About the european integration


“Europe will non be made at once” In his declaration of 1950, Robert Schuman -strong protagonist of European unity- turned out to be right about the beat of European integrating ( Nugent, 2006:36 ) . Indeed the existent turning point within the European community came 42 old ages subsequently with the sign language, in 1992, of the Treaty of the European Union ( TEU ) , besides known as the Treaty of Maastricht ( Europa, 2007a ) . It was the first text to develop thoughts and policies sing a European political brotherhood. Yet, from the first stairss of European building -with the European and Steel Community founded in 1952 ( McCormick, 2008:45 ) – to the TEU, a batch had already been achieved. So why precisely did the Treaty of Maastricht grade a ‘big measure ‘ in making a political brotherhood?

In this essay, we will see how the pact emerged and went beyond the historical procedure of economic integrating, giving a much needed drift to the development of a political brotherhood. By analysing the stairss between the Single European Act of 1986 ( SEA ) and the TEU, this essay will demo that the pact did non mean an terminal per Se, but instead, should be seen as a first measure towards constructing a political brotherhood and non the terminal of a procedure ( Wincott, 1996 ) . This essay will besides show that the thought of a political brotherhood has ever been controversial, therefore explicating why critics emerged and uncertainties rose around the TEU.

The undertaking of a political brotherhood had been mentioned by Altiero Spinelli at the beginning of the 1980s, every bit good as during the negotiations sing the Single European Act ( SEA ) of 1986 ; nevertheless at first the thought was rejected. ( Le mondediplomatique, 2006 ) . Indeed, the thought of a move towards a political brotherhood was still controversial at that clip, since many feared it would take to a loss of national sovereignty. In those old ages, the focal point of the SEA was more on economic concerns such as finishing the internal market, take the financial and physical barriers to free motions of people and capitals, and pull offing to make a genuinely individual market by 1992 ( McCormick, 2006: 57 ) . However this first major act since the Treaties of Rome should non be merely seen from an economic angle. On the one manus, it did set to the bow an imbalanced relationship between the turning economic Europe and the politically united Europe. ( Le monde diplomatique, 2006 ) . But on the other manus, one must acknowledge that the SEA did, give a new impulse to the European integrating, and it has to be seen as one of the stairss towards the TEU and the creative activity of a political brotherhood. Indeed it amended, among other things, Community powers in the field of common foreign policy, therefore giving a greater planetary voice to the European Community ( Europa, 2007a ) . Finally, even though the sign language of the SEA did non make a political brotherhood at the clip, the ‘Euro-optimists ‘ were shortly to be proven right in believing in greater political integrating. Indeed, every bit shortly as 1988, negotiations sing the creative activity of an Economic and Monetary Union ( UMU ) , every bit good as the development of a political brotherhood started. These negotiations led to the Intergovernmental Conferences ( IGCs ) in 1990 ( Europa, 2007b ) , which so led the Treaty of Maastricht.

Both internal and external events triggered the move towards a greater political integrating. External events included the prostration of Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe. First, it gave a new international function to the European Economic Community ( EC ) , besides, Eastern states saw a way to Western states, and expressed their will to fall in the EC ( Wincott, 1996 ) . At the same clip, the mentality of German reunion made European Member States realize the demand to beef up the Community ‘s international place, and fix for enlargement towards Eastern Europe ( Europa, 2007b ) . As for internal events, we can advert the desire of some states such as Germany to travel beyond the SEA. The willingness of French President, Francois Mitterrand, to confirm France ‘s leading in the EC besides explains the move towards political brotherhood ( McCormick, 2006: 60 )

But the development of a political brotherhood did non intend economic integrating was traveling to halt. On the contrary, both the economic and the integrating policies worked together. Based on these factors, every bit good as a Belgian memoranda on institutional reform and a Franco-German enterprise, two intergovernmental conferences ( IGCs ) took topographic point in 1990 ( Europa, 2007 B ) . These conferences had two different, yet complementary subjects, and the chief end was to fix a program for the hereafter TEU. The first 1 regarded economic integrating. The old economic policy, the European Monetary System, had proved to be successful, therefore in 1988, the EC created a commission led by Jacques Delors and charged to fix a program for a possible EMU. Its findings were published in 1989, and the EMU became the first major measure to develop a ‘positive ‘ integrating based on making common establishments ( Wincott, 1996 ) . Because of its great range, the EMU would needfully take to political integrating, therefore the 2nd subject of the conferences of course focused on political brotherhood. This 2nd conference was non as consecutive frontward though. Any negotiations sing a political brotherhood were controversial, as there were great dissensions sing which way the EC should take. Three sides were opposed. On one side, some states wanted to maintain the policy established by the SEA, viz. the European political cooperation ( EPC ) , the EPC involved a pillar system which kept European patterns and establishments “around” the Community but did non incorporate them. In the center was the proposal made by the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council in 1990. This proposal, besides known as “the Luxembourg non-paper” planned a building based on three pillars this clip, and with a greater political integrating. Finally, the Dutch wanted a “tee-trunk approach” , which was the antonym of the EPC attack. It wanted to convey the legal establishments within the legal power of the European Court of justness. But France and Britain strongly opposed this system ( Wincott, 1996 ) . In the terminal and after dialogues, the 3 pillar attack was to be kept, therefore leting the negotiations and ballot of the Treaty of Maastricht in 1991 ( McCormick, 2008: 61 ) .

