The UK as a member of the EU

A `reflection period' was introduced, which was brought to an end in early 2007 by the German Presidency of the EU. Germany re-opened the Treaty reform debate during the first half of 2007 and in March 2007 the “Berlin Declaration” confirmed the aim of achieving a “renewed common foundation” for the EU before European Parliament elections in 2009. In June 2007 the German Presidency set out a `road map' for reform and the European Council adopted a Mandate in which it stated.

The Treaty of Lisbon was concluded in Lisbon on 18 October 2007 and signed on 13 December 2007. The content of the Treaty, though not its structure, is similar in a great many respects to the EU Constitution. It is the sixth major Treaty amendment to the 1957 Treaty of Rome. [4, p.7-8]

3.2.1 The British Constitutional option: No constitution

This is a real option. The UK has never had a Constitution, but become one of the worlds leading parliamentary democracies.

The question is not whether it is better or not to have a Constitution for Europe, the question is rather whether Europe can do without and still evolve in a desirable direction.

Arguments to support this view:

1. Many of the positive changes brought about by the Constitution could be implemented without the adoption of the current Constitution. A good example is that of the EU Foreign Minister. All it takes is the political will in the Council to implement this change. Of course, without a Constitution, this is not guaranteed. However, the Council should play a critical role both in the choice of the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and the EU Commissioner for External Affairs. It could thus nominate the same person for both jobs. Many other changes, apart from the voting rules in the Council and most legal changes can be implemented without the Constitution. [9, p.15-28]

2. The status quo is not as bad as many have stated. The most important difference implied by the rejection of the Constitution is that one maintains the Nice rules for qualified majority. It is generally agreed that these rules make it very difficult to adopt new legislation. However, it is not necessarily clear why this should be considered a bad thing. Most of the legislation related to economic and monetary integration has been passed (liberalization of services being a big exception). [3, p.39-40]

3.2.2 Option 2: a none cosmetic revision

This way implies a new Convention, a new Intergovernmental Conference and a new ratification process.

There are clear disadvantages to such an option.

1 It is not clear from the referendum results in France and the Netherlands in which direction to go.

2 A revision of the current draft might take a very long time. [15, p.24-27]

Conclusion

In my work I have examined such topic as “The UK as a member of the EU” and have come to the conclusion that the loss of status as world power and economic downturn, connected with it, made British politicians take choose between sovereignty and future flourishing, connected with the EU membership. In 1964 Britain applied for the Union, but its application was rebuffed, and only in 1973 the UK could enter the EU.

United Europe and Britain have relations in many spheres. For example in economy, it is Common Agricultural Policy and European Monetary Union, in policy - Common foreign and security policy and European Constitution. But the greatest problems in relations between the UK and the EC are joining the Euro and Constitution, because British government considers that these two points threat soverenity and independence of the UK.

That is why I think that in future we will not see any revolution changes in relations between the UK and the EU although it is difficult for the EU to find proper strategy to be united, and it has become a reason for the Union to find a new way of development. But in spite of it I consider GB is considered to have essential role as strategic partner for united Europe and the UK will be one of the most powerful states in the EU as well as in the world.

References

1. A vision of Common Agricultural Policy. London, December 2005. - 76p.

2. Andrew Geddes British politics. Oxford, 2006. - 378p.

3. David Heathcoat-Aming MP the European Constitution and what it means for Britain London, June 2003. - 48p.

4. European Union (Amendment) Bill 48 of 2007-08. Research Paper 08/03. London, 15 January 2008. - 28p.

5. European Union//www.europa.com

6. Foreign and Commonwealth Office//www.fco.gov.uk/eu

7. Gerard Batten MEP How much does the European Union cost Britain? // The Common Agricultural Policy. London, 2008. - 34p.

8. Gerard Batten MEP How much does the European Union cost Britain? //The EU Budget. London, 2008.-34p.

9. Gerard Roland “Europe is constitutional imbroglio”. Rome, 2006.-36p.

10. Ian Milne Lost illusions: British foreign policy// A British foreign policy for the 21th century. London, 2008.-27p.

11. Malcolm Sawyer the UK economy. Oxford, 2005.-376p.

12. The Bruges Group//www.brugesgroup.com

13. The UK Government's Vision of Common Agricultural Policy. Fourth Report of Session 2006-07 Volume I Report, House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.-28p.

14. UK 2005 the Official Yearbook of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Office for National Statistics, London: TSO.-537p.

15. Vaughne Miller The future of the European Constitution. Research Paper 05/45 London, 13 June 2005. - 47p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru