European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations - Example

THE UK AND THE EUROPEAN UNION By Introduction The principle duty of the European Nations is the policy formulation and implementation for its member states. The member states act as the shareholders who jointly ‘exercise’ a loose-jointed power place. This definition of the European Union paints the Union as a policy-state. Going by this definition, the European Union is therefore a political system because it has most characteristics attributed to various political systems. However, the EU is more powerful than any other democracy that subscribes to it and therefore uses more enhanced mechanisms for its policies adoption and implementation. While member states use the Coercive governance to ensure that different policies are implemented, EU uses its influence on various actors to exercise its power. The EU formulates legislations for its member states with an average of a hundred legislations passing through EU affiliated institutions (Richardson 2006, p.4). There is a lot of debate as to whether the UK should stay or leave the EU. UK can be termed as the backbone of the union and its departure will have major effects both to the country and the union. Discussion For the past decade or so, the EU has been receiving criticism from the member states. The criticism has resulted from the excessive policy formulation by the EU, which do not auger well to some of the member states. Numerous restrictions and guidelines ranging from the economy to the social aspects by the EU to the member states are perceived as unnecessary. Subsequently, the member states have been disgruntled by some of these legislations and prompted some to consider withdrawal from the Union (Moravcsik, 2014). Member states have continuously referred to the EU as a ‘nanny’ state, which over-regulates their social and economic life. This has further led to disgruntlement on the quantity, quality and the process through which the EU makes legislations. The entire legislation process serves to undermine the sovereignty of member states instead of fortifying them. In other words, there is democratic erosion as the member states are not able to formulate and implement their democratically formulated policies without the EU breathing down at their necks (Richardson 2006, p. 5). New entry into the EU is a comprehensive procedure involving many considerations and evaluation of the member state requesting to join the EU. For a state to join the EU, it must have the consent of its citizens as well as comply with the standards and regulations set by the EU. The most challenging process, however, presents itself when the already existing member states have to give their consent approving the entry of the new member. In this case, the member state is evaluated in terms of presence of stable institutions, a functioning market economy, and its ability to perform the obligations of member states of the EU. It is important that the member states have institutions that advocate for human rights, the rule of law and respect and protect its minority groups. The market economy of the state should have the capacity to handle competition and the market forces that have been set by the EU. Finally, the State should be able to adhere to the regulations of the Union in terms of political, monetary, and economical aspects (European Commission, 2014). In the case of integrating new members such as the Balkan states, additional conditions were established to promote good neighborly relations and regional co-operation. These conditions are non-negotiable and involve agreements as to how the new members will adopt, implement, and enforce EU rules (Vachudova, 2014). The timing for these activities is discussed in detail. In timing, the state of the new member and other considerations determines the time allocation for it to adapt to the newly acquired EU status. The financial arrangements pertaining the contribution and share of the EU budget are also discussed. The EU commission that consists of various EU institutions (European Union, 2015) oversees the entire process of entry into the EU. The conditions set for joining the EU may dupe the people into believing that every country fulfils the conditions automatically gets to join the EU. This is not the entirely truth since some countries with the full conditions have faced opposition from member countries on other grounds other than those conditions. Turkey opposition to joining the EU by already existing members is a classic example of such an incidence. When Turkey applied for the membership of the EU, the application was met with mixed reactions by the 27 member states. Out of the 27 citizens of the EU, 59% opposed the application while the remaining 41% supported it. According to Debating Europe (2015), the same reasons that made it viable to join were still the same that drew opposition. McLaren (2007) relates the opposition to Economic self-interests for member states, group-level interests and individual and group concerns. He also introduces context in his argument to offer a solid reason to explain why Turkey faced the opposition. Some of the member states