Who Is The European Union Democratic?

The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political partnership between 28 different countries. It consists of about half a billion citizens, and its combined economy represents about 20 percent of the world’s total economy (Briney, 2015). Today The European Union works as a single market, with free movement of people, goods and services from one country to another. There is a standard system of laws to be followed, and since 1999 many countries share a single currency called the Euro (Europa.eu, 2015). This essay will explore the background history of the European Union and the benefits and drawbacks of the European Union.

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

However, this should not necessarily disqualify the EU from being treated as a democratically legitimate body. Andrew Moravcsik believes concern about the EU’s ‘democratic deficit’ to be misplaced. Judged against existing democracies, rather than ideal parliamentary democracy, the EU is legitimate. Most critics

Further, the Commission’s institutional structure is a factor putting great weight on perceptions of the democratic deficit since it lacks democratic credentials yet largely dominates EU law-making in spite of the presence of the EP as its democratic face. Commissioners are not elected, directly nor indirectly, as is with most sovereign executives. Follesdal and Hix however argue that the exercise of these executive powers requires contestation of political leadership and policy. They also suggest that direct elections by citizens or national parliaments should be allowed for the contestation of the Commission President who holds the most powerful EU executive position, so as to increase democratic input. Contrary to this position is that of Moravcsik, who discounts the idea of elections as a possible remedy and rejects the notion of

There is no single body that can be described as the Union’s legislature. Both the Council and the Parliament play significant roles in the process. The European Parliament is frequently accused of democratic deficit. In particular, there are two separate issues to consider: one relates to its composition and another is connected to the engagement of citizens in Parliament. First of all, the European Parliament initially consisted of delegates designated by the Parliaments of Member States, but since 1979, it has been directly elected by the people according to the national electoral system of each Member State. Undoubtedly, that reform helped to overcome the democratic deficit to some extent. Nevertheless, the European Parliament is often criticized of failing to generate much commitment and

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.

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,

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

In short, these inconsistencies give credence to the possibility that potential heresthetic considerations in established member states outweigh the slower economic and political development of Eastern European states. In theory, binding normative ideas and not individual member states influence EU integration; however, in practice upholding essential EU norms, such as human rights, is plagued by double-standards in established and new members. The double-standards arise from shared practices that undermine human rights despite EU’s formal commitment to protect them. These limitations hamper Europeanization and proper norm diffusion, so in practice specific broad organizational objectives of established member states appear to drive the process of EU integration at this time.

Many authors over several decades have made an attempt to conceptualize and analyze European Union’s Foreign policy. Some interpret the policy to be an ‘ongoing puzzle’, emerging from the distinction of either being a derivative policy of a common Union, or being a policy of cooperation amongst the independent EU member states, while the others consider the policy area to be ‘a moveable feast in a state of constant flux’. (Christiansen & Tonra, 2005) (Smith H. , 2002) . There are even those academicians who presume that European Union does not have a foreign policy as it is not a sovereign institution, but is a common negotiation body institutionalized by the member states in order to formulate certain mutually favorable

One of the most remarkable successes of the European Union is ensuring peace and stability is maintained in Europe and other parts of the world. Prior to the formation of the union, European nations experience disharmony related to both World War I and II. The first step towards peace building was the formation of European Coal and Steel Community. Since then, the union has formulated several peace policies with the aim of ensuring peace thrive amongst members and their associates.

Michel Crozier argues that despite the many issues surrounding the governability of European democracies (Crozier, 1973, 39), the crisis of democracy in Europe arises on a more basic level from our understanding of “the relationship of institutional values to behavior”- a relationship that has defined European government and societies for centuries (Crozier, 1973, 40). Devoid of rapid economic and technological change, people were able to define goals according to their preferences. Generally, this meant that the “technical knowledge of societies” could provide them with the means to create certain political goals. (Crozier, 1973, 40) Despite this fact, Crozier emphasizes that a since the