DOCSLIB.ORG

Evidence File Easier Version European Stability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evidence File Easier Version European Stability How stable was Europe 1945-1949? The Second World War left Europe devastated. Central Europe was in ruins. From the UK to Italy, from France to the USSR, infrastructure was broken, families were separated, lives were lost. Figures only give some idea of the disaster the war had been for the continent, but here are a few: Between 18-20 million people were made homeless in Germany by the destruction of their cities. 84% of Budapest’s buildings were damaged and 30% uninhabitable. Both France and Yugoslavia had lost 77% of their railway engines. The people who died as a direct consequence of the war were between 35 and 40 million in total. Q: Do you know what state your country or region was in during these years? In some parts of Europe war did not end in 1945. For example, Greece had to endure a civil war for another five years. Q: Did war end in your country or region in 1945? By 1949 Europe was divided into East and West. Eastern Europe was influenced by the communist Soviet Union. Western Europe was influence by the capitalist USA. These two countries, known as the superpowers, became great rivals. Europe became a frontline of the ‘Cold War’. European people feared that this Cold War tension could break out into all out war between the USSR and the USA. Would Europe once more be a battleground? Q: Was your country or region in the US or Soviet sphere of influence? In eastern European countries the Soviets put in place governments they could control and used military force to crush any resistance. In western Europe the governments were mostly liberal democracies elected by the people. However, the USA had great economic influence, for example, it gave money to help western European countries to rebuild. This was called the Marshall Plan and it was given to countries that would agree to work and trade with the USA. The USA also required western European countries to cooperate with each other. The US also provided military protection for western Europe as it was the major country in NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance founded in 1949). Q: What evidence can you find for how the US or USSR controlled your country or region? Task: now complete the first line of the chart ‘Stability in Europe 1945 to today’. How stable was Europe 1949-1969? In eastern Europe countries were part of Soviet led organisations such as Comecom and Cominform. These organisations made sure that the USSR’s influence remained strong. In western Europe, the USA encouraged, but did not lead European cooperation. Some western European governments wanted to build closer economic and political cooperation to avoid future wars. Some were also concerned to prevent Germany becoming a strong, independent power once again. However, Germany was the frontline with the Soviet zone and so they were happy for Germany to have an armed and secure border with the east. Q: what was the view of politicians in your country or region about closer political and economic cooperation in this period? To solve this dilemma, western European politicians of six countries established a common ownership of coal and steel production in 1951. These countries were: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and West Germany. The fact that the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a Coal and Steel Community was vital to the aim of reaching stability on the continent. These were the key materials needed for war at the time. Shared ownership meant that no single government could use to build weapons to fight another. The ECSC had its own set of rules to sort out any disagreements about coal and steel production. This was a way of making western Europe more stable. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome resulted in the setting up of the European Communities. Cooperation and agreed rules for dealing with disputes were now spread to more areas to life. These Communities became the European Union in 1993. Q: Is your country in the European Union? If so, when did it join? The period 1792-1945 saw a series of bitter wars between France and Germany (although it was not united until 1871). The great improvement in Franco-German relations is a key part of the European Union. In 1963 these two countries signed the Elysee Treaty. This set out rules for agreeing a common French and German position on European issues. Q: how was your country or region affected by the wars between France and Germany 1792- 1945? In the 1960s the economies of the six European Community members grew quickly. Their governments were moderate, mostly supported the alliances with the USA and western Europe was protected by the NATO alliance. Even when there was social unrest at the end of the 1960s, the European Communities kept thriving through the change. Their role in agreeing policies, solving disputes, and preventing armed conflict was seen as too valuable. Q: what were the big issues for your country or region at the end of the 1960s? Task: now complete the second line of the chart ‘Stability in Europe 1945 to today’. How stable was Europe 1969-2000? The