European Union – Pike & Hurricane

Everything You Wanted to Know about the EU but Were Afraid to Ask

Yaroslav Mikhaylov — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:14:29 +0000

It seems like over the last year, between the refugee crisis and the Brexit referendum, everyone has opinions on the politics and the structure of the European Union. For those of you who have been out of the loop but want to join in the conversation, we’ve answered some basic questions about how the EU works to get you started.

Q: What is the EU, really?

A: That is a complicated question and the answer depends on the context in which it is being discussed. It is not a single country, though it can occasionally act as such in some international negotiations and there exists an EU citizenship. However, it is more than just a series of treaties between the 28 member countries, since it has its own governing bodies, elections and areas of competency. It is, ultimately, a novel and, so far, unique form of international organization, which is part of what makes it sometimes difficult to understand.

Q: What does the EU actually do?

A: This question has come up often: what has the EU done for us recently? There are many different ways in which the EU affects ordinary life. The primary way is through the internal market: making it as easy for people, goods, services and capital to move between EU countries as within them. This allows citizens of any EU country to live, work or study in any other one, and requires a complex set of rules in order for it to be both feasible and fair. The EU also acts as a partner on many infrastructure, research or conservation projects in member states. Parts of the Malmö Central Station were built using EU funds, for example.

Q: Is the EU a democracy or is it run by bureaucrats?

A: Another complex question: it is, to some extent, both. Proponents point to the direct elections to The European Parliament and the fact that it is the nations’ elected governments that select members of the Council of Ministers. Critics, however, note that the European Commission and the European Court of Justice are not elected, but are instead appointed by representatives of the member states. Also important to note is the low turnout: only 42.61% of eligible voters voted last election and in some nations the number was as low as 13%. So whether you consider the EU to be a fully democratic federation or run by men in smoke-filled rooms, there is a good argument to be made.

Q: Does the EU come in and tell nations what to do?

A: The EU is often criticized for getting involved in the domestic affairs of the member states, but it does not do so wherever and however it wills. The EU and the member states have delineated areas of competence. The EU is allowed a free hand only when it concerns the common market and its operations, including things like monetary policy and competition rules. On matters like tourism, industry or education the EU has to cooperate with states in accomplishing what it wants, and is not at all allowed to interfere with states’ research or foreign aid initiatives. However, in most areas, such as transport, the environment or consumer protection, the EU member states only hold precedence until the EU decides to make laws, at which point the EU law takes precedence. Ultimately, that means that over time, the EU’s area of influence over laws has grown, which has made its perceived intrusions easier to criticize.

Q: Did the EU really make a law about how curved bananas must be?

A: Yes, but it was far less egregious than it has since been portrayed. Regulation No. 2257/94 clarified how different grades of bananas were to be marketed. Specifically, it required that the highest-grade bananas should be free from ‘abnormal curvature’ without defining what, exactly, that meant. This, however, was interpreted by some commentators as a hopeless attempt to standardize the infinite variety of nature. Ironically, the similar regulation for cucumbers has mostly avoided scrutiny, despite specifying a limit on curvature of 10 millimeters per every 10 centimeters of length.

Yaroslav Mikhaylov

Cover photo: Niccolò Caranti, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

Image 1: Rock Cohen, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Image 2: Yaroslav Mikhaylov, own work

Image 3: Kevin O’Mara, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

The post Everything You Wanted to Know about the EU but Were Afraid to Ask appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Australian Case For EU Membership

Taminka Hanscamp — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:49:54 +0000

I’m Australian, not Austrian but please let me in on the EU. There are marked differences between the two countries, not least of which is that Australia is an island continent 14,000 kilometres away from Europe. However, this geographic logic did not stop Australia joining the Eurovision song contest in 2015. Indeed, Australia fully embraced Eurovision but the country seems much more reticent to participate in matters of international politics. I concede that Australia will never become an EU Member, nor would this actually be appropriate given the geography. However, by considering the Australian consequences of not being a part of such a body, this article illustrates how an EU model would be of significant value in addressing the issues facing the international community.

Photo: Naomi Wolfers. Australian’s overcoming the time difference to dress up, get together and celebrate Eurovision 2015.

