Adam Hannah (360654) Tutor: Olivia Monaghan POLS30018. European Integration: The Politics of the EU.

Take Home Exam - Semester 1, 2011

Section A: Critically examine the idea that European Integration is a battle for supremacy between the EU and nation state. It cannot be denied that in some aspects of European Integration there is and has been competition between the European Union and the idea of the nation state. Nugent defines the characteristics of the nation state as 'territoriality', 'sovereignty', 'legitimacy' and 'monopoly of governance' (Nugent 2006, 548). It is clear that the EU has eroded the strength of these concepts present in its members and some states, such as Britain, have been wary of the integrative process. However, this does not constitute a 'battle for supremacy'. The EU has not provided any structure to replace the state, merely one in which the state has become a different kind of actor, a 'member state'. It can also be argued that much of the transfer of power and legitimacy from nation states, as they existed before the integration process began, has been consensual, beneficial and possibly even essential for nation states.

In terms of having a monopoly on policy areas, the formation of the EU has weakened the nation state. It has had to cede supremacy of economic policy and aspects of law and justice and accept weakened sovereignty in matters such as border control (Murray 1998, 47) (McCormick 2002, 113). These powers have been handed to EU institutions such as the European Parliament, Commission and Court of Justice, which in turn compete against each

p. 1/10 Adam Hannah

other for greater influence (McCormick 2002, 119). This provides pressure for further integration and further ceding of power from nation states to the EU.

In some cases, this leads to reaction on the part of states, particularly from those most protective of their sovereignty. Britain is one such example. It has often attempted to slow European integration , opting out of the Euro and preventing the extension of qualified majority voting and has been generally suspicious of the expansion of EU power (Grant 2008, 1). As McCormick points out, states tend to try and gain as much as possible from the EU, while giving up as little as possible (2005, 119). When view is conjunction with the integrative pressure from EU institutions, there is competition for power between the EU and nation states, with each pulling in the opposite direction.

However, this view ignores the fact most of the transfer of sovereignty and power in the EU has been consensual and done for mutual benefit. The most obvious example of this is the manner in which economic policy has been integrated. As Murray notes , the nation state is no longer independent in the economic sphere (1998, 47), due to the European Single Market and then the Monetary Union. Rather than being a 'battle', nation states recognised that creating a monetary union which would oversee economic policy would be more effective than leaving it up to individual nation states.

Some, such as Milward (in Murray 1998, 43), contend that that integration 'rescued' the European nation state in the wake of the chaos and destruction of the Second World War. The validity of such historical theorising is debatable, as the fate of the nation-state without a Union was not clear. It is useful, however, to recognise Copsey and Haughton's point that

p. 2/10 Adam Hannah

integration has helped to compensate for some domestic weaknesses (2009, 284). At the same time, it must be added that the EU has not necessarily compensated by successfully managing failed policy areas, but more often by selecting policy areas in which collective action is judged more effective than singular action, such as immigration, trade and the environment.

This point is extended upon by Menon and Weatherill. They contend that the EU provides 'welcome reinforcement', finding multilateral solutions to more difficult policy problems (410, 2008). Such successes, as in the case of the single market, help to legitimise the EU, which some, such as Hix, contend lacks legitimacy due to a 'democratic deficit' (2008, 64). However, they also state that EU policy successes help to legitimise the individual states as well. The state provides the democratic legitimacy, or input legitimacy, through elections, and the EU, through its cooperation framework, helps to provide greater policy success.