feared that entry of Turkey into the EU would lead to mass migration of Turkey nationalities into their countries. This migration would lead to political, economic, and social conflict of interests between their citizens and the Turkish. Tough opposition and the conditions set for entry into the EU shows the importance of the Union to its member states. It is hard for any nation to join the EU owing to the pre-set conditions and interest protection among the member states. The EU therefore offers member states with a status, which does not come easy and deserves to be protected at all costs. On top of the status, membership of the EU grants its members significant, political economic and social advantages over the EU non-members. This shows that it is important for a member state to consider the cons and pro of exiting the EU before making such a decision. The issue of UK wanting to leave the EU is contentious considering the close votes for and against the decision. According to the Kettle (2015), there is an even division of public opinion as to whether the UK should leave the EU or not. 40% of the public think that UK should stain in the Union while 39% think that the UK should leave the Union. Following these mixed opinions, it is important to consider what the UK stands to lose when they exit the EU as well as the gains she shall enjoy if she stays. The UK requires a referendum to determine whether she should stay in the referendum or not. However, the time in which such a referendum should take place remains a puzzle especially with the election set for this year. The decision as to when to hold the referendum is considerably dependant on Britain’s Prime Minister James Cameron. Considering that the Premier wants to be re-elected come Election Day, it is a huge task to determine whether the referendum should be conducted in 2015 or further pushed to 2016 and beyond. The premier, in his campaign has ensured that he will ensure that the Referendum takes place before 2017 if re-elected. One side of Cameron’s aide (advisors) would prefer the referendum to take place within 2015 and before the election. If this is done, then the party will gain significantly in terms of management, media coverage and subsequently, electoral impact. The chief of staff and the civil servants are more concerned with managing and maintaining relationships with other EU Nations, which are deemed more important than the US states. Conducting the Referendum sooner than 2016 would give the Premier some friends from other EU Nations leaders. Unfortunately, this is not a guarantee since a referendum is a national affair and the said leaders are working on their state affairs. However, the voters will not be influenced by the Referendum to vote for or against the premier and are instead decided on their votes for both the referendum and the election (Kirkup, 2015). An online debate held on The DebateWise.org website resulted in an Overwhelming Yes support on the motion “The UK should leave the European Union.” The debaters are expected to argue their points using the facts and support them using reliable sources. The debate website is therefore reliable in the debate as to whether the UK should exit the EU. The proponents of the debate gave fourteen strong points in support of the motion. Reintroduction of full powers to Westminster, Issues on trade and immigration among member states, retention of British economy and pound were among the main points supporting the debate. The opponents in the debate came up with 6 points, establishing why the UK should stay in the UK. Among their points were enhancement of free trade and free market, the security guarantee offered by the EU, and the fear that TNCs (Trans National Corporations) would leave. Considering this debate, it is evident that most people perceive the EU membership a liability as opposed to being an asset (Debate wise, 2015). The rules and regulations that have been set by the EU have weighed on the UK and its citizens tremendously. Over time the EU has become more than A trade bloc which was the initial intention prompting its formation. The EU currently seems to have a say on the activities of all its members states. It has a say on the agricultural policies, politics as well as major economic decisions that the UK undertakes. The issue of selective immigration, employment and many other regulations surrounding the citizens make them develop Eurosceptism. Eurosceptism refers to the criticism of the European Union as well as the way the European political integration. The people feel that the EU is depriving them their deserved freedom and the only way the freedom can be achieved is through exiting the Union. Exiting the EU will also reinstate the democracy of Europe, which has long been sucked into the EU regulations. This way, Europe will be able to make independent decisions on issues that affect its citizens (The Guardian, 2014). The free trade and market offered by the EU do not necessarily favor the UK as a member state. The amount taxed on the UK exports to other member states is overwhelming to the state. Instead gaining from the trades to other countries, the UK remits money to the