The benefits of EU Membership are pertinent to consider at a time when another contest about the ‘Euro[pean] vision’ is playing out on a much broader stage in European and international politics. Underpinning the EU is the idea that international cooperation is both necessary and beneficial for economic, political and security purposes. In reality it might not achieve these ends, be efficient or even be understandable. However what makes it different from other international bodies that share similar goals is that the EU remains unique in its authority over its members. This perceived relinquishment of individual state autonomy has contributed to the momentum of Euro-skepticism. However, it is necessary to consider how this also provides an important strength. This can be seen by comparing the Australian and EU responses to the pressing issues of climate change and the human rights treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

Climate change poses a very real threat to the globe and its effects have no respect for national boundaries. It is recognised that strong, international action is required to address it. However, without effective and binding frameworks that encourage shared responsibility, this is difficult to achieve.

Australia has been accused of withdrawing from international cooperation on the issue, favouring unilateral action instead. This came after Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott removed climate change from the topics of discussion at the 2014 G20 conference hosted in Brisbane and repealed a tax on carbon emissions. Even if unilateral action was enough it still requires action. Australia had designed an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2007, and many other countries now also have variations of an ETS including the EU. However in Australia, it never passed. Domestic political tensions meant that it was dropped off the agenda along with the prime minister who suggested it. The reasons for back-pedalling on environmental protection measures were primarily economic: to introduce an ETS would have put Australia at a comparative market disadvantage with its regional trading partners. Taking action on climate change has therefore been equated with being detrimental to national industry.

The EU model with its single market and ability to pass binding resolutions is in a better position to guarantee action and share responsibility, at the very least it can hold conversations about the issue with its members. Under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) the EU has implemented an ETS and is on track to meet a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020. In addition to the EU wide policies member states have established domestic programs that complement or extend their international and european commitments. Sweden for example has committed to having no net GHG emissions by 2050. Where EU energy law is not respected the EU Commission can begin enforcement procedures calling for compliance through the European Court of justice.

International commitments such as the Paris Agreement are also an important form of international cooperation but perhaps are still not enough. International law is often said to be ‘non-binding’. International convention relies on the fact that the embarrassment and reaction of respective parties will be enough to encourage the compliance of the other. The problem in Australia is that this is apparently not motivating enough.

Enter Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker system. For human rights to be meaningful they need to be respected regardless of domestic political agendas. However, the framework of international law makes it difficult to ensure this happens as incorporation into domestic law is at the behest of individual nations. The importance of recognition at law of rights is crucial. Members of the EU must, at least on paper, domestically incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights, which is accountable to the European Court of Human Rights. This can be contrasted to the position in Australia where there is little legal protection of rights.

The mechanisms used to process and treat asylum seekers is increasingly becoming a challenge especially in Europe. This is because the numbers of people coming are overwhelming existing and imagined systems. It appears that the bigger the problem the more tempting to implement harsher, sweeping and dehumanising policies. It is vital that whatever approaches are adopted across Europe, that they uphold human rights. At the moment there is some guarantee of this occurring. The scale of the issue in Australia is markedly less, yet extremely harsh measures have been implemented to achieve a deterrence based system. Adopting this ‘stop the boats’ policy, that is not subject to domestic or binding international human rights protections, has resulted in multiple findings of human rights breaches by the UN and other organisations and the harm continues. The Australian system detains Illegal Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) on offshore processing centres and settlement in Australia will never be an option for those who arrived ‘illegally’ by boat. Upon the release of a report finding human rights abuses against torture, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott simply said Australians were ‘sick of being lectured to by the UN’.

International cooperation is always going to be difficult where domestic interests have to be balanced against each other. However, its pursuit is still necessary and worthy precisely because if left to domestic political interests the action and responsibility sharing required to deal with the issues of the 21st century is undermined and the results are ugly. Australia provides a case example of the dangers of not being involved, so whilst the EU might not be perfect it should not be abandoned.

Taminka Hanscamp

Image 1: Bernard Spragg, Public Domain

Image 2: Naomi Wolfers, Instagram

The post The Australian Case For EU Membership appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.