation that gives tiny parties a voice in parliament.
The coalition partners seldom agree on more than a minimal common agenda.
Each political party tends to be internally divided as well, and rival party leaders view the collapse of the current government as an opportunity for their advancement.
Recent efforts at electoral reform have so far had little impact on this pattern of government. A referendum in May 2000 to eliminate partial proportional representation and adopt a majority (winner-take-all) system failed after only 32 percent of eligible voters turned out to vote on the measure.
Q: Why does unemployment remain relatively high in much of Western Europe?
A: There are a variety of factors that contribute to higher unemployment rates in Western Europe. The following are the most commonly cited reasons.
Labor laws make it more difficult and costly to fire workers, so companies are cautious about hiring.
Bureaucratic regulations make it relatively difficult for entrepreneurs to start the sort of new businesses, such as high-tech oriented enterprises, that have created many new jobs in the United States.
Systems of higher education have been slow to emphasize the technical skills needed by modern companies.
Relatively generous unemployment benefits and welfare programs, such as state-funded maternity pay, reduce the incentive for some unemployed workers to seek jobs.
Appears in
European Union; Europe
|
Hotmail
Messenger
My MSN
MSN Directory
Appears in