EU in return. In terms of the free trade, the UK does not benefit economically and instead of its economy increasing, it has stagnated for the past few years. UK goods that pass through say Antwerp and Rotterdam are also counted as exports, which should not be the case. Considering the amounts that the EU taxes the UK and the rebate of the contributions that are sent back by the EU institutions, it is evident that the UK does not have a get a fair deal. Exiting the UK would eliminate unnecessary taxes from UKs exports leading to an increase in the GDP. Assuming that leaving the EU would crumble the UKs market is wrong since there are already established trade agreements between the UK and her trade partners, which would not fizzle out at once. Besides, the mutual benefits experienced by the UK and its two partners would ensure the partnership is maintained irrespective of the exit. However these issues within the EU were reformed, then there would be no need for the exit (Bootle, 2014). The UK has many foreign workers working in the Nation and benefitting from her welfare programs. Many migrants move into Britain, which is necessitated by the EU regulations that citizens of any member state is free to live and work in any Nation (Currie, 2013). In addition, Europe has the highest growing economy making it a preferred destination for many migrants. Increase in migrants has taken many employment opportunities leaving many of her citizens (especially the youths) unemployed. On November 28, 2014, The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron gave a warning to the EU to reform all the immigration laws that cost the UK government a lot of revenue. In his speech, Cameron complained of the undue advantage given to immigrants. Immigrants are incorporated into the British Welfare benefits compulsorily as stipulated by the EU regulations. The British government pays for the Welfare of the immigrants’ children and those of unemployed immigrants. If these requirements for compulsory benefits for immigrants are reformed, then Cameron himself will push for the staying of the UK in the EU. However, if the EU is not reformed then it is necessary for the UK to exit the EU. An Exit will free up revenue previously used in the welfare benefits of the immigrants for use into other pressing government projects (Reuters, 2014). Better, off out, a website that advocates for the UK leaving the EU declares freedom as the sole purpose, which should encourage the UK to exit the EU. The EU limits all the freedoms of the UK and her citizen by imposing its numerous restrictions in the economic social and political affairs. The greatest thing to have is freedom and therefore any person, entity, or state should do everything possible to regain lost freedom. By leaving the EU, Europe will have freedom to; make stronger deals with other nation, spend its resources on the citizens, to control National borders, restore the previous special legal systems. Economically, Britain will be able to make major changes in the saving of the consumers, improve its economy and generate more jobs, reduce welfare payments to non-UK residents and regenerate its fisheries. Britain will also be able to restore its customs and traditions and enjoy the previous heritage (Better off out, 2014). According to Matthijs (2014), exit of the EU by the UK would not only be dangerous to the UK itself but to other European Nations. The Exit would not solve any political or economical problem facing Britain. Instead, it will be a miscalculated way for the UK in both political and economical aspects. The pressure by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron for the EU to reform or face the UK exit is not the right solution for the problems. Cameron if caving in to the demands of his right wing party mates just like his predecessors, Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The two former premiers were not re-elected as they concentrated more on the issue of the EU rather than the important issues facing the citizens. In a research conducted on Britons, 6 percent believe that Europe is the main problem facing the UK. However, 67 percent of the respondents stated the economy as the main issue, 35 percent voted unemployment while 20 percent voted for immigration and racial issues as the main problem. Basing on these findings, it is better to concentrate on the economy, unemployment and immigration since they are more important to the people than the EU (Matthijs, 2014). The move to exit has not been embraced by the British bosses. A poll conducted by Ipsos-Mori at the beginning of February (2015) found that the decision to exit the EU was least welcome to the Boardroom bosses. Among the respondents of the survey, only 1 percent of them preferred the exit. 45% of the respondents however voted for the situation to remain as it was to prevent destabilizing the economy. Another 45 percent of the respondents acknowledged that there was a problem with the EU membership but favored reforms of the Union to mend the relationship. The biggest advantage for EU membership was voted as the cross-border trading ease (46%), which was followed by the access of the vast EU