Globalization and European Integration: Eroding the Sovereignty of the Nation State in Europe

Globalisation is such a complex and broad topic with numerous aspects that it is described by academics in a large variety of ways although most of which overlap in one way or another. However, Stief (2014) simply describes it as a process that presents a connection and interaction between countries and nations particularly in economic, cultural and political aspects amongst others, with Trans National Corporations (TNC’s) such as McDonalds being increasingly present in Asia, or Spanish films being shown in New York as well as groups of countries coming together to create organisations such as the United Nations and European Union. Key characteristics of globalisation include improved technology, Non-Governmental Organisations, spreading of knowledge and importantly the movement of people and capital which this report will be focusing on. It is argued that globalisation would not be able to occur without the ease of movement of both capital and people between countries, but it is important to understand what effects globalisation has had on this integrated movement. European Union is an organisation that can be looked at when trying to find this as it is a closely integrated group of countries in Europe where the effects of globalisation are seen on a daily basis in almost all sectors of the member countries from education to healthcare. One of the numerous policies and agreements within the EU is the ability for both people and goods to move freely between

When identifying the presence of a democratic deficit in the European Union, it is important to consider a range of factors, including international treaties and the effect they had on its structured governmental framework. One of the first official agreements established by the European Union (formerly

The multigovernmental nature of the European Union and the national governments of its member states also helps to decrease the democratic deficit, not only on a supranational level, but on a national level as well (Eising 2011). Because there is a division of powers and sovereignty between these two levels of governance, citizens have the capacity, through interest group activity, to represent their interests to two different legislative bodies that could pursue legislation in their favour (Kohler-Koch 1997; Eising 2011). Similarly, due to the relatively nascent state of European Union interest group activity, many groups with similar interests are combining and coordinating efforts in order to have a bigger influence over policy decisions (Greenwood 2003, Eising 2011). Because of this unique phenomenon, smaller groups may work in tandem with

State sovereignty and supremacy of European Union law are traditionally seen as fundamentally opposite in nature. The rights of states to deal with national issues internally, in compliance with national law, versus the obligation on states to subordinate national law to Community law.

Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the most important political thinkers of his time, and a great scholar in comparative federalism, in his “Democracy in America” mentions how “old Europe” could learn from “young America” regarding the enactment of the concept of federalism, particularly in terms of “the problem of legitimacy in the context of multi-level governance” (Nicolaidis & Howse, 2001). It is in this aspect, that the EU must avoid its statist approach to sovereignty and must keep on the track of the subsidiarity principle, i.e., “the allocation or the use of authority within a political order where there is no unitary sovereign” (Nicolaidis & Howse, 2001. Chapter 4.) This is, despite the fear of a loss of credit,

From a macro scope it is evident the EU is strong promoter democracy and has deeply embedded democratic features, however, as Peterson and Shackleton point out that “understanding politics always begins with understanding institutions not at least the EU”. Taking this advice the essay will seek to examine the two main legislative bodies within the EU,

     In the event of an integrated Europe, constructivists recognize that to completely avoid conflict, each state will have to succumb to a “European identity” and all individual identities will have to become merely “cultural gems” within the European system. This, they argue, can be achieved with the success of several steps including economic, judicial, and security integration . The first step has already been attempted with the establishment of the Euro, the common European currency, which has been outperformed by its monetary competitors. A great amount of trust will have to be secured between states before a common court or army can be established, and most likely with as little success as the common currency. So, even by these simplified guidelines the outlook for the creation of a new “European

This weakening is especially evident in the European Union, an, as Anton Pelinka puts it, “unfinished federal quasi-state” in which most of the european nation-states ceded power in order to form an ‘ever-closer union’. (Pelinka 1) The journey towards ever closer union started with the end of the Second World War, where the nations of Europe were absolutely devastated, prompting them to begin a process whose end goal is to form a single federal state as an ultimate repudiation of the destructive nationalism that caused the war. This process has been slow and gradual, culminating in the Europe of today, challenged by the rise of populist movements, anemic economic stagnation and unemployment, and a migrant crisis among a number of other things. All of these challenges have become sources of division among and within the member states of the EU, with many lamenting that their power to combat them is limited due to their loss of sovereignty. Many political parties

One of the central themes of the EU debate revolves around the issue of national sovereignty. The European project has always involved, to a certain extent, the relinquishing of some national sovereignty, but in trying to persuade Europe’s established nations to cede powers to a European centre, often without the consultation of the general public, has created a growing eurosceptic backlash, a narrative that has been well received in Britain.

The European Union calls itself “a unique economic and political partnership between 27 democratic European countries” (1) which apparently aims to promote “peace, prosperity and freedom for its 495 million citizens – in a fairer, safer world” (1). While this may be a noble sentiment, in reality the EU is an inefficient, bureaucratic mess. It is my belief that, while the European Union is fundamentally a good idea, it is turning into an undemocratic kleptocracy that will gradually begin to remove our civil liberties while causing great damage to many areas including the environment and society.

This article demonstrates how Britain’s cautious approach to integration and its protection of national sovereignty, has influenced EU-level policy and shaped treaties. Although not a complete overview of how the British-EU relationship has played out, this article will identify some key themes in the relationship that have sustained over time. Furthermore, it will argue that fears of the EU’s supranationalist agenda, has contributed to

‘Globalization: What’s new? What’s not? (And so what)’, portrays the speed in which globalism has increased through many different factors; economically, military, environmentally and socially. This is an idealist analytic approach, not set in stone. This leads on to

As a result globalisation has also undone some important cultural and psychological underpinnings of sovereignty. However, it is imperative to note that the effect of globalisation on different nation states will not be the same, because states differ domestically, historically, politically and socio-culturally. Therefore, states will make different policy choices in response to the same global phenomena (Held 1989, 237).

The European Union (EU) is not a typical international organization. The mix of intergovernmental and supranational institutions makes the EU a unique, distinctive political, and economic system. As Europe has spiraled from one crisis to the next, difficult discussions haves arisen about how much more power should be delegated to Brussels. Even though the EU advocates for “ever closer union”, through increased integration, states are becoming hesitant to relinquish power to the EU. This is due to the fact that state sovereignty has become threatened; it is being compromised by a combination of the lack of effective democratic institutions and the loss of states have lost control of law-making to legislation power to EU institutions. Euroenthuthiasts argue that state sovereignty is enhanced, not threatened, by reallocating power to EU institutions. However, Eurosceptics dispute that too much control has seceded to the EU making is a threat to state sovereignty. My position aligns with Eurosceptics, for the EU has weakened state sovereignty do to increased centralization of power in EU institutions that lack legitimacy. The European Project has obtained a copious amount of jurisdiction from states and eroded a basic fundamental freedom of the modern state- sovereignty. Since the EU has with goals to deepen and widen integration it’s clear that forfeiting state sovereignty will only intensify. My essay will start with a brief history of the European Union and a short

The world is becoming a smaller community through technological advances and international travel opportunities that make communication and interaction with others around the world a common occurrence. Some world leaders envision a global community that would lead to a one-world-order to include government and commerce. Globalization has been on the rise but is not shared and accepted by all. Nationalism continues to play a significant part in international interactions. With its goal of European unification for economic and political voice, the European Union (EU) can be used as a model for globalization. This paper will consider if using the EU as a model is a valid argument.