European Union Lecture Notes: Week 2-7

Week 2 - European and US Relations ● Lecture Outline: ○ Why it’s a special, enduring relationship ○ Is there a values issue? ○ US-EU Relations from 2000-2021 ● President George W. Bush: ○ “Our strong friendship is essential to peace and prosperity around the globe. No temporary debate, to passing disagreement among nations, no power on earth, will ever divide us.” ● President Barack Obama: ○ “America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to joining together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, anda global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century.” ● Partners in Global Leadership: ○ EU and US work together to develop international standards: ■ Fighting terrorism and transnational crime ■ Advancing global trade liberalization ■ Combating piracy and intellectual rights ● Shared Values and Responsibilities ○ Freedom and Democracy ■ Support free elections, good governance, human rights, and the rule of law around the world ○ Security ■ Cooperate to fight terrorism, limit the spread of nuclear weapons, and work for global peace ○ Development ■ Together, EU and US provide 80% of global development assistance and an even larger share of global humanitarian aid in times of disaster and conflict ● A Dynamic Transatlantic Economy ○ The EU and the US are two of the largest economies in the world. They account together for about half the entire world economy. ○ EU and US together account for 33% of total global trade → $807 billion ○ The transatlantic economy generates $5.6 trillion in total commercial sales a year and employs up to 16 million workers on both sides of the Atlantic ○ Since 2001, Euureop has account for roughly two thirds of total global investment flows into the US ○ With the UK, the EU and the UK are a larger economy than the US ■ Without the UK, the US and the EU are essentially equal ○ EU has a trade surplus with the US, the EU exports more than it imports, the US imports more than it exports ■ Americans love European speciality products (beer, wine, cheese…) ● “Luxury” goods as well, Louis Vutton Dolce & Gabana ○ No market for US agricultural products (i.e. soybeans) but with movements against GMOs, there is not much of a market for US imported agriculture ● The problem with the EU-US relationship isn’t necessarily their foreign policy differences, it is the interpersonal differences in the relationship (especially from the President). ○ i.e. “You’re with us or against us” ● When the relationship is on the “fritz”, many fear/discuss the dissipation of NATO ○ North Atlantic Treaty Organization ○ Americans values NATO and their military alliances ● Iraq War/ Bush was very divisive and caused much anger towards the US ● The EU favors Palestine, the US favors Israel, this angers Europe that the US could side with the cause of such humanitarian issues ● Although the EU acted angry that the US set up outside-US camps (like Guantanamo), they secretly worked with the US and there were advanced interrogation camps on EU if it seems like Europe might be disagreeing/working against the US, we don’t fully know what is actually happening besides the scenes ● Obama was so attractive to Europeans (and Germans in particular) because he was not Bush and he used inclusive language that excited Europeans to have a relationship again (the idea of “hope” and “yes we can”) ● The appeal of Death Penalty is a huge division between Europe and the US ● Under Trump, Europeans feared that on top of dismissing Europe, he would try and pull the US out of NATO ○ Trump attracted alt-right parties in Europe, who were pro-Trump and anti-EU Week 3 - History of the European Union ● What does it take to qualify for membership in the EU? ○ 1.) the candidate country has to be a stable democracy, with rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities ○ 2.) the canidatdate county has the existence of a functioning market economy, as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces ○ 3.) the ability to take on the obligations of memberships, including adherence to the aims of political, economic, and monetary union ( community) acquis ■ All or nothing with the EU, you can’t take some things and leave others, have to accept all of the past legislation/policy when joining ○ 4.) Must be on the continent of Europe ● Norway? ○ Has never been a member of the EU, but is ‘partners’ with the EU for certain economic reasons and is a member of the EFTA and the EEA ○ Their economy has historically been very good and they had no desire to ‘merge’ with lesser economies ○ As of 2002, the Norwegian economy began to decline ● Switzerland? ○ Never been a member, but is a ‘partner’ for economic reasons ○ Only joined the UN in 2002 ○ Swiss government wants to join for economic reasons, but the swiss people vote against joining ● The Marshall Plan (also known as ERP) ○ General George Marshall → the US obligation to rebuild Europe ○ Rebuild in a way they would not fight again ○ American funded and funded ○ “inter-European cooperation for a higher standard of living” ● Treaty of Paris 1952 → established the European coal