customer base (41%) and British participation in the free market. The large volume of EU regulations (56%) and changes of the regulations (55%) were the main disadvantages of EU membership. In relation to regulations, 79 percent of the respondents said that level regulations between the EU and the UK were problematic to the UK. The respondents suggested simplification of the employment legislations (24%), harmonizing the EU and UK regulations (11%) reduction of the general levels of regulations (8%) and the reduction of tax regulation (7%). The overall findings of the poll showed that most business leaders preferred remaining in the EU, albeit with some reforms on EU regulations. The call for the UK exit from the EU is therefore more public oriented than economic (Briggs, 2015). Conclusion Weighing the pros and cons attached to the UKs EU exit, it is evident that the issue is delicate and should be handled with caution. The plan to hold a referendum in 2017 is a viable plan as the public will get to act democratically to determine their fate. However, it would be better if other means of solving the stalemate between the UK and the EU were sought. Pushing for EU reforms is a good move and the period between 2015 and 2017 could be used to agitate for reforms. If the EU heeds to the UK desire for reforms, then the UK will have much more to celebrate for since they would be in a better state both as a Nation and as an EU member. It is therefore a wise decision for the Prime Minister to set the Referendum in 2017 rather than this election year. Holding the referendum on 2015 would not only be a hasty decision but it would also destabilize the Nation in all aspects especially with campaigns taking place at the same time. First things should come first (elections) and the other thing should follow later including the referendum, if it will be necessary. References List Better Off Out. (2014). 10 Reasons to Leave | Better Off Out. Better Off Out [Online] Retrieved from http://www.betteroffout.net/the-case/10-reasons-wed-be-better-off-out/ Bootle, R. (2014). Without reform, it would be best for Britain to leave EU – Telegraph. The Telegraph [Online] 28 April Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10793681/Without-reform-it-would-be-best-for-Britain-to-leave-EU.html Briggs, M. (2015). Poll: Only 1% of British bosses want UK to leave the EU | EurActiv.[Online] 9 February Retrieved from http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/poll-only-1-british-bosses-want-uk-leave-eu-311840 Currie, S. (2013). Migration, work and citizenship in the enlarged European Union. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. Debatewise.org. (2015). The UK Should Leave the European Union //Debatewise - where great minds differ. Debate Wise [Online] Retrieved from http://debatewise.org/debates/784-the-uk-should-leave-the-european-union/ Debating Europe. (2015). Arguments for and against Turkey’s EU membership. Debating Europe.[Online] Retrieved from http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/infobox-arguments-for-and-against-turkeys-eu-membership/#.VPcBT3yUcUY European Commission. (2014). European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargment Negotiations. European Commision. [Online] 19 November. Retrieved from ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/index_en.htm European Union. (2015). Joining The EU. European Union [Online] Retrieved from europa.eu/about-eu/countries/joining-eu/index_en.htm Kettle, M. (2015). This general election could define Britain’s global role into the next decade | Martin Kettle | Comment is free | The Guardian. [Online] 30 January Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/30/general-election-britain-global-role-trident-europe-isolationism Kirkup, J. (2015). Bringing forward an EU referendum to 2016 would be stupid – Telegraph. The Telegraph [Online] 11 February Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11404106/Bringing-forward-an-EU-referendum-to-2016-would-be-stupid.html Matthijs, M. (2013). David Camerons Dangerous Games. Foreign Affairs. [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139641/matthias-matthijs/david-camerons-dangerous-game McLaren, L. M. (2007). Explaining opposition to Turkish membership of the EU.European Union Politics, 8(2), 251-278. Moravcsik, A. (2014). The Trouble With Europe: Why the EU Isnt Working-How It Can Be Reformed-What Could Take Its Place. Reuters (2014, November 28). Cameron: EU should change freedom of movement rules, or UK will exit. EurActiv. [Online] 28 November Retrieved from http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe Richardson, J. J. (Ed.). (2006). European Union: power and policy-making (Vol. 10). Psychology Press. The Guardian. (2014). The EU: should Britain be in or out? | World news | The Guardian. [Online] 18 January Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/18/eu-britain-in-out-eu-referendum Vachudova, M. A. (2014). EU leverage and national interests in the Balkans: The puzzles of enlargement ten years on. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(1), 122-138. /cameron-eu-should-change-freedom-movement-rules-or-uk-will-exit-310419 Read More