European Integration: Independenve Vs. Unity & Economic Consequences

In this recent artcile published by the EU Observer, the author (Vucheva) describes the numerous ways in which European citizens are feeling less and less confident about EU institutions and policies. Compared to a 50% confidence level measured in 2004, EU citizens of various nationalities now report that they are only 47% confident in the system. Let us take note of the fact that smaller, newer countries to the EU report higher confidence levels - this point will be an important one later.

What is confidence in this case? Is it approval? Is it satisfaction? Is it the measurable level of trust that each individual citizen has in the EU? And if so...what do citizens trust (or not trust) the EU to do? Protect them? Maintain or improve their current quality of life? Or something else entirely?

The stated purpose of the EU in the newest draft of the constitution is to act only in those areas where, "the objective of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can rather...be better achieved at Union level." Many argue that this leaves the EU with an open door to enroach on the rights of member nations. One could make the argument that nearly all objectives could be better achieved at the Union level. Who decides which tasks are allocated to the EU, and which tasks are allocated to the national governments?

Currently, the EU takes control of external trade and customs policy, internal trade and monetary policy, agriculture and fisheries departments, and many aspects of domestic law including environmental law, health, and safety at work. With the new constitution, however, the EU proposes to take another step towards monarchy: their participation in the justice system is increasing, specifically in the areas of asylum and immigration. The EU certainly doesn't mess around when it comes to doing its assigned duties; According to an OECD report, Italy, Portugal, Germany, and France are all rapdily approaching the 3% deficit mark set by the EU, and the finance ministers have approved disciplinary action (although what action will be taken is yet unclear.) Further, the EU clearly does have enough power to influence the decisions that countries make: Brussels officials (the home of the EU) have already given Portugal and Italy their ultimatums - bring the deficit within acceptable bounds within three years, or be removed from the union. Tough love, or tyrannical demand?

Either way, it seems to work. Portugal has promised to reverse the trend of their debt this year, reigning in the public deficit from 6.83 to 6.2 percent by fourth quarter, and Italy is taking similar action.

But consider the two other countries running into trouble with the EU's finance ministers: Germany and France - the two primary founding nations of the European Coal and Steel Community. As the two great industrial powerhouses of Europe for the majority of the 20th century, how must they feel being effectively criticized by the EU on matters of internal economic policy? Add to that the information found in this BBC news article, which details a record fine levied on France for persisting in the catch and sale of undersized fish, a practice one must assume has been going on for decades. Isn't France better qualified to monitor French fishing practices than the EU commission? Perhaps now the reasons behind France's rejection of the new constitution appears more clear.

Let's return to the fact that smaller, less-developed nations (usually newer members) report higher confidence rates than older member nations. First let us infer that if a person favors expansion of a political body, then that person most likely feels satisfied by that political body. Given that, citizens in Poland, Slovenia, and Slovakia are the most supportive of the EU, with approval of expansion rates in the 70th percentile. Why such strong support here, when countries like Luxembourg, France, and Austria report confidence levels below 30%?

Essentially, unity under the EU favors countries with weak economies and currencies, often accompanied by recent political and social unrest. The mission statement of the EU talks about being able to take over governmental functions and do them in a better way - exactly what these countries need. They need management over their monetary policies, they need a stable, globally-accepted currency, and they need acceptance into the global economy. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but when I think of countries like Romania, Bulgaria, and Croatia, I am reminded of a not-too-distant series of wars and political persecutions. All of these countries are now considered candidate countries for EU membership. If they are accepted as members, the global perception of these nations will change entirely; no longer will they be perceived as war-torn, unstable countries - rather, they will seem refreshingly new and trustworthy, with appreciable culture and customs. Consider the small island country of Cyprus, one hardly worthy of mention in the global economy. Wouldn't your respect for them increase if I informed you that Cyprus was an official EU member nation? It turns out they are.

EU member nations with strong economies, meanwhile, are suffering. Suffice it to say that the monetary policy that benefits small and growing nations is not the same monetary policy that benefits large, industrialized nations. As I mentioned above, the EU is becoming increasingly strict about deficit limits, and this is surely a wise choice for a growing nation that might be tempted to overborrow without the ability to repay debts. Consider the disaster that might occur if Romania became a member nation, and drew enough attention that it attracted serious interest from inernational investors. Romania would likely overborrow to stimulate growth, but might be unable to repay the debt in the long run. On the other hand, deficit limits are probably a poor choice for nations such as France and Germany, both of whom command enormous respect in the global economy, and for whom a larger buffer of deficit might be prudent.

But being part of any union, especially the one described in the new constitution, means that everyone has to follow the same rules. And there's no reason to believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. One section of the EU constitution indicates that the European Commission sets out, "rights, freedoms, and principles," under the heading of "Charter of Fundamental Rights." That sounds an awful lot like the Bill of Rights to me. The current charter includes things like the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to strike. But are all EU nations ready for this? Consider also that the new constitution outlines a "legal personality" for the European Commission, indicating that in any area where the EC has jurisdiction, EC laws will supercede national laws. If this is the case, what is the continued function of national presidencies, parliaments, or monarchies? Considering Europe's fiercely nationalistic past, I think nations will want to hold on to a lot more of their independence than the current constitution will allow.

Economically speaking, the EU has probably had a negative impact on the quality of life in most advanced industrialized nations. That is to say, the quality of life has improved under EU membership, but not as much as it could have. An examination of economic growth rates before and after the Maastricht treaty in France and Germany indicates a general slowdown. Current Euro inflation rates are higher than historical averages for the Franc and Mark. Of course, one could suggest that other factors have played into this economic picture - I'm simply suggesting that EU membership could have something to do with it.

The new EU constitution isn't dead yet, despite resounding "nos" from France and Denmark. Earlier this month, Luxembourg gave a meek 56% yes vote - this from a country that receives more EU money per capita than any other.

Although I'm not an American history expert, to me all of this resembles the shaky formation of our own nation. But will a single nation arise from the EU, as our colonies formed together into a single nation more than 200 years ago?