and steel community (ECSC) ○ 10 February 1953 set into the common market ● 1957 - European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome) ○ Established the economic community or the “common market”, where goods and services could move across borders ○ “Ever closer union” ■ Four institutions: ■ Assembly - European Parliament ■ Council - legislative body ■ Constitution - Judicial ○ Four freedoms: ■ Good, workers (people), services, capital ○ Single market wasn’t truly achieved until 1992 ○ Jean monnet = tree conception ● FINAL QUESTION: was Monnet or Ee Gaulle right? Week 4- EU Institutions ● Who has the Power? ○ 1) Institutional Structure (lots of presidents) ○ 2) European Commission ■ Commision President - Ursula von der Leyen ○ 3) Council of Ministers → both a President of the Council and a rotating president (a member, currently Portugal) ○ 4) European Parliament → with a president ○ 5) European Court of Justice ● All odd things in the EU, are ways that member states are trying to keep their power ● The EU would not exist, if the members states didn’t give it power ● Conservative → doesn’t want change ● European Parliament (does not have the most power) ● Chief executives (presidents/pms of the member states) make the European Council ○ Guide the EU’s course, meet twice a year and set goals ● The European Parliament cannot initiate legislation, those come from the European Commission ● European Commission is in charge of the different ministries (apartments) of economics, agriculture, foreign policy, labor, etc. ● Council of the EU (Council of Ministers) (* most powerful) ● European Parliament has full veto powers on much more than it used to ● European Court of Justice, arguably the best functioning ● College of Commissioners, one from each member state ● Ministry/Department is a DG (directeur general) ● The commission is the “guardian of treaties” ○ Execute laws and they propose new legislation (exclusive right) ○ Negotiate trade agreements for the entire EU ● The commission proposes the council disposes ● The Council of the EU (think of as the senate) ○ Council presidency (half-yearly rotation between member states) ■ They set the agenda ■ Countries only get this once every fourteen years ■ They preside over the dealings ○ General Secretariat (Brussels) ○ Permanent Representatives Committee of the Member States (COREPER) ■ Every EU member has an embassy, their job (the ambassadors) is to discern what is happening with the EU currently ○ QMV - qualified majority vote, a minimum of 255 of 345 votes and the majority of Member States ○ Each country is loyal to their own state and values ○ Countries’ representation correlates with populations of countries ● How the Council Makes decisions: ○ Depending on the issue under discussion, the Council takes decision by: ■ Simply majority (14 members states vote in favor) ■ Qualified majority (55% of the member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population, vote in favor) ● You can collect small states like Malta, and expect changes in Germany ■ Unanimous vote (all votes are in favor) ● People would rather have weaker legislation that is unanimous, than weeker policies that would upset others, if you are a member state, you can always declare a veto not to participate ● European Parliament : ○ Meets in Strasbourg, France (for French and German relations) ○ Commission and the council (with the standing committees) is in Brussels ○ Secretary-General is in Luxembourg ● Nigel Farage: No one follows the EU because there is no Eu-pan media, national press are focused around the national government, and that garnethers more attention. When the EU does something right, they take credit, when something goes wrong they blame the EU. Week 5 - Public Opinion and Creating the Identity for the EU ● National sovereignty is seriously suboptimal ● Essential Definitions: ○ Nation - group of people who feel tied to one another by living in a common territory … ○ State - political entity of a nation (not the people, the government) ○ Country - refers to the country-side, and the geography of a location ● Ambivalence or Indifference: ○ Stockel demonstrates that public opinion is a poor measure of people’s feelings on an issue ○ Ambivalence (proven with more education): ■ “I guess it is ok” or “In some ways I like it and others not” ■ Will be increased with good/bad media coverage ■ Split elite discourse ○ Indifference: ■ “I couldn’t care less” or “no opinion” or “don’t know” ○ It is hard to tell the two apart in a poll ● Stocknel’s Findings: ○ The more ignorant, the more indifferent ○ The more sophisticated, the more ambivalent ○ The more divided elite opinion, the more ambivalent, less indifferent, and less positive the masses ○ Trust [in government/leaders] are key: it reduces both indifference and ambivalence ● There is not much of a divide between the right and left of Europeans on the EU Week 6 → Can Europeans love the E.U.? ● Recap of last week’s public opinion lecture: ○ Role of media (de Vreese) ○ Party-public cueing (Hooghe, Gabel) ○ EU’s representation deficit undermines mass support for European political