contrast between those countries in Europe that were democratic and part of the European Communities and those countries where there was dictatorship grew starker. Economic development in Spain and Portugal was suffocated by dictatorship. In Greece, civil war limited people’s lives well into the 1960s, and then there was military rule until 1974. In the east, beyond the Iron Curtain, single party rule brought varying degrees of political and economic oppression. Q: how strong was democracy and the economy in your country or region in the 1970s and 1980s? The European Communities had a commitment to liberal democracy that prevented countries that were not democratic from joining. While dictatorships did not fall so that countries could join the European Communities, membership certainly was an appealing option for new democracies. Greece joined in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986. After the end of the Cold War in 1989, the 1990s saw a boom of application requests from countries that had been controlled by the Soviet Union. The European Union now has 28 member states. Q: what was the view about the enlargement of the EU in your country in the 1990s? The European Council, where the governments are represented, and the European Parliament are where laws are agreed. There are rules that ensure that most of the decisions can be made by the majority. Unanimous voting is required about matters that are still c of the member States, controlled entirely by the member states. These include: defence, foreign policy and most social policies. With 28 members is can be difficult to get swift and effective decision making. Q: can you think of an example where the EU has struggled to develop a common policy on an issue? Task: now complete the third line of the chart ‘Stability in Europe 1945 to today’. How stable is Europe today? With the birth of the European Union, the concept of political stability had considerably evolved since the 1950s. it was not just about conflict management, but also about free and fair elections, fully transparent and accountable governments, equal possibilities for any citizen regardless of background. It was, in summary, about greater democracy. Q: do you agree with this view about what creates political stability today? Why/why not? The 1990s and the early 2000s, years of reasonably rapid growth, did not put the European system under any kind of stress test. Political stability in Europe seemed to be a matter of fact: within its borders, modern and functioning democracies thrived, albeit with varying levels of transparency and accountability. Some members began to share a common currency, the Euro. Outside its borders, other European countries were rapidly shrugging off the remnants of past dictatorships, and were steadily heading towards membership of the Union. Some other countries, long-established democracies (such as Norway and Switzerland), were not part of the Union, but benefited from comprehensive agreements with the EU, such as about visas, trade and finance. Q: what was the situation in your country or region in the year 2000? The so-called ‘subprime’ economic crisis struck Europe in 2008. The EU was criticised by many for its response. Some Euro member countries’ economies crashed dramatically: Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece. France was badly hit. No country was left untouched. The financial and banking system in the Union did not possess the tools for an effective and coordinated response, yet most EU countries were bound together by a common currency. Q: how was your country or region affected by the world economic crisis that began in 2008? The choice was then made to provide the 19 Eurozone members with “the tools”: a banking union and a coordinated financial system. However, there was no formal treaty to create this Eurogroup. It was only partially accountable, with informal and bendable rules, and did not apply to the 9 members outside the Eurozone. Faith in the European Union, “the guardian of political stability”, was shaken. Were there limits to what it could achieve? If a democratically elected government decided not to follow the aims of the Eurogroup, was the Union entitled to retaliate, in the name of political stability? Does the EU, in its current form, have the tools for maintaining political stability and upholding the current concept of open, transparent, and accountable democracy? Q: how have attitudes towards the EU changed in your country/region since 2008? Task: now complete the final line of the chart ‘Stability in Europe 1945 to today’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Success Story Or a Failure? : Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries
    I Inari Sakki A Success Story or a Failure? Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries II Social psychological studies 25 Publisher: Social Psychology, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki Editorial Board: Klaus Helkama, Chair Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, Editor Karmela Liebkind Anna-Maija Pirttilä-Backman Kari Mikko Vesala Maaret Wager Jukka Lipponen Copyright: Inari Sakki and Unit of Social Psychology University of Helsinki P.O. Box 4 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki I wish to thank the many publishers who have kindly given the permission to use visual material from their textbooks as illustrations of the analysis. All efforts were made to find the copyright holders, but sometimes without success. Thus, I want to apologise for any omissions. ISBN 978-952-10-6423-4 (Print) ISBN 978-952-10-6424-1 (PDF) ISSN 1457-0475 Cover design: Mari Soini Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 2010 III ABSTRAKTI Euroopan yhdentymisprosessin edetessä ja syventyessä kasvavat myös vaatimukset sen oikeutuksesta. Tästä osoituksena ovat muun muassa viimeaikaiset mediassa käydyt keskustelut EU:n perustuslakiäänestysten seurauksista, kansalaisten EU:ta ja euroa kohtaan osoittamasta ja tuntemasta epäluottamuksesta ja Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Taloudelliset ja poliittiset argumentit tiiviimmän yhteistyön puolesta eivät aina riitä kansalaisten tuen saamiseen ja yhdeksi ratkaisuksi on esitetty yhteisen identiteetin etsimistä. Eurooppalaisen identiteetin sanotaan voivan parhaiten muodostua silloin, kun perheen, koulutuksen
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union in Transition: the Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; a Constitution in Doubt
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 27, Issue 2 2003 Article 1 The European Union in Transition: The Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; A Constitution in Doubt Roger J. Goebel∗ ∗ Copyright c 2003 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The European Union in Transition: The Treaty of Nice in Effect; Enlargement in Sight; A Constitution in Doubt Roger J. Goebel Abstract This Article is intended to provide an overview of this transitional moment in the history of the European Union. Initially, the Article will briefly review the background of the Treaty of Nice, and the institutional structure modifications for which it provides, which paves the way for enlargement. Next it will describe the final stages of the enlargement process. Finally, the Article will set out the principal institutional innovations and certain other key aspects of the draft Constitution, the most important issues concerning them, and the current impasse. THE EUROPEAN UNION IN TRANSITION: THE TREATY OF NICE IN EFFECT; ENLARGEMENT IN SIGHT; A CONSTITUTION IN DOUBT Rogerj Goebel* INTRODUCTION Once again the European Union' (the "EU" or the "Union") is in a stage of radical evolution. Since the early 1990's, the EU has anticipated an extraordinary increase in its constituent Member States2 through the absorption of a large number of Central European and Mediterranean nations. Since the late 1990's, the Union has been negotiating the precise terms for their entry with a dozen applicant nations and has been providing cooperative assistance to them to prepare for their accession to the Union and in particular, its principal con- stituent part, the European Community.3 As this enlargement of the Union came more clearly in sight, the political leadership and the present Member States, joined by the Commission, con- * Professor and Director of the Center on European Union Law, Fordham Univer- sity School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions*
    Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 37, No. 1 March 1999 pp. 59–85 Explaining the Treaty of Amsterdam: Interests, Influence, Institutions* ANDREW MORAVCSIK and KALYPSO NICOLAÏDIS Harvard University Abstract This article offers a basic explanation of the process and outcome of negotiat- ing the Treaty of Amsterdam. We pose three questions: What explains the national preferences of the major governments? Given those substantive national preferences, what explains bargaining outcomes among them? Given those substantive bargains, what explains the choice of international institu- tions to implement them? We argue in favour of an explanation based on three elements. Issue-specific interdependence explains national preferences. Inter- state bargaining based on asymmetrical interdependence explains the out- comes of substantive negotiation. The need for credible commitments explains institutional choices to pool and delegate sovereignty. Other oft-cited factors – European ideology, supranational entrepreneurship, technocratic consider- ations, or the random flux and non-rational processes of ‘garbage can’ decision-making – play secondary roles. Remaining areas of ambiguity are flagged for future research. * We would like to thank Simon Bulmer, Noreen Burrows, Stanley Crossick, Richard Corbett, Franklin Dehousse, Youri Devuyst, Geoffrey Edwards, Nigel Evans, Stephen George, Simon Hix, Karl Johansson, Nikos Kotzias, Sonia Mazey, John Peterson, Constantino Papadopoulos, Michel Petite, Eric Philippart, Jeremy Richardson, Brendon Smith, Alexander Stubb, Helen Wallace, William Wallace, Alison Weston and Neil Winn for assistance and conversations. In the current version we have cited only essential sources, for example those underlying direct quotations. An extended version can be found in Moravcsik and Nicolaïdis (forthcoming). © Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 60 ANDREW MORAVCSIK AND KALYPSO NICOLAÏDIS I.
