The European Union ( Eu )

It is also important to consider the effect that the principle of subsidiarity can have on the central European Parliament, as it is required to only carry out “those tasks which cannot be performed effectivity at a more immediate or local level” . This importance of decisions being taken as closely as possible to the citizen, can be monitored through constant checks being made to verify that the higher EU level is legitimately required. After members of the European Parliament were granted the power to approve or reject legislation in 1979 , it was then established in Article 5 of the Treaty of Lisbon that member states must also be given the ability to repeal an adoptive legislative act. This is particularly regarding one of shared areas, to certify “the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the union and to improve the coherence of its action” . There is also much concern that unless EU voters can “become more credible and legitimate in the eyes of the voter” , particular areas of the Union may begin to tangle.

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

The principle of supremacy of European Union (EU) law has been established over the course of more than five decades. It is a principle that was established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1964, and it has continued to have a rich history in the jurisprudence of the ECJ and national constitutional courts. As the ECJ and national courts attempt to define their respective realms of influence, a bright debate has sparked regarding constitutional pluralism. Moreover, the recent codification of primacy in the Constitutional Treaty has led to a new debate on the scope of the supremacy of EU law.

At present, there are approximately 3,000 different interest groups that are formally recognized by the European Union (Kirchner 2011). These interest groups represent a variety of interests and vary in the amount of influence that they actually have on the policy making process. These groups represent the interest of multiple sectors of both social and economic life within the European Union. Interests range from AGRICULTURE to BIG BUSINESS to HUMANITARIAN AID. In a truly pluralist nature, these groups are competing, either directly or indirectly, with each one another to have an influence in the legislation that is produced by the European Union. It is without a doubt that these interest groups within the European Union play an important

However again this higher status can be seen as limited as is only assumed from a written obligation. Therefore to asses if supremacy is not the challenge to member state sovereignty that is appears to be, a close analysis of how the CJEU has dealt with the issue of supremacy of EU law in case law is needed, firstly looking at Van Gend en Loos which stated that the ‘EU was a new legal order permanently limiting the sovereign rights of the Member State’. This customs case helped establish the ‘relationships between the European Union and international law…to grantee that the rules of one system are complied with in another legal order ’ showing in practise that if on a national level EU law is breached CJEU will take supremacy and comply with ‘the integrity of the EU legal order’ . Further evaluation of the limits of the supremacy can be seen in the case of Costa V ENEL where ‘Italy had claimed that the EU treaties…had been transposed into the Italian legal order by national legislation, which could therefore be derogated by subsequent national legislation. The court rejected this presumption of the supremacy of national law by insisting on the supremacy of EU law’ . This case holds significance as it ‘is well-known since Costa V ENEL the court has affirmed the supremacy of Community law over national law’ strongly suggesting the continued existence of EU supremacy is not frequently

One of the fundamental objectives of the EU was to ensure that the law is interpreted in a consistent manner within the national courts of the Member States, expectedly this has caused complications on the issue of supremacy between the EU and the national law, the Member States presumed that they were allowed to exercise national sovereignty internally. Fundamentally, the Treaties are binding on all other Member States. The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers have enacted laws, hence the European Court has the authority to make the final judicial decisions. Therefore, in order to understand the conflict between the EU and the national law, we must first understand the concept of supremacy by defining what it is and how do national courts perceive it. The statement suggests that the issue of supremacy between the EU and the national law is ineffective unless a conflict arises. This essay will discuss progressively the operation of EU and national laws along with historical developments and criticisms, to examine as to what extent the statement is valid.

Oxon: Routledge. 153-155.It is disputed that the divided sovereignty between national states throughout Europe actually decreases the efficiency of decision making as it can take over a year for a policy to be passed. ‘Transnational level’ is integration between ‘supernational’ and ‘national’ levels where officials of both institutions can discuss potential changes or new policies. This allows representatives of the national state to express their policies that are most accommodating to their specific country. Members of parliament can suggest policies but the implementation of these consequently relies on the best interests of the European Union. This therefore restricts the national state’s sovereignty and limits them potentially to what they wish to achieve individually as a country. Essentially it can be looked upon as a state being tied into multinational bonds that bring with it alternative objectives.

The European Union (EU) was established in order to prevent the horrors of modern warfare, experienced by most of Europe during the World Wars of the 20th century, from ever ensuing again, by aiming to create an environment of trust with the countries of Europe cooperating in areas such as commerce, research and trade (Adams, 2001). The EU has evolved into an economic, trade, political and monetary alliance between twenty-eight European Member States. While not all Member States are in monetary union (i.e. share the currency of the euro), those that are form the ‘Euro-zone’ (Dinan, 2006). The EU can pass a number of types of legislation, with a regulation, act, or law, being the most powerful. Its ‘tricameral’ (European Union, 2007)

The 28-member European Union is the largest single market in the world trading power. Its economic policy seeks to enhance and sustain growth among member states, through investments in the transport, research and energy sectors. The union`s policy decision making structure is headed by the European Parliament, which acts as the legislature in collaboration with the union council. The parliament and the council review all the proposals made brought forth by the union`s Commission, from which they make amendments. Before the Commission proposes new initiatives such as how to counter

For example, a central element of a democracy is the ability for voters to change the party or government in control; however, in the European Union, the legislature consists of the Parliament, Commission and the Council. Considering the Parliament is the only one which has any connection to citizen elections, any change in the composition of the European Union would be ineffective in bringing about substantive transformation. In addition, in comparing the EU to a traditional democratic system in which MPs are elected by the people and responsible for the people, in the European Union, people do not enjoy this direct representation.

It was widely blamed that the Treaty of Nice had given many more votes to the Big Four. It was first voted down in the Irish referendum partly because of being viewed as marginalizing small countries. Also the over-complicated political structure resulted in inefficiency to some extent. Faced with many global challenges and trying to speed up the EU integration, in 2007, EU carried out the Treaty of Lisbon, which came to force in 2009. The Treaty of Lis- bon further modified the voting mechanism in the Coun- cil into a new double majority system, so from November 2014, an act must have the support of at least 55% of the EU Member

As mentioned in the previous section, the idea presented by Habermas is normative in nature, which requires the empirical investigation to focus on the relevant process leading towards the desired ‘state of the world’, rather than the de facto characteristics of the EU itself. The research question leads to two hypotheses:

On the 23rd of June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union (EU); an event now commonly dubbed “Brexit”. This decision means that the UK will be the first country to leave the common market that is the EU, where a common market is defined as a “group formed by countries within a geographical area to promote duty free trade and free movement of labour and capital among its members” (What is common market? Definition and meaning, 2017). Trade deals with other countries are organised by the EU on behalf of its member states, as well as the rules and regulations governing business activity within the common market. As a result, leaving the EU is likely to result in huge implications for small to medium sized

In its historical context discuss why and how the EU was set up and the advantages and disadvantages of membership.

The European Union (EU) is composed of twenty- eight European countries. Since its inception in the early 1990’s, the EU has moved major European countries towards economic cooperation. Lately, the fundamental and economical disparity of some of these countries, specifically Germany and France has caused dissent within the Union. The debate over fiscal policy, in particular, austerity implementation has left the two European powerhouses at odds on the best possible way to regain regional stability. This paper will seek to shed light on as to why these two countries have such differing views of austerity and to describe the issues that arise due to them.