I apologize that I haven't had a post in a few days. I was sick on Monday and I've been reading up on some politics, which can be infuriating to me. Nothing in politics makes sense - there are no clearly drawn lines about what you can and can't do - no one follows any rules. I've come to realize that although I -talk- about politics a lot, I actually hate it. Sadly enough, I really love studying economics, and unfortunately the two are increasingly inseparable. Politicians seek power, and money buys power. Some might say I'm obsessed with money *ahem* but the reality is that I'm extremely interested in people's incentives. Not surprisingly, most people are motivated by money, or by getting money to purchase something they want. Not all, but most. Anyway, on to the really interesting stuff...

1. How did member states participate in the European Community, and do they participate in a different way now, as members of the European Union? What brought about this change from Community to Union?

Currently, there are two schools of thought on this particular question. The first, or "neo-realist" school believes in the principle that the interaction between most European governments is no different now than it was before a Community was conceived. These independently functioning governments continue to pursue their own personal national interest, and attempt to gain power in the Union as well as on the world stage. What's the evidence for this? Take, for example, the recent rejection of the new constitution by the Dutch. The Dutch people had to have known that it would have been good for the EU to ratify the constituion, especially after France struck it down. It would have given solidarity to the constitution, and made it more acceptable for future nations to ratify it. But they acted in their own self interest, saying "no" and taking advantage of a free opportunity. It was free because the French had already done it - the French took the bold step, and the Danish were just tagging along for the ride. That's classic freeloading, and it's a clear demonstration of self-interest.

The other party holds that there exists a group of people called "neo-functionalists", who observed what the European Community was doing for the steel and coal industries. Political lobbyists and interest groups probably observed the success that the European Community was having in these areas. Inevitably, over time, the European Community came to help out additional industries, specifically agriculture. Pinder describes this as a sort of "spillover" effect, suggesting that the success was so great that it found its way naturally into other industries. Over time, as further success (and peace) has been observed in the European Theatre, the EU Council has come to preside over more and greater issues. One excellent example of this concept at work is the adoption of the Euro as the official currency of the EU countries.

Essentially, the question we're posing is: do the EU member countries act more like individuals in a group, or more like a cohesive, equitable central government?

It is my conjecture that the EU at one time behaved like the latter. As I have previously stated, the EU was conceived to be a peacekeeping operation. But as it evolved and found success, it blossomed into a group that countries wanted to belong to. There was some nationalism after WWII - the French were proud to be French, the Germans proud to be Germans, etc. But the formation of the Community also propogated a feeling of European centrality - Europeans were proud to be Europeans. One could perhaps argue West Europe vs. East Europe, but this is not my current topic. This blurring of political borders allowed the countries to treat each others as equals - in fact, as limbs on the same body.

It is also my conjecture that the European states are becoming increasingly Federalist. Every political system has a series of checks and balances that help to control the flow of power within that system. The EU Council is not an exception to this rule. It is a fact that the EU has been gaining power over its member countries since its conception. No doubt, after a certain point, member countries began to feel as if they were losing power - or at least not exerting as much as they used to. In what manner could they demonstrate their dislike of this idea? How could they regain their individual voice, and reject the collective voice?

I propose that the recent rejection of the constitution in France and Denmark is evidence that the member countries are growing restless - and increasingly federalist in their political maneuverings. I believe that in the future member countries will demand more sovereignty. While the trend in the past decade has been for a stronger union, I think the EU is too severely blurring cultural and political identity. I think that Europeans -like- to have nationalism. They want to be French and German and Italian - not citizens of a new United States of Europe.

What does this mean for the future of the EU, if increased federalism is what the future holds? And how will this impact the economic outlook of Europe? It's tough to say given that we have little experience with the EU heading in that direction (or at least I've wont to find any). I don't think the EU will ever move away from the Euro. It's been far too successful and is continuing to gain value against the dollar.

I have to admit I'm not a political. It's hard for me to think about how the European Union could possibly become less centralized given how much support it currently seems to have. Perhaps as I continue to gather new sources, someone will have some hypotheses about where the European Union is likely to go in the future and I can comment on those.


Coming Up Next: Country Studies - Germany