    [Show full text]
  • 60Th Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome
    60 YEARS OF THE ROME TREATY AND ITS ETERNAL LEGACY FOR THE EUROPEAN PROJECT “The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.” Article 2, Part 1 titled “Principles” of the Treaty of Rome The Treaty of Rome was signed in the so- called Eternal City of Rome exactly sixty years ago, on 25 March 1957. Together with the Treaty of Paris of 1951, the Rome Treaty is the most important legal basis for the modern-day European Union. This epoch-making document laid down the key foundations of the greatest integration of peoples and nations in European history that made Europe one of the most peaceful, prosperous, stable and advanced regions of the world. The 60th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty is an important opportunity to remind ourselves of the original goals of European integration and the Treaty of Rome Ceremony Source: European Commission achievements the idea of united Europe has brought to our continent over the past six decades. The fundamental legacy of the Rome Treaty needs to serve the EU Member States as a recipe how to resolve the serious crises the EU is facing nowadays and re- unite all Europeans for a common path towards an “ever closer union”. A LESSON OF WAR sixty million human lives and devastated CATASTROPHE AND THE Europe beyond recognition in all aspects.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Development of European Integration
    FACT SHEETS ON THE EUROPEAN UNION The historical development of European integration PE 618.969 1. The First Treaties.....................................................................................................3 2. Developments up to the Single European Act.........................................................6 3. The Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties...............................................................10 4. The Treaty of Nice and the Convention on the Future of Europe..........................14 5. The Treaty of Lisbon..............................................................................................18 EN - 18/06/2018 ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This leaflet contains a compilation of Fact Sheets provided by Parliament’s Policy Departments and Economic Governance Support Unit on the relevant policy area. The Fact Sheets are updated regularly and published on the website of the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets ABOUT THE PUBLISHER Author of the publication: European Parliament Department responsible: Unit for Coordination of Editorial and Communication Activities E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript completed in June, 2018 © European Union, 2018 DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice
    [Show full text]
  • OCR GCE Government and Politics
    Government and Politics GCE Government and Politics Delivery Guide The European Union www.ocr.org.uk Oxford Cambridge and RSA GCE Government and Politics Delivery Guide CONTENTS Introduction Page 3 Curriculum Content Page 4 Thinking Conceptually Page 5 Thinking Contextually Page 7 2 Introduction Delivery guides are designed to represent a body of knowledge about teaching a particular topic and contain: KEY • Content: A clear outline of the content covered by the Click to view associated resources delivery guide; within this document. • Thinking Conceptually: Expert guidance on the key concepts involved, common difficulties students may have, approaches to teaching that can help students Click to view external resources understand these concepts and how this topic links conceptually to other areas of the subject; • Thinking Contextually: A range of suggested teaching activities using a variety of themes so that different activities can be selected which best suit particular classes, learning styles or teaching approaches. If you have any feedback on this Delivery Guide or suggestions for other resources you would like OCR to develop, please email [email protected] 3 Curriculum Content The European Union Concepts: federalism; devolution; subsidiarity; sovereignty The EU Nature; origins; aims and objectives. The structure of the EU The Council; the Council of Ministers; the Commission; the European Parliament; the European Court of Justice; the decision-making process. How decisions are made Policy-making processes; role and power of major EU bodies and member states. The impact of membership of the EU on the British Impact on British government and politics; issues such as government, politics and constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Treaty of Rome
    European Parliament Treaty Of Rome Paling and untranquil Raj often derrick some exams estimably or cribbles blankly. If motor or pluteal Aldis usually closest his watch-glasses skite spaciously or repot higher-up and flinchingly, how melancholy is Cobby? Paddie methodised slack. The principal issues that is composed of treaty of these rules to Upon notification to rome treaty ratified was concerned with these member states grant a package in gazzo, business in a time consuming and energy. Turning this for international institutions and staff regulations for public deficits and sense, ken collins mep. Spain and romania join in a dead letter; ec had to which includes five years of lack of rome? Treaties reveal a european treaty. Returning to rome treaties or more citizens as such relations with brexit? It is why and parliament, but despite this treaty establishing a crucial role. Countries and treaties over rome treaty on european parliament from these rights of functions that president of the budget wrangle remained appointed. Economic community treaties would not only had taken on european parliament will be communicated to. Treaty of rome for european parliament. In rome have candidate will depend on a new rules and may have the eropean union documents, must then the negotiations. Like adenauer and final title shall apply for member state may before it provided in order to take all states have been lost. Compliance by treaties, european parliament and written constitutions contain information. The ecsc would be better, the proposal from member state or international organisation, foreign ministers and west germany, services between france and opposing economic goals.
