International Cooperation And Domestic Politics

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

This hypothesis is that of national location. The philosophy behind this political positioning suggests that in an issue such as European integration there will be more variation seen in countries that have more diverse social and economic factors involved in policy making. The article suggests that with this hypothesis that issues will be decided on by parties potentially depending on what is in the best interest at tat time based on the national feeling that is present in their respective countries. This hypothesis is certainly well-founded in the idea of European integration as if national interests are largely in favor of integration it stands to follow that parties and policy would likewise be in favor.

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

Legitimacy in the European Union”, JCMS, 40/4, 603-24. ] This concept of a “democratic deficit” first emerged in the draft treaty for the European Union which as we know led to the establishment of the Single European Act of 1986 whose main purpose was to “rectify the democratic deficit in the community decision making process”[ Zweifel, T, “Who without Sin Cast the First Stone: the EU”, p812-40, Democratic Deficit in Comparison.” 2002. Journal of European Public Policy]; already it is apparent the enormous debate around the European Union and a democratic deficit stretching as far back to 1986. Following the numerous unsuccessful attempts to harmonize the change in the Union’s structure, the democratic deficit argument really began to gain power and rumours of its collapse became more dominant than ever. This debate has deepened drastically over the past two or so decades, with scholarly commentators as well as members of the European public all in agreement that the European Union is in fact

Nowadays, European Union is not a state; it can be defined as an association of corporate bodies, including the part states and the European Institutions .It has built up another sort of political framework that goes past the traditional intergovernmentalism and has considerable components of supra-nationality. Before it was made, it was almost impossible to develop a political arrangement of majority rule administration separated from the institutionalized country state model.The improvement of the Union has

As previously discussed, EU accession can be more broadly understood as a uniform membership approval process guided by the Copenhagen criteria for all prospects, applicants, and members. At a deeper level, the EU is dedicated to resolving uncertainties in the relationship between European states that fueled ages of conflict and mistrust in the past through the creation of a supranational European institutions guided by common European norms. Since the dynamics of these institutions are driven by common values and goals as outlined in the Copenhagen criteria above, norms drive contemporary trends in governance and EU integration.

The claims that within the EU there is a democratic deficit, because there are extensive powers being accumulated by institutions that appear to lack a satisfactory level of legitimacy, are cogent. The question of is there a democratic deficit within the EU, despite having dominated many political debates since the 70s, is prominent in today 's society now more than ever as a result of the UKs decision to leave the union, consequently causing the world to develop an growing interest in the European Union and its qualities. Despite being a relatively common question, it is important to understand exactly what the EU is and what is meant by the term ‘democratic deficit’. The European Union was formed after World War 2 and stands today as a politico-economic Union made up of 28 countries who exercise their power over European institutions and operate as a single market for trade allowing for the free movement of goods, services, capital and people between member states. More so, the term democratic deficit in relation to the EU refers to the belief that not all European citizens are equally represented politically by the government responsible for doing so and questioning the legitimacy of those within the EU with power.

A Steady Retreat from Democracy and a Growing Involvement in the European Union Heywood (2002) defines the ‘European idea’ as the belief that Europe ‘constitutes a single political community’ with shared objectives and difficulties despite its historical, linguistic and cultural differences. In the 20th century the European community essentially concerned itself with defence, peace keeping, and economic progress partly in response to the devastation caused by the Second World War. However, the European Union is increasingly focusing on more domestic issues such as civil rights within the EU, environmental issues and social policy. This expansion of the EU was symbolically displayed with the