integration, especially where national institutions work well (Rohrschneider, Kritzinger) ● Can advertisements help? ○ If newspapers can influence, can EU videos and the like? ○ How do you make “Europeans”? ○ Is this manipulation for the good? ○ Do people need to love the EU? ● How to make a European? ● Nation or Identity Building v. State Building ○ “State-building” represents efforts to establish a centralized government organization, good administration ○ “Nation-building” is about making people feel connected to one another so they want to live under that state, creating a love of country ● End of the Permissive Consensus ○ Eurobarometer Surveys, since 1974 (by independent agencies) ○ The “Permissive Consensus” ■ EU bargains are ‘presented to the public only after compromises have been worked out among political leaders’ ○ End of the Permissive Consensus ■ 1992/3 - Danish and French Referendum on Maastricht ■ 2001 - Irish rejections of the Nice Treaty ■ 2005 - French/Netherlands rejection of EU Constitution ● European Identity → why? ○ Is the glue that holds everything together ○ Further integration necessitates stronger common identity: ■ Democracy deficit ■ No sacrifice without legitimacy ■ Institutional vs. mental integration ■ Lacking sense of “Europeness” ● National Identity and EU (Habermas) ○ EU does not intend to replace the national identities of the member states with a “European identity” ○ It is neither possible nor desirable to level out the national identities of the member nations ● Whose Europe? ○ European identity as a elitist project ○ A gigantic capitalist market area ○ Ethnic overtones ○ Colonialism ○ Who is included (and excluded?) ● Collective Identity ○ Based on ethnicity, language, territory, history/culture, religion ○ Identity implies the existence of an entity, real or imagined ○ Form of active self-recognition through symbols, language, myths, narratives, etc. ○ Shared belief of belonging to a same whole more important than resemblance and kinship ○ Form individual to national identity ● Traits of Identity ○ Interpreted sameness with local and temporal dimensions ○ “The other” (America is Europe’s other), centrality of existence as a point of comparison, adversary, often also enemy ○ Differentiation and continuity ○ Fear of outside threat towards one’s own culture and national existence ● European Flag ○ Shared symbol ○ It consists of a circle with 12 golden starts (not representative of members states) ● Shared National Anthem ● “National Day” ○ 9 May as “Europe Day”, adopted in 1985 ○ Only really celebrated in Brussels ● Opposition-Euroscepticism: ○ Ideological movement with diverse points of view ○ Euroscepticism originated in England, and at first referred to those within the Labour Party and Conservative Party who were skeptical of their parties/ official support for UK memberships of the European Economic Community ● Foreign and Security Policy as a National Building Tool ○ A way to “other” the world outside of Europe ○ Draw a border around mainland Europe, and there is a tie to protect it as a unit ● A European army? ○ Attempts at an army to try and build unity ○ Hasn’t come through it, small progress ○ Joint military parades, “an army of peace’ ● Schengen Area ○ All foreigners need the same visa to go into Europe, inside is domestic, outside is foreign ○ Allows for easier travel within the EU ● Eastern Enlargement and Defining the EU’s borders ○ 27 current members of the EU (excluding UK, updated) ○ After 2005 let 10 countries in at once, there was a hesitancy within the public with EU enlargement ● Immigration/Non-White people in the EU ○ Lack of their diversity in EU advertisements ○ Could immigrants be the real “true” Europeans, because they don’t have preformed allegiances to a specific state in the EU ● Is the EU a sinking ship? ● Is the EU a noose around one’s neck? ● Attempts to integrate/increase public perception ○ If the EU was a team at the olympics, 273 medals ○ “Our country did a good thing, the EU did a bad thing” ● Their attempts are better than nothing, but what are they supposed to do to increase popularity/knowledge? Week 7 - European and EU Integration Theories ● Page #64 in the textbook has a great theory chart ● Theories of European Integration ● Problematique (What is it? The EU?) ● Precursor Theories: ○ Realism ■ Lisa’s point of view? ● The wish for world peace is an idealist ● All the weapons are gone for world peace to be achieved ■ How do people achieve world peace? What is the mechanism? ● The removal of weapons and conflicts ● Trust allowed for world peace to follow, if you trust all of the states in the world you don’t need nuclear arms ● Idealists say it is smart to trust people (the world we have today would not exist without trust), realists say no you cannot trust people who are not you (Hobbes, if men trusted each other why do they lock their doors at night?) if you give an opportunity (they come in) (the martians) ○ UK - friend ○ China - friend or enemy, we don’t like them but we are their #1 trade friends ○ Germans - two wars, but now ..? Do we trust them? ○ Russia - ?, allies in WWII and then they