Europe ceased to be a concept years ago. It is now a concrete political, economical and social association of 27 states which aim to move on and improve together. Europe currently has a future and will draw it by its own means and will. Yet, Europe is taking her first steps alone. Since the creation of the European Steel and Coal Community and the treaty of Rome, Europe always walked two steps behind the United States. With its foundation at the end of World War two, Europe ensured that peace would be irreversible by developing a common market and interdependence between its member states. This Huntingtonian solution was soon followed by a common agricultural policy and currency, and other political consolidations through various treaties unifying the states politically. The end of the XXth century and the collapse of the USSR filled the European Union, with optimism. New member states joined the Union, and the development of a globalized world brought new hopes for democracy, new markets and investments, as well as new challenges. The aftermath of the subprime crisis in the USA has cast a shadow over the economic prospects of the entire EU, and for the first time, it has to walk alone. Before wondering what future for Europe is, we should raise the basic question such as: what is Europe? What challenges is it facing? What kind of Europe do the Europeans want? And what are the possibilities for its future?
[...] However it is hard to draw and hypothesis which does not sounds extremist or idealistic; if an evident solution to reach the best future for Europe existed, the Europeans leader would apply it and would know how to convince Europeans. Jean Monnet stated that Europe has never existed : it is in fact to Europeans to construct their future. The Lisbon ratification, Clive Church; September 2008,p.21 The Lisbon ratification, Clive Church; September 2008,p.21 Europe's blurred boundaries: rethinking enlargement and neighbourhood Policy, Charles Grant; The pros and cons of further enlargement, p.17 What's wrong with Europe and how to fix it, Simon Hix, p.66 What's wrong with Europe and how to fix it, Simon Hix, p.67 The Government and Politics of the European Union, Naill Nugent, present realities and future prospects. [...]
[...] Moreover, it would have to approve in the future a multiannual financial framework and its assent would be required for international agreements. Concerning the National Parliaments, they would have a better scope to participate alongside the European institutions, and particularly special rights to information. It would also have the new power to enforce subsidarity. All in all, this underlines the possibility of leaving in a more comprehensive, legitimate, transparent and democratic EU. As far as Enlargement is concerned, the treaty of Lisbon would reduce the number of commissioners, only to two thirds of member countries would have a commissioner, but the posts would rotate between all countries. [...]
[...] Moreover, their probable refusal to integrate other state with a strong demography might weaken the European economy: the zero migration scenario has a relative strong negative effect on the per capita income growth rate for countries that today have positive net migration” Nevertheless, observing the evolution of Globalization in a century may give credibility to this theory. To conclude, the future of Europe mostly depends on what Europe the Europeans want. From the deadlock set by the rejection of the treaty of Lisbon, it is possible to prospect a Europe rather economical, Political, or both of it. [...]
[...] Moreover, the more members, the more post to allot. The creation of new roles is not currently one of the most important problems to solve in the EU, and the creation and allocation of new ones might become another issue. This brings up the problem of the lack of legitimacy, democracy and Identity. The level of popular legitimacy is dangerously low. The citizens of most of the founding member states are less supportive of the EU than the new member states. [...]
[...] The transnational character of problem areas such as terrorism Foreign relations would also improve with the development of relations with those countries but also with the creation in the Treat of Lisbon of a common security and a “solidarity clause” which would call for all the members of union to act jointly if a member state is the target of a terrorist attack. Moreover, the High representative for foreign affairs and the integration of Turkey in the Union would also appease the relations with Russia. [...]
using our reader.