Democracy in the European Union (EU) has been described by academics ranging from “a classical case of a gradual de-democratisation through integration”, to “opaque, technocratic, and distant from its citizens”. The EU began as an economic union with 6 initial members for integrating Franco-German production of coal and steel following Robert Schuman’s proposal in the 1950s. It has now become a progressive political union, experiencing many innovations and changes in numerous fields right from the ECSC to the Lisbon treaty. Today, the EU has 28 members representing almost 500 million people. The expansion has resulted in the uprising of new complex problems, democratic deficit being the most pivotal. Christopher Lord defined democratic deficit as ‘insufficiently representative of, or accountable to, the nations and the people of Europe’. The phrase was first used by David Marquand in 1979, referring to the then European Economic Community. Democratic deficit ' in relation to the European Union, refers to a perceived lack of accessibility to the ordinary citizen, or lack of representation of the ordinary citizen, and lack of accountability of European Union institutions. The complex and distant nature of the European institutions have contributed to this argument. This essay discusses the European institutions involved in the legislative process before going on to evaluate the role played by national parliament to combat the deficit, taking into

In consequence, recent events, such as the economic crisis and the latest EU elections, have fostered heated debates about the legitimising basis of the EU, and whether the so-called democratic deficit indicates an upcoming EU downfall (Zielonka, 2014). In this case, the concept of integration within the EU becomes highly relevant, as is generates questions such as: ‘What binds the European citizens together?’ and ‘What constitutes the EU and what ought it to look like?’. Here, there seem to be fundamental disagreements based upon different theoretical as well as practical approaches to these questions. One crucial point, when approaching questions about EU integration (let it be cultural, geographical, political or social), is whether the analysis might be classified as being normative or descriptive in nature. The latter kind of analysis, where the classical intergovernmentalist (see Moravcik, 1998) and neofunctionalist traditions (see Wallace, 1990) have been opinion-forming for a long time, deals primarily with identification of the de facto characteristics of EU integration. Consequently, as these traditions are bounded by epistemological traditions, where the social and political sciences continuously pursue increased empirical ‘objectivity’, there is a lack of normative theorising – theorisations, which encourages the use of a subjectivist approach to empirical research. The

The European Union is a regional integration, born to aggregate the countries survived from the Second World War and to promote productivity and economic growth. Moreover, to contribute to defeat the social and financial inequalities between the European countries. It is important to make a distinction about the reasons that leaded the European Union to enlarge. David Long (2000) recognises that the EU has expanded numerous times

Historically, attempts at unifying Europe can be traced back as far as 1464 when, after the fall of Constantinople, King George of Podrebady suggested that a “league of Christian Nations” should be formed (Wen, 2013). However, it was only after 1945 that the process for European integration, a process “whereby sovereign states partially relinquish, or pool, national sovereignty to maximize their relative power and interest” began (Kenealy et al., 2015). The theorization European integration started within the political subfield of International Relations (Pollack, 2001). However, the European Union is a complex and unique international organization. Are International Relations (IR) theories able to account for the origin, development and future of European integration?

In the past years, the possible future of the European Union (EU) has been of increasing interest to social and political scientists as well as the public. Since 2008, the EU has experienced events such as the economic crisis and the 2014 European Parliament election, which have fostered intense debates around the legitimising basis of the EU (Zielonka, 2014). Furthermore, with the election of David Cameron in the 2015 United Kingdom general election even the possibility of the United Kingdom leaving the EU has been discussed. Although many social and political scientists do not believe such a scenario (REFERENCE), one could argue that there is an increasing need for the EU to redefine itself in order not to experience a genuine ‘downfall’. Consequently, an alternative theory of EU integration challenging the classical intergovernmental and neofunctional understandings of the EU has gained increasing support among political scientists.

Medrano (2012) argues that integration processes are difficult because of the diversity within the EU, the rise of Euroscepticism, and the shift in the balance of power of national institutions from domestic parliaments to a European parliament. Fligstein (2012) mentions that in 2004 only 3.9 per cent of people who lived in Europe viewed themselves as European, this is very damning in suggesting that the processes of EU integration have failed because no one identifies themselves as European. Raunio (2011) also echoes this sentiment; he comments that national governments are the gatekeepers of EU integration; however, the consistent enlargement of the EU has made this task more difficult, leading to the conclusion that integration has resulted in the loss of control that domestic governments have over their decisions