European integration is not a battle that will have winners or losers. As Murray notes, the EU has not put forward a structure that will replace the nation state (1998, 50). Thus it is, in some ways, misleading to speak of the weakening of the nation-state in Europe, as members of the European Union are no longer nation states in the way they once were. They are more accurately described as 'member states' (Sbragia, 1994, 87), operating in a unique, cooperative system, where supranational institutions and national governments are intertwined, creating a framework that attempts to make decisions in the interests of all member states. This is essentially an experiment to find a blend of elements that will bring the greatest benefit to Europe. In its renewed guise, the 'member-state' forms the 'building blocks' of the Union. There is competition between it and the EU, but state is not yet threatened, just serving a different function.

p. 3/10 Adam Hannah

There is competition between the EU and the 'nation state'. The nation state has lost a monopoly on some policy areas to EU institutions, which also act as forces for further integration. Some states have resisted this by attempting to slow down the pace of integration. However, this competition has not led to a 'battle for supremacy'. The EU does not have a framework to replace the nation state. In fact, it has provided a structure with a strong role for the nation state, one in which the national and supranational are intertwined. In this way, the integrative process has changed the nation state into a 'member-state'. In any case, this process has been largely consensual and beneficial for European states. The relationship between the EU and the nation is not one in which one will triumph, but rather both will evolve for mutual benefit.

p. 4/10 Adam Hannah

Bibliography (A): Copsey N., & Haughton T., 'The Choices for Europe: National Preferences in New and Old Member States', JCMS, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 263-286 Grant, C., 'Why Is Britain Eurosceptic?', <http://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/xid5608192_2>, (Accessed 7 June 2010), December 2008 Hix, S. (2008) What's Wrong With the European Union and How to Fix It, Cambridge, Polity Press McCormick, J., Understanding the European Union, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 Menon A., & Weatherill S., 'Transnational Legitimacy in a Globalising World', West European Politics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 397-416 Murray, P., The European Transformation of the Nation State, in P. Murray & L. Holmes (eds.) Europe: Rethinking the Boundaries, Aldershot, Ashgate, 1998 Nugent, N., The Government and Politics of the European Union, Durham, Duke University Press, 2006 Sbragia, A., 'From 'Nation-State' to 'Member-State': The Evolution of the European Community', in Lutzeler, P., Europe After Maastricht: American and European Perspectives, Oxford, Berghan Books, 1994

p. 5/10 Adam Hannah

Section B: Critically analyse the EU's relationship with Turkey Currently, Turkey is in membership negotiations with the EU. However, it appears that progress has stagnated since talks began in 2005 (European Parliament, 2008, 3). Regardless of membership, the relationship is important to the EU, given its proximity to Europe and its growing stature as a regional power. Turkey is intrinsically linked to Europe through high levels of migration of Turkish citizens throughout Europe after the Second World War. There are likely to be many advantages to both Turkey and the EU in Turkey becoming a member. However, there are significant barriers to Turkey's membership, such as the unresolved status of Cyprus. Yet, as Turkish membership has been a goal and a promise for many years, it is important that both parties continue with negotiation.

Regardless of the state of membership negotiations, it is likely that the EU will have strong ties with Turkey in the future. Turkey has become a significant actor in the Middle East region. It has sought the 'role of broker and peacemaker', as well as maintaining closer ties with individual nations such as Iran (Barysch 2010, 5). It also acts as link between the West and the East, still maintaining strong ties with the US and EU, as well as its increased regional role (Barysch 2010, 8). For the EU engage with this part of the world, with which it has many cultural, political and economic differences, Turkey would likely be a willing and essential participant.

The link between EU nations and Turkey through Turkish migration must also be noted. There are more than 3.6 million Turks living throughout the EU (Ucer 2005, 207). This demonstrates a level of historical and cultural engagement between the EU and Turkey and suggests cultures which, although distinct, are certainly not incompatible or hostile. p. 6/10 Adam Hannah

There are clear advantages to both parties in Turkey becoming a full member of the EU. For the EU, Turkey would likely bolster its Foreign and Security Policy and influence in surrounding regions, due to Turkey's links to the Middle East, as well as its military strength. Turkey is keen on becoming an 'energy hub', increasing supply to its neighbours (European Parliament 2008, 10). Thus Turkey could prove an asset to the EU in shoring up energy security.

For Turkey, meeting the EU membership criteria would likely result in a more modern, stable nation, strengthening its economy, political institutions and promoting various freedoms for its citizens. Some such improvements have already been seen in Turkey, such as the strengthening of human rights protections, freedom of expression and 'significant progress in economic reform' (Ucer 2005, 201/2). This is of course in addition to various advantages that would be bestowed upon Turkey if it receives membership, such as being part of the monetary union and single market and having a significant say in decisions that would have Europe-wide effects.

