Implications Of Democratic Values : The European Union And Democracy

Many European nations suffered a prolonged period of instability and financial instability. This instability caused citizens of some countries to be willing to give up their democratic government for a strong, authoritarian

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 EU was created in the midst of a war in attempts to unite Europe under a common government. After 43 years of rebuilding foreign affairs, have their attempts made a positive impact on the modern Europe? Many argue that the EU takes a toll on country's sovereignty. They lack in allowing countries to be apart of the union, without masking the unique culture and diversity of that country. Despite the advantages of being apart of the EU, the disadvantages highly outweigh them in the areas of economic, independence and cultural identity.

The democratic deficit is a theory developed by scholars in order to illustrate that the European Union and its institutional bodies suffer from a lack of democracy (Wincott, 1998, p. 414). However, there are many definitions of the democratic deficit (Chryssochoou, 2000; Justice, 1996; Warleigh, 2003; Weiler, Haltern & Mayer, 1995) depending on the views and approaches of each scholar. Joseph Weiler's ‘standard version' of the democratic deficit is one of the most common definitions and it is a set of widely-used arguments by academics, scholars and the media (Weiler et al., 1995, cited by Follesdal & Hix, 2005, p. 4). It consists of five claims that explain why the EU can be called undemocratic and they are the following: a) there is an

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

A Democratic Deficit in the EU The question over the legitimacy of the EU has been a nearly continuous debate and many commentators appear to agree that the EU suffers from a severe ‘democratic deficit’. There are many reasons why this perception is so widespread. As a multinational body it lacks the grounding in common history and culture upon which most individual polities can draw.

Does the EU suffer from a democratic deficit? If so, can it be solved by conferring greater powers on the European parliament?

Furthermore, we can see evidence of the increase in popularity for the right-wing party as a result of the A8 countries entering the EU. Although this is not a sole causality for the increase votes, there is a positive correlation between the two variables.

In this assignment I will be assessing the democratic accountability of the European Union. I will begin by briefly describing the institutions, their functions, compositions and discuss how they work as check and balance system to ensure democratic accountability further to look on to how laws are made and what they are In order to establish whether or not the EU is in fact answerable to its citizens.

Considering these points, it is clear that democracy has had a long legacy within the EU.

This paper will assess the claim that supremacy of EU law is still an evolving and debatable concept. To do this, I have divided this paper into four sections. The first section will discuss the establishment of supremacy in EU law through ECJ case law. The second section will explore the vibrant debate surrounding constitutional pluralism that has arisen since the early 1990s. The third section will examine the debate and impact of the codification of primacy in the early 2000s. The fourth section will examine the extent to which the principle of sovereignty has been accepted in three EU Member States, namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland.

Yet, the economic growth of the region is slow in comparison to the established member states. In addition, while established EU members are some of the least-corrupt in the world and are established liberal democracies, some of the new-comers bring in corruption which further slows economic growth and democratization in the region. Undoubtedly, slower economic and pro-democratic development in the Eastern Block prominently lowers the prospects for EU membership. In addition, the popular attitudes in the established states that oppose accession of new Eastern European members appears to also be shaped by these perceptions.

A legislative process where there is a lack of transparency and accountability creates a democratic deficit. A democratic deficit (or democracy deficit) occurs when presumably democratic organisations or institutions (particularly governing institute) fall short of fulfilling the principles of democracy in their practices or operation where representative and linked parliamentary integrity becomes widely discussed. As far as lack of democracy is concern at European Union, it was first cited by a by Young European Federalists in their manifesto at that time. European Union was formed in order to create an everlasting relation within in its state. It is worth remembering the EU is a supranational state of unprecedented model. It is also worth remembering that EU initially was formed only to enhance collaboration within few financial interests and democracy was not the goal it thrived for. This initial goal has slightly been over shadowed by some critics of its undemocratic status. This issue has somewhat cause the estrangement within the EU states. There have been calls for EU to involve its citizen more and more into their decision making. Although considerable efforts are made throughout its history but one might argue that EU could have done more in order to make it more transparent in last half a century.

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

Willy Brandt once remarked:” Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide under the surrounding sea of dictatorship” (Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, 1973, 2). It would seem that democratic governments have become increasingly unable of facing “the challenges of the modern world”. Specifically, democratic European governments have become increasingly incapable to adequately represent the interests of the governed, while economic growth has also produced forces within nations that could potentially lead to the potential “regression”(Crozier, 1973, 49-50) of European states from democracy into tyranny (Crozier, 1973, 49-50).