The sign language of the Maastricht Treaty was large political measure for the EC and gave birth to the “European Union” ( EU ) , the thought of brotherhood lied within the name of the freshly named community. The speech pattern was no longer merely on cooperation but on integrating ( Wincott, 1996 ) . The pact genuinely changed the contract among the Member States of the EU, foremost by making three pillars as the chief European establishments. The first pillar gathered three preexistent communities: the EEC, the Euratom and the ECSC. This sphere is the 1 in which EU members shared their sovereignty via the Community establishments. The 2nd pillar established the Common Foreign and Security Policy ( CFSP ) , this authorization replaces judicial admission made in the SEA and allows Member States to take joint action in the field of foreign policy ( McCormick, 2008: 61 ) . This is one measure more towards a political brotherhood and it helped developing intergovernmental determinations. It besides helped seting to the bow the EU on the international scene ( Dehouse, 1994 ) . The last pillar was dedicated to Justice and Home Affairs. For the first clip a protection coming from the EU, instead than a individual province, was offered to each citizen. But the TEU besides involved other ‘integrationist ‘ alterations. First, it developed Community policies in six new countries such as consumer protection ( McCormick, 2008 ) , giving the EU a greater political voice ( Wincott, 1996 ) .It besides expanded the function of the European Parliament ( EP ) , and increased contacts between the EP and the European Council, through the co-decision system. Although this may look like a item, it really contributes greatly to the creative activity of a political brotherhood. Indeed, the new function played by European political parties means they no longer represented merely their states, but besides helped determining ‘European awareness” ( Wincott, 1996 ) . The EMU was besides at the centre of the pact. Through the TEU, it clearly appeared that the end of this policy was in the terminal to make a individual currency, guarantee its stableness, and put the coating touches to the individual market. The currency was to be established in the brotherhood in three consecutive phases between 1990 and 1999. But Britain did non hold to travel through the whole procedure, and stopped before phase three. This puts to the bow the being of barriers and critics behind the first stairss of a European political brotherhood ( Wincott, 1996 ) .

Indeed, critics against the pact exist. But they exist both on the ‘Euro-skeptics ‘ side, and on the ‘Euro-optimists ‘ 1. Harmonizing to the optimists, the advancement is existent, but they hoped Europe would play a more self-asserting and united function in foreign and security policy ( McCormick, 2008:46 ) . Others besides knock the place of states like Britain, which wanted a European Union with a limited range and favored an ‘a La menu ‘ attack ( Wincott, 1996 ) . Britain is besides the state that removed the reference of federalist ends from an article of the TEU, therefore replying to the concerns of many Europeans citizens. And the rejection of the TEU by Danish electors in 1992 proves that the argument sing European integrating was both political and societal. But while some feared the TEU would take to the creative activity of a Federalist brotherhood ( Della Salla, 2005 ) , and thought hurtful effects would come with the procedure of political integrating, history proved them incorrect ( McCormick, 2008: 64 ) .

As a decision to this essay, we can set to the bow the fact that the TEU did tag a large measure in making a political brotherhood, since it gave the Members States the evidences and tools to develop a existent intergovernmental building. Yet, it must non be seen as the terminal of European integrating procedure, but instead as a first ‘big measure ‘ towards this purpose.


  • Dehouse, Franklin and Ghemar, Katelyne ( 1994 ) ‘Europe and the universe. The Post-Maastricht interface ‘ European diary of international jurisprudence, 5: 151-172.
  • Della Salla, Vincent ( 1995 ) ‘L’avenir federaliste de l’Europe. La Communaute europeenne, des origines au traite de Maastricht ‘ , Revue canadienne de scientific discipline politique, 28/2: PP370-371.
  • Diplomatie ( 2007 ) ‘Politique europeenne. Cinquante ans de traites, d’approfondissement et d’elargissement. ‘ hypertext transfer protocol: //www..be/fr/policy/Europa/europaDetail.asp? TEXTID=68331, day of the month acceded 15/03/2010.
  • Europa ( 2007a ) ‘The Single European Act ( 10.07.2007 ) ‘ , hypertext transfer protocol: //europa.eu/legislation _summaries/ institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_singleact_en.htm, day of the month acceded 13/03/2010.
  • Europa ( 2007b ) ‘Treaty of Maastricht on European Union ‘ , hypertext transfer protocol: //europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ economic_and_monetary_affairs/institutional_and_economic_framework/treaties_maastricht_en.htm, day of the month acceded 13/03/2010.
  • ( 2006 ) ‘L’acte alone europeen ‘ , Le Monde Diplomatique.
  • McCormick, John ( 2008 ) ‘Understanding the European Union ‘ , in N. Nugent and W. E. Paterson ( ed. ) Understanding the European Union: A concise debut. Basingstoke: Palgrace Macmillan. PP 45-68.
  • Nugent, Neill ( 2006 ) ‘The creative activity of the European Community ‘ , in N. Nugent and W. E. Paterson ( ed. ) The authorities and political relations of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrace Macmillan. PP 36-56.
  • Wincott, Daniel ( 1996 ) ‘Federalism and the European Union: The range and bounds of the Treaty of Maastricht ‘ International political scientific discipline reappraisal, 17/4: 403-415.