|
Supranationalism and Intergovernmentalism
Several questions dominate
discussions on the future of the European Union. One of the most important of
these questions is what form will the European Union take as it relates to its
citizens, it member states, and the world. Will it continue to integrate to the
point that it may be considered a single sovereign state much like the United
States? Will it eventually reach a peak of integration and maintain its status
as a solid confederation? Or, will it develop and continue to integrate in a way
that breaks new ground?
The two theories of integration that have played major roles in the history of
integration in the European have been supranationalism and intergovernmentalism.
Supranationalism calls for the surrender of more and more sovereign power from
the member states to the national institutions of the European Union eventually
forming a federal state much like the United States. This theory was originally
supported by the founders of the European Coal and Steel Community, though the
realized that it would take many years to achieve the final goal. Schumann
recognized that a United Europe could only occur when the nations had given up
their economic independence followed by political, military, and social policy
independence. Even in the earliest years of the Community, the founders called
for European Political Community and a European Defense Community. Though these
ideas did not pan out at the time, the community had continued to head in that
direction. Supranationalism is not the same as federalism, however, as it is
recognized that the member states still have the final supreme sovereignty.
Although decisions and directives may be handed down from the institutions of
the EU, the member states still do have the final say in whether or not to carry
out the policies as the European Union decision makers would have like and
whether or not to carry the policy out at all. Theoretically, the member states
of the European Union have the ability to secede from the EU, though it is
generally agreed that the decision to do so would have serious negative
consequences.
Intergovernmentalism calls for a looser confederation of states. The member
states would still have the power to initiate and create laws in most areas. The
present European Union institution would have the ability to give advice and to
offer pressure for member states to act in accordance with the Union policies.
But the final say would remain completely with the independent sovereign member
states. It would no longer be a group of states acting as one but rather a group
of states cooperating in order to achieve its goals. Members could come and go
as they pleased, and would retain their political autonomy making decisions as
to whether to follow the decisions of the multinational institutions. These
decisions would also be approved only by a single unanimous vote and would be
non-binding. Theoretically, a state could go along with these unanimous
decisions when the voting takes place and then change its policy and not follow
its vote or the policy of the EU.
How has the debate between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism played out
in the core institutions of the European Union? Each decision-making group of
the European Union has undergone change during the evolution of the EU and the
evolution from a loose economic confederation to a semi-federal supranational
union.
The Commission is a good example of how the European Union has evolved from an
intergovernmental agency into a supranational union. Originally created as the
decision-making group of the European Coal and Steel Community, the
decision-making process required a unanimous vote in order for policies to be
approved and for changes in the union to be made. As the European Union evolved
and treaties were approved, the Commission evolved into the presidency of the
European Union. While its members try to present a unified front after a
decision is made it is no longer necessary, on most policy issues, to have a
unanimous vote. Rather, only a qualified majority vote is require to approve
proposed legislation.
Members of the commission are no longer seen as representatives of the
individual states. At least theoretically, the members of the Commission are to
represent and consider the best interests of the European Union as whole. No
longer mere puppets of the governments who appoint them, the Commission is
created and approved by the European Union. This represents a sharp shift in
power from the independent member states to the European Union as the Commission
does have the power to initiate and approve budgetary policy as well as general
directives which directly or indirectly do influence the laws of the member
states.
The Council of Ministers, which consists of various department heads from the
various member states is a European Union institution that still beckons to the
rules of intergovernmentalism, As the institution primarily responsible for the
agenda of the other institutions of the European Union, the Council holds a
great deal of power, yet its members are still tied to the heads of governments
in the fifteen member states. It make important decision and it decisions are
based on unanimous voting in most policy areas. Thus the member states do still
wield a large amount of influence in the decision-making processes of the EU.
This power of the governments of the member states in the crucial policy agenda
setting leads us to believe that the European Union still has some
characteristics of the intergovernmental camp of European politics.
The European Parliament, another institution created in the beginning of the
European Coal and Steel Community as the way for individual citizens to voice
their concerns has evolved as well. It has evolved in two ways. First, the
members were not elected by the citizens of Europe. Thus in the beginning, the
European Parliament was tied directly to the governments of the member states.
This underwent a change in 1979 when citizens of the member states, and from
then on European Union citizen got the right to vote for their representatives.
This was important because the citizens of Europe were now able to identify with
a power that was above the national level directly, strong evidence that the
European Union was becoming a supranational organization. The European
Parliament has also gained significant power in the approval of budgetary policy
and legislative policy. This institution that directly represents the citizens
of Europe has little connection with the member states of Europe, thus it is a
strong sign that the European Union is moving towards a supranational
organization.
Even though we cannot predict the future of European Union as it evolves, we can
see how the past has made leaps and bounds towards a supranational union. It
still has institutions that guarantee that the will of the governments of the
member states will not be ignored, but decisions are made that will affect the
laws and policies of the member states without the direct control of those
member states. This is great evidence that states have given up large amounts of
sovereignty albeit in specific policy areas, thus supranationalism is winning
the debate in the European Union. However, we can only guess what will occur
with the expansion of the Union into the East.
|