    [Show full text]
  • CDL(1993)001</A>Rev
    CDL(1993)001e-rev-restr Strasbourg, 15 February 1993 DECENTRALISATION OF THE STATE IN THE PROCESS OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION OPINION The adoption of the Maastricht treaty offers an opportunity for a fresh look at this issue. The treaty explicitly affirms the subsidiarity principle, first in general[1], and then with specific reference to relations between the Community and its member states[2]. The general statement of the principle is very vague, simply stipulating that "decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen"[3]. The legal implications of this are difficult to ascertain, but they do go beyond relations between the Community and its member states, and so affect the distribution of powers within states. It is clear, however, that state structures will not be directly modified or harmonised by this principle. Instead, it should be regarded as a programme provision which is not truly binding, and which governments are largely left to interpret. It should certainly pose no special problems for Italy, which devolves certain powers to the regions without being a federal state, and is therefore an extreme example neither of centralism nor of federalism. A few remarks on the subsidiarity principle in general may nonetheless be useful. Under this principle, central authorities should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level[4]. Obviously, opinions regarding the possibility of taking effective action at a lower level are determined by standpoint. While a federalist will assume that most questions can be dealt at a lower level, and give central government only those powers which it really requires, a centralist will regard local authorities as essentially ineffective.
    [Show full text]
  • European Union Research BOSTON COLLEGE LAW LIBRARY
    LEGAL RESEARCH GUIDE #9 European Union Research BOSTON COLLEGE LAW LIBRARY INTRODUCTION Post-World War II Europe The European Union has its origins in the period following the end of World War II in 1945. Faced with political and economic uncertainty, many nations in western Europe began to consider the possibilities of increased cooperation as a means of improving economic performance and providing increased security. The Organization for European Economic Cooperation was created in 1948 as a multinational agency to assist in the administration of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of western Europe. Further multinational cooperation was fostered by the Council of Europe, a consultative organization established in 1949 to promote common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters. Beginnings of a Common Market The evolution of the European Union itself began in 1951 with the Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (“ECSC”), 261 UNTS 140 (1951). This treaty provided a “common market” for the coal and steel industries of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, with regulations for pricing, transportation, competition, employment, and the abolition of subsidies. When the ECSC proved successful, attention focused on the creation of a “common market” for other sectors of the economy and for further economic integration. Ministers of the six ECSC countries negotiated and concluded two treaties, signed at Rome in March, 1957. The Treaty of Rome, 298 UNTS 11 (1957), established the European Economic Community and the EURATOM Treaty, 298 UNTS 167 (1957), created the European Atomic Energy Community. Both of these organizations officially came into existence on January 1, 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • LESSON 2 the European Union the European Union T
    LESSONLESSON 2 TheThe EuropeanEuropean UnionUnion QuickQuick WriteWrite erdun: It was World War I’s longest single battle. It lasted nearly 10 months, which is longer than Vsome entire wars. Verdun-sur-Meuse lay about 150 miles northeast of Paris. It had been an important fortress since Roman times. The French had reinforced it since the previous war with Germany, in 1870–71. It would be an important objective psychologically, the What do you think Kohl Germans reasoned. and Mitterrand might have been thinking about as they The German commander’s plan was to subject Verdun to stood before the crowd? intense bombing. This would pull French troops in from all along the Western Front to the eight-mile-wide front around Verdun to defend the ancient fortress. All those troops would be easy targets for his big artillery guns. He would “bleed France white,” he said. It began with a German artillery barrage at 7:15 a.m. on LearnLearn AboutAbout 21 February 1916. It didn’t end