An Enlarged Europe Union and the Unanimity Rule - Essay Example

Student Name] [Instructor’s Name] [Class Name] An Enlarged EU and the Unanimity Rule Discuss if it would be possible in the future for the enlarged European Union to continue taking most of the important policy decisions using the unanimity rule. Introduction Making policy decision and ensuring that the laws created by a body of representatives can be applied usefully across a continent is no mean task for those who are responsible for it. The European Union has been both credited and criticised for the system it uses for the creation as well as the debate on various polices and laws for its citizens. On one hand, the unanimity rule gives the chance for any member to object to tyranny imposed by the majority on weaker states, yet at the same time, it slows down the decision making process since a stubborn state can bog down the process of policy making and bring the EU to a complete standstill. The European Union hold a unique position as an international body in comparison to other bodies like the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Countries) or other regional cooperative organisations. The body itself is established as a democracy with a system of creating laws which apply to every member of the group. The treaties of Paris and Rome laid the foundations of the organisation and the increased membership in the EU means that the democratic principles that have been maintained may have to be altered to reflect ground realities. What can not be denied is the fact that the unanimity rule has become archaic and more or less useless in the present situation where EU members are no longer the tightly connected central powers or even the group of close friends who founded the union. Today’s EU is a widespread bureaucracy which is often seen as inefficient, wasteful and even undemocratic since lobbyists and special interest groups might have more of an effect on policy making that anything else which the politicians can muster. In such times, the unanimity rule is simply a crippling power which is given to every member state and not restricted to just a few countries (Davies, 2001). The Unanimity Rule An easy way to understand the unanimity rule to take it as ‘veto power’ given to every member of the European Union regardless of their size, population, economy or length of time spent as a member of the union. Consider what would happen if every country in the United Nations were to be given veto powers like those given to Russia, America or France. Not only would the United Nations find itself at odds with every country in the world, the business of passing resolutions or even deciding what to do regarding international conflicts would be almost impossible. Of course it might sound good to say that the European Union was unanimous in a certain decision but the time it takes to get to that unanimity might make the decision irrelevant. The idea of “unanimity" refers to the requirement for all Members meeting in the Council to be in complete agreement regarding a proposal before it can be adopted. The Single European Act was the first Act with which the applicability of the unanimity principle was loosened since it was obvious that an enlarged EU would only be hurt by the concept of unanimity. Voting with qualified majority makes the most sense but it is applied only to the first pillar of EU policy while the second and third pillars are based on the intergovernmental method and the unanimity requirement. Problems with Unanimity Even the supporters of the idea of unanimity agree that it is cumbersome but they also suggest that rights of individual states should not be destroyed simply for the sake of expediency. It is certainly a noble idea, but it seems that with the expanding size of the European Union, the business of the European Council would come to a standstill without using Qualified Majority Voting systems. Clearly, there should be exceptions to majority voting systems especially in situations where decisions could affect institutional balance or the very nature of the European Unions but for other matters, the need for unanimity is quite unintelligible. As the Union expands, sacred cows like tax regulations and social security matters which have always been settled with unanimity, might need to be settled with majority votes since the process of getting to a unanimous decision is more or less impossible when it comes to twenty or more differing opinions. The process is not simplified in any way by the three tiers of Union law which include the treaties and agreements between various countries, the regulations, decisions and recommendations of the council as well as the decisions and judgements given by the European Courts. The technical name for the entire collection of EU laws is acquis communautaire which is divided into more than thirty chapters for reference and discussion (Wikipedia, 2006). Legally, it must be understood that the European Union is not a federal body or an intergovernmental committee of ministers, in fact, it is a body created by the agreement of nations that are mutually bound to each other to follow the laws created by the Union (FCO, 2006). In this situation, unanimity requirements bring several problems which were keenly observed when the European Union draft constitution was presented since it received very different views from the member countries. The British took it as a mere formality since they had gone through many years of law creation and knew that the combination of these laws into a single document would be very useful for all concerned. However, the Germans were disappointed with the document and the chairperson of the commission said that the document was without vision or ambition (Hain, 2003). This is just one example of how monumental a task is faced by those who seek to create laws within the EU using the principles of unanimity. The Future Belongs to the Majority The Greek thinkers who are credited with coming up with the basic idea of democracy have presented their ideal democracy as one man one vote. In a situation where each country has one vote, an imbalance is a completely natural phenomenon. While men can be accepted to be more or less equal to each other although differences in education, social status and wealth are to be expected, nations are rather difficult to equate. With unanimity, there is a certain democratic deficit since the wishes of one country playing with a veto can be represented and converted into laws while the individual Europeans living in some member countries may be against the creation of that very same law (Beetham & Lord, 1998). In a way it represents the same issues which the United Nations has with powerful states having veto powers to knock down any resolution which is not favourable to them despite the value and need for such a resolution on a global scale. Unanimity in the European Union is not impossible but there are situations where bitter medicine needs to be swallowed by countries who may not wish to do so otherwise. While these differences could be overcome with time, they could represent the prejudices which certain countries still have against each other. Hain (2003) has further said that the current law making structure is too complex since it seeks to administer topics such as human rights, the political institutions of the Union and social policies without clarifying and developing the exact nature of the EU democracy. The current requirement for unanimity gives too much power to smaller members and it has been shown by Hain (2003) that when the EU increases its number to 25 full members, the seven smallest countries would present only 1.25% of the total GDP of the union while they will enjoy more voting rights than the six largest member countries that contribute more than 80% of the total GDP. Such inequalities will certainly create and promote democratic issues and may be a threat to the stability of the union as a whole therefore the power redistribution is eminent along with the removal of unanimity requirements. Conclusions Pragmatic Europeans realise that the balance of power between countries as it had been maintained by the original treaties needs to reflect in the method by which policies are defined in the EU is outmoded and needs to be changed. This requirement of change should be coupled with the removal of the need for unanimity in decisions and using the rules of qualified majority, the EU can make itself more democratic. One of the essential principles of democracy is the rule of the majority and the EU can not consider itself or any of its regional cooperative bodies to form and sustain a democracy if it does not follow the basic principles and requirement of a democratic system. The EU has to look beyond press releases that show how united the council is and has to look at the future of Europe where unanimity is an impossibility. Works Cited Beetham, D. and Lord, C. 1998, Legitimacy and the European Union, Wesley and Longman, London. Davies, D. 2001. ‘House of Commons Hansard Debates’, The UK Parliament, [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo011017/debtext/11017-11.htm FCO. 2006. ‘How EU policy is made’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office UK, [Online] Available at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029392232 Hain, P. 2003. ‘Tidying up or tyranny?’ Economist, vol. 367 no. 8326, pp. 51-52. Wikipedia. 2006. ‘European Union law’, Wikipedia.org, [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Law Read More