After the failed Referenda in la France and the Netherlands, the public, statesmen, bureaucrats and scientists are now searching for the meaning and goal of the European integration process. By itself, Europeanization was a process, defined by having no goal, a continuing struggle of closer cooperation between the member states.
I have recently read a book called "The Cosmopolitan Europe" by Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande which picks up the phenomena of an ever-changing Europe (EU as of now).


http://www.arena.uio.no/news/news2005/beck_seminar.xml

A line of argument is that the EU is a construct of changing nature, one that incorporates nation state policies and supranational decision-making, is therefore a sui-generis model of an international institution that incorporates both (national and international) levels and leads to increasing capacity of action for member states while losing certain rights of sovereignty. From that logic it is not possible to say either-or [win or lose] any more to understand Europeanization. The key is a both-and logic, a positive-sum-approach if you will.

While reading it I thought of a couple of questions which I always wanted to ask in this forum. They are:

A] Is there a need for a well-defined, certain goal that the European Integration Process should aim at, if so, what should it be?

B] What process or policy (Democratization of EU institutions, further enlargement, deeper integration of the nation states in the EU) should be implemented to gain momentum in the current stagnant situation of the EU?

C] Is there a border of enlargement that the EU should not break? (Turkey, Israel, Russia, Canada/US?) Or is any country fit to join the EU if it accepts the Copenhagen Criteria (stable democracy, market economy, implementation of the acquis communitaire [laws of the community])?

Bonus: D] Would you agree to the thesis that nation states can have increased problem solve capacity by giving away certain aspects of sovereignty to international/trans-national organizations?

Hmmm....

A] I think the EU needs a goal as a means of ensuring popular support of the continuation of the experiment (assuming that the EU continues to evolve from it's current state). To now, the legitimacy of the EU has been gained less by elections and more by general agreement within Europe of the need for closer integration - that is while very few in Europe (relatively speaking) took an interest in specific European legislation, folks were willing to "trust" the integration in the name of the agreed upon goal of closer union. The goal drove the politics.

This does bring up the question of what the recent rejection of the EU constitution means; is it a rejection of the European experiment generally (that is, do Europeans on the whole believe they've become "unified enough") or is it a more specific rejection of the means of this integration? Goodness knows, I don't know that answer but it does seem that there is introspection going on here (at least in NL) about if things have gone far enough.

B] Tougher question as I don't think it's a given that the current state of the EU is stagnant. Perhaps Europe is as unified as folks want it at the moment (don't know, just putting the question out there). If further union is in the cards, I guess I'd focus on the institutions themselves; try to move the EU's political legitimacy from goals to governance (this assumes, of course, that you buy into my premise in question A).

C] I don't think so. This is not to say that I think everyone should join the EU or that the EU should let anyone who wants to join in, simply that I don't think there is any "natural boundry". I might expand the Copenhagen Criteria a bit to reflect some common cultural assumptions (already embedded in some of the political requirements) but, basically, I don't think there is any sort of geography test.

I do think that the EU will shortly have to either stop growing OR require it's members to cede more sovereignty. As economic integration continues, it gets harder and harder to maintain boundries (see some of the current brouhaha over E.ON aquiring Endessa as an example). I could see a situation where the sheer number of actors makes administration difficult withount a greater centralization of key authority. I don't know if it will come to pass, just bringing up one risk I see.

D] (just because I love extra credit...) I'm not sure that I would. I don't see evidence that the EU is better able to address political problems than, say, Canada. I would say that Europe has some specific aspects (several relatively homogenous, small nation-states with fairly similar political and economic systems all bordering or in proximity to one another) that make integration beneficial; I'm not sure that (as an example) Germany and Japan would see the same benefits of close union as Germany and France.

Of course, I could be wrong here.

Edited to remove accidental emoticon

I believe it is obvious that democratic decision making is rudimentary at best in the EU. Fritz Scharpf talks of input and output legitimacy, meaning participation in elections (IP) and performance (OP). At least one of those two options must be "reformed" in the EU to gain more legitimacy. Ironically, the EU constitution included much more possibilities for participation of the EU citizens, but the rejection stopped that. I therefore believe that the EU needs to rethink it's institutional make-up to incorporate more efficient decision making, going from unanimity to qualified majority decision making in all EG areas and other structural deficits that hamper efficiency.

- In that respect, let us not forget that the Constitution was rejected by 2 member states, but was accepted by 13 members with 8 members having halted their decisions upon the topic. One may assume from that, that national "specialties" were mainly responsible for the 2 no's. I seriously doubt that the European Project by itself causes negative feelings, but rather the current institutionalization.