until 16 December. Nobody really knows how many soldiers died there, but estimates • the origins of the run into the hundreds of thousands. The Germans lost very European Union nearly as many soldiers as the French did. And when it was • the countries that all over, neither side had gained any tactical or strategic are members of the advantage. European Union • the political and Nearly 70 years later, on 22 September 1984, West German economic structure Chancellor Helmut Kohl went to Verdun. There he met of the European Union French President François Mitterrand for a ceremony to • the importance of the honor the dead —of both world wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Developments up to the Single European Act
    DEVELOPMENTS UP TO THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT The main developments of the early Treaties are related to the creation of Community own resources, the reinforcement of the budgetary powers of Parliament, election of MEPs by direct universal suffrage and the setting-up of the European Monetary System (EMS). The entry into force of the Single European Act in 1986, which substantially altered the Treaty of Rome, bolstered the notion of integration by creating a large internal market. MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE FIRST STAGE OF INTEGRATION Article 8 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the Treaty of Rome, provided for the completion of a common market over a transitional period of 12 years, in three stages, ending on 31 December 1969. Its first aim, the customs union, was completed more quickly than expected. The transitional period for enlarging quotas and phasing out internal customs ended as early as 1 July 1968. Even so, at the end of the transitional period there were still major obstacles to freedom of movement. By then, the EEC had adopted a common external tariff for trade with non-EEC countries. Creating a ‘Green Europe’ was another major project for European integration. The first regulations on the common agricultural policy (CAP) were adopted and the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund was set up in 1962. FIRST TREATY AMENDMENTS A. Improvements to the institutions The first institutional change came about with the Merger Treaty of 8 April 1965, which merged the executive bodies. This took effect in 1967, setting up a single Council and Commission of the European Communities (the European Coal and Steel Community, the EEC and the European Atomic Energy Community) and introducing the principle of a single budget.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Member State Autonomy in the European Union: Some Cautionary Tales from American Federalism
    PROTECTING MEMBER STATE AUTONOMY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: SOME CAUTIONARY TALES FROM AMERICAN FEDERALISM ERNEST A. YOUNG* The European Union's ongoing "Convention on the Future of Europe" must tackle a fundamental issue offederalism: the balance between central authority and Mem- ber State autonomy. In this Article, Ernest Young explores two strategiesfor pro- tecting federalism in America-imposing substantive limits on central power and relying on political and procedural safeguards-andconsiders their prospects in Europe. American experience suggests that European attempts to limit central power by enumerating substantive "competences" for Union institutions are un- likely to hold up, and that other substantive strategies such as the concept of "sub- sidiarity" tend to work best as political imperatives rather than judicially enforceable doctrines. Professor Young then examines the "politicalsafeguards" of Member State autonomy in the EU as currently constituted. He argues that the balance between the center and the periphery is likely to be affected by how the EU resolves basic separation-of-powersquestions at the center. Efforts to address per- ceived deficiencies of the Union government in its resource base, lawmaking effi- ciency, and democratic legitimacy likewise will have a fundamental impact on federalism. Finally, Professor Young touches on two broader themes. He first asks whether Europeans, given their cultural distinctiveness, would prefer a stronger form of federalism than America has been able to maintain; if so, the American experience is relevant primarily as a cautionary tale. He then considers how Eu- rope's institutional experience and current debate can inform the American dis- course on federalism by helping Americans break free of ideological and historical preconceptionsand offering insights into emerging issues at the intersection of do- mestic constitutions and supranationalinstitutions.
    [Show full text]