are our biggest enemy? ○ IN THE EU, CAN YOU CREATE A TRUST BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY WHERE THEY CAN TRUST EACH OTHER AND BE TOGETHER IN THE EU ■ What is the martians point of view? ● Realists in the end, more power because they have weapons when everything else is eliminated ○ Functionalism ○ Realism ■ There are limited resources, but we each always want more ■ States are unitary and rational actors, it doesn't matter who the US president i because all countries will react rationally in the world social order ■ Peace is the absence of war ■ Everyone having a gun will make you not shoot ■ Gains are zero-sum, anything anyone else gets is taken away from me ■ True peace isn’t possible ○ Idealism ■ Education levels over how we are born impacts how we react to the world around us (no such thing as human nature as humans change) ■ No such thing as a unitary actor state, all about different communities, the US community the UW community the EU class community (nested) ● Nested identities ■ Pluralism - everything matters, how you’re raised, psychology, economics etc. ● When everything matters, nothing matters ○ Wars overall are ending up in less casualties, in WWII you shrugged when a family died, if one dies now by a drone strike its noteworthy ● Structuralism ○ Meghan Markle’s structural racism in the UK, it doesn’t matter what she knows or is able to do because racism stops her from ________ ○ Invisible structure that prevent people of color, women, differently abled from making it in the world ○ THE WHOLE WORLD IS AMERICAN FOOTBALL → WHO DOES WELL, WHITE BIG MEN ○ Power is defined by the groups who have power and who doesn’t ○ “No justice no peace” is a structuralist statement Functionalism (David Mitrany) Precursor theory #1 ● Functionalism encourages countries to cooperate by helping ● If you allow countries to cooperate, it will eventually lead to a world government ● Functionalism says bureaucracy will save us Federalism Precursor Theory #2 ● People go in explicit and say they will make a federation Neofunctionalism vs. Intergovernmentalism (internal and external mechanisms) ● Specific variety of pluralism ● To create a US of Europe ● How does integration happen? ○ Says it is an automatic process from the inside ● The mechanism → spill over ○ Spill over is practical and functional ■ hey , lets trade and both make money, we need some customs programs, negotiations … a lot of little problems occur that will MAKE A HABIT OF COOPERATION ● Solving problems through integration has three effects: ○ (1) The first act of integration will beget other problems that will, for practical purposes, need further cooperation and integration to solve; ○ (2) it will create a habit of cooperation which will encourage future international aid; and ○ (3) it will see the creation of supranational institutions to coordinate the international effort between the member states ○ Functional Spillover: ■ Occurs when certain technical tasks are seen as better solved through international cooperations, some sectors of industrial economies are so interdependent that they cannot be treated within a vacuum, that is without consideration of the wider setting, therefore it integrates certain functional tasks ○ Political Spillover : ■ Occurs when the elites are won over to the integration process and use the supranational structures for problem solving rather than their national institutions, through learning process, the elites will change their activities behavior and perhaps even their loyalties towards the centre (more europe is good) ○ Cultivated Spillover (call the midwife): ■ Cultivated spillover emphasizes the role ot eh supranational institutions to embody the common interest and hence function as midwives for european services and ideas ■ Their goal, the elites, is to come up with functional solutions to make everyone love the EU ● Neo-functionalism: End state? ○ Does it naturally come to end ○ Is there an end state for neofunctionalism? ■ Arguably, yes, when they become a United States of Europe ● What are the pros and cons of this theory? ○ On the whole class padlet document ○ PROS: ■ Tailored made to the European Union ■ Came out in 1957/58, the Europe of today looks very different, there have been more federalist aspects ■ Federalism through the back door, people may not want a federation but it is happening in a sneaky way, even though people don’t realize it they are becoming more united ○ CONS: ■ Maybe a united federation of Europe is too optimistic ■ Comparison of Luxemburg was not neofunctionalism ■ European integration always has starts and stops, something will happen good and then a set back for the EU ● Is this a steady increase in integration? No, not really … ● The difference between a theory and a law is that a law is always right but with theories it may happen sometimes and will not other times. (We can never prove a social science theory in a vacuum.) (We are looking for a bigger pile of evidence to substantiate (not prove) that your theory is best.) ○ If something only works in theory and not in practice → it is a bad theory. NEO-FUNCTIONALISM What are the weaknesses of this theory? 