However, there are many barriers to Turkish membership. Some of these come from within Turkey. In many areas, reform has stagnated since membership negotiations began. The 2007 European Parliament Report on Turkey notes many specific reforms yet to be implemented, in areas such as anti-corruption and the rights of women (2008, 6). Another significant barrier is Cyprus. As Ucer notes, Turkey is attempting to become a member of the EU without recognising one of its members, the Greek part of Cyprus (2005, 204). It seems unlikely that negotiations can conclude without a successful resolution of this issue, especially considering

p. 7/10 Adam Hannah

that Cyprus and Greece have been successful in holding up negotiations in some areas due to the disagreement.

There is significant resistance to Turkey's membership from EU nations such as France and Austria. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is a fear of the 'islamisation' of Turkish politics, which could be a highly combative influence in the EU (Barysch 2010, 2). This fear is compounded by Islamic terror networks operating with EU nations and attacks such as the 7/7 bombings is London (Keohane, 2005, 8), as well broader questions of how to deal with the fifteen million muslims that already live in Europe (Barysch, Everts & Grabbe 2005, 5). Secondly, Turkey is a major immigration route from South Asia and the Middle East and there are fears that the opening up borders to Turkey could lead to an influx of illegal immigration and reduced security (European Parliament 2008, 10). Also, the EU appears to have a reduced appetite for enlargement. This is partly due to a backlash against the 2004 enlargement and also recent economic problems (Barysch, Everts & Grabbe 2005, 6). However, the negotiation process is likely to take some years; it is not likely that such an attitude would be permanent.

In analysing the nature and possible future of this relationship, Verheugens point that the EU has held out membership as a prospect for decades, and thus would suffer if it reneged, must be noted (Ucer, 2005, 209). For both their stakes, the EU must keep pushing for closer ties and more significant reforms within Turkey. Otherwise, the whole process may be seen as failure on the EU's part and would possibly harm further prospects of enlargement and result, as Ucer points out, in a loss of credibility for the EU (2005, 209). Also, there is the risk that Turkey may turn away from Europe and look to the East. Barysch describes the view that

p. 8/10 Adam Hannah

Turkey has a choice between the West and East as simplistic (Barysch 2010, 2). However if membership is rejected and the EU does not pursue other means to strengthen ties, there is certainly a possibility that Turkey would engage more strongly with the Arab world at the expense of Europe. This could only stoke fears of 'creeping islamisation' and provide a threat to peace and stability in both regions.

A strong relationship with Turkey is important for the EU due its proximity to and power in the Middle East. Turkey is also historically and culturally linked to Europe, particularly through migration of Turkish citizens to Europe after the Second World War. Despite this, membership negotiations have elicited slow progress. This is due to a lack of reform within Turkey, the unresolved Cyprus issue and fears of the consequences of Turkish membership on the part of some EU member states. However, it is important negotiations to continue, as Turkish membership holds significant benefits for both sides, as well as consequences if relations sour.

p. 9/10 Adam Hannah

Bibliography (B) Barysch, K., 'Can Turkey Combine EU Ascension and Regional Leadership' < https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/xid-5613107_2>, (Accessed 6 June 2011), January 2010 Barysch K., Evert S. & Grabbe H., 'Why Europe Should Embrace Turkey', <http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/p_637_europe_emb_turkey.pdf>, (Accessed 6 June 2010), 2005 European Parliament, 'Report on Turkey's 2007 Progress Report', <https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/xid-5607963_2> (Accessed 6 June 2011) April 25 2008 Keohane, D., 'The EU and Counter-Terrorism', <http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/wp629_terrorism_counter_keohane.pdf> (Accessed 8 June 2011), May 2005 er, E., Turkeys accession to the European Union, Futures, Vol.38, 2005, p 197-211

p. 10/10 Adam Hannah