So there needs to be a contract similar to the constitution, just to make the institutions work more efficiently. However, it may be utopian to assume that the EU integration process can be done the same way it has been going, with all members being integrated the same amount. Why not different levels of integration? Let there be a Euro-zone with 12 (2007: 13) members, a Zone with members in the WEU, then of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, members contributing to a standing European Army, and so on. Member states should be able to join or leave these Zones as they seem fit.
Not belonging to a group may prove to be not beneficial in the long run: Switzerland is still no member of the EU, but it's legislation has adopted many aspects of EU laws and has singed numerous treaties. At some point, it may be wise for Switzerland to join the EU to have a voice in EU-decisions, rather than to implement their consequential legislation.

The EU project does not yet need a goal that won't be agreed upon with unanimity anyway, but institutional modernization. The way can be the goal, but to proceed further on the way the EU needs healthy legs.

Ah, the EU - just about my favourite topic in the whole world! How to get 30 or so countries with a long standing history of warfare and mutual distrust to get along? (Or possibly that just the view from the UK..)

A) - I think there needs to be a serious debate about where the EU is going. There seem to be broadly 3 models - the 'integrationist' model - where the countries get increasingly closer, harmonise all laws, regulations and markets and becomes 'one' federalised country - in the manner of the US. This model (I would guess) is favoured by western continental Europe politicians - but not necessarily the voters. Then there is the 'free market' model - where the EU is essentially a free market, but individual nations retain sovereignty over just about everything else. This is favoured by British, some eastern European and (I think) Scandinavian politicians. Then there is the 3rd model, identified by Sevac above - where different countries integrate to different levels.

I emphasised that different ideals for the EU are favoured by politicians, because I don't think anyone has really made much effort to find out what their voters think (the EU generally being far more attractive to politicians and civil servants (I should know, I am one!) than to voters)! Certainly, British opinion is split - the Scots and northern English favour closer integration with Europe, the southern English prefer to keep it at arms length.

Personally, I would prefer the EU to adopt a mixture - integration at different levels for those that want them. However, I think this would have to be coupled with serious reform of many European economies - less protectionism and a greater emphasis on competitiveness. China is real - it isn't going away and we need to reform our economies to accept that and benefit from all the cheap manual labour this implies. Without economic reform, the future of Europe is largely irrelevant.

B] Economic reform and greater accountability to voters. The EU has the potential to be the world's largets and strongest economic area, if we are prepared to reform - and I think that reform can be carried out whilst retaining the European ideals of social welfare. The voter accountability is a no-brainer - the EU needs to be a lot more transparent and the EU Parliament should be the deciding body, rather than an advisory organisation.


C) In theory, no - in practice, the Middle East is nowhere near ready and so seriously far behind in most of the EU criteria to make it unlikely that they will be elgible for decades. Having said that, I do not think that there should be a geographic barrier, given that the applicant country is willing to meet the criteria. Turkey will be the litmus test for the Middle East I suspect.
Of course, it is unlikely that the USA would ever want to join, given it's traditions of strong independence, a democractic China would probably be to nationalistic, as would Russia.
India - maybe - although I think both sides would have to be convinced that there were advantages.
The important thing is that the invitation would be extended to anyone meeting the criteria, even if it is likely that those countries would turn us down.

D) Yes - the EU has worked very well in bringing Europe together and giving us a peaceful mechanism to resolve trans-boundary issues. Along with the spread of democracy to Eastern Europe, this is the EU's main strength.

A] Is there a need for a well-defined, certain goal that the European Integration Process should aim at, if so, what should it be?

I think so, just for the sake of the whole project (if there ever was a project to begin with...) and to bring clarity to the voters who are completely shunned and phased out in the process.

B] What process or policy (Democratization of EU institutions, further enlargement, deeper integration of the nation states in the EU) should be implemented to gain momentum in the current stagnant situation of the EU?

Win the people of Europe to the cause seems the best idea to me. For decades, Europe was pictured as the great Satan by French politicians to explain their own national failures... so much that today the French have a great distrust of anything related to the EU.

C] Is there a border of enlargement that the EU should not break? (Turkey, Israel, Russia, Canada/US?) Or is any country fit to join the EU if it accepts the Copenhagen Criteria (stable democracy, market economy, implementation of the acquis communitaire [laws of the community])?

I guess it comes down to what we really WANT with Europe. Do we seek a cultural unity or heritage? Do we want more trade? Do we care to promote democracy and Human rights? Our elected officials have various opinions on the matter which, for once, reflects the variety of opinions of all Europeans.

Bonus: D] Would you agree to the thesis that nation states can have increased problem solve capacity by giving away certain aspects of sovereignty to international/trans-national organizations?

I don't know. Are there any examples of that?