1.) Very deterministic; integration just 'happens', whether intentional or not. NF predicts the end state of the United States of Europe. Is this really where it's going? 2.) It doesn't explain integration in fits and starts: why does the momentum keep stalling? 3.) Doesn't take into account the people; it focuses on the governing elite. 4.) States and personalities (e.g. DeGaulle) don't seem to play a role). What are the strengths of this theory? 1.) Made specifically for the EU, so it should be a good fit. 2.) Explains how integration is rational and automatic: states will integrate because it's more efficient. 3.) Supports the idea that institutions matter; i.e., they play a role in the integration process. 4.) Allows for a habit of cooperation, or "engrenage' -- that people will get used to calling their equivalents in the Commission or another EU member state to solve a problem instead of going up to their national superiors. LIBERAL INTERGOVERNMENTALISM (closer to Realism) ● Loosely based on realist theory, an issue comes up (immigration, subsidies, etc.) and it goes to the national governments where they then decide what the national interest is and they spit out the national interest which is what they bring to the negotiating tables ● A lowest common denominator agreement comes out, it takes everybody account, this is the INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE that impacts INTEGRATION ● Weakness: no institutions are really included ● Three essential elements: ○ (1) the assumption of rational state behavior ○ (2) A liberal theory of national preference formations, and ○ (3) an intergovernmental analysis of interstate negotiations ● Two levels to this analysis: ○ (1) formation of the domestic national interest (not realist) ; and ○ (2) interstate interaction of the different members states, and the effect of political pressures from the interaction on the national interests, the foreign policy outcomes are dependent on these two stages (very realist) ■ Power and money control the game ● It's not the European Commission or parliament that makes the EU, it is all the times that member states have come together to create a treaty/negotiation to further integration and promote policy. ○ The number of countries have an impact as well ● Big countries decide, small countries are paid off ● IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT WE THINK ABOUT A THEORY IT MATTERS HOW IT APPLIES TO THE EU IN EUROPE IN GENERAL RATIONALISTS vs. CONSTRUCTIONISTS ● Do people stay married because of the institution or because they love one another? ● Rational Institutionalists, HIstorical Institutionalists, Social Constructivists Rational institutionalists - Argue that the US is not different than Canada or Russia, all political units behave in the same way because of institutions - “Emphasis on the role of institutions themselves and how they impact integration. Therefore, assumes integration or even federation, is a given because in US politics, integration is a given. Part of multi-level governance is not sui generis because it’s like other polities.” - The EU doesn’t need its own theory, all states function the same - Sui Generis → “latin one of a kind” - The EU is merely another level of governance that can deal with problems - “Applying US theory to the EU Institutional lock-in and path dependence → affects policies in predictable ways (If something goes all the way to the ECJ, states will have to change their - - behavior/policy” “Point here is that institutions do matter; as opposed to Moravcsik’s assertions. Institutions lower transaction costs, set agendas, and thereby affect outcomes. In doing so, counter Moravcsik by pointing out that it is not only national preferences.” It's not only national preferences that matter, it is also the institutions and the path dependence PROS: - Acknowledges the role that institutions play (especially when compared to liberal intergovernmentalism) - With the assumption that all states are governed in a similar/same way, it can provide more examples to understand how the EU functions (the EU isSui notGeneris) ( CONS: - Overlooks the unique situation of the European Union which fails to take into account the history/social situations in Europe, it’s not the same as the US - Too much acknowledgment to institutions where a realist could argue that the power to create change is with the member states SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISTS - The more the EU behaves like a state, the more people think the EU will exist. PROS : - Acknowledges that institutions do have a purpose - Matters of public opinion, if the people believe the EU will become a state it will become a state CONS: - Doesn’t account for ignorance or different perceptions of reality, if you don’t know what is going on elsewhere is it really happening? HER PROS AND CONS - “Focus on the people, phsycohological theory “ stressing or irrational aspects, a growing identity and love for Europe Stresses fake it until you make it behave like a state and people will believe i t How do you test this theory