Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:21:00.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sense and Nonsense of the EU Integration Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

Miroslava Scholten  and
Daniel Scholten
Miroslava Scholten
Affiliation:
The Utrecht Centre for Regulation and Enforcement in Europe (RENFORCE), University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: M.Scholten@uu.nl
Daniel Scholten
Affiliation:
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, TU Delft, the Netherlands. E-mail: d.j.scholten@tudelft.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current financial crisis in the Eurozone has put the debate on EU integration back on the table. Yet, how does the debate on EU integration, particularly the arguments and ideals used in it, actually influence the process of EU integration? This article wishes to provide some food for thought by arguing the debate’s irrelevance in furthering or hindering the EU integration process. It does so by discussing the role of the debate’s arguments in shaping EU integration and by comparing the EU debate with the one had by the founding fathers of the US. The article shows the debate is beside the point largely because most steps in EU integration are driven by circumstances, events, or national interests, that even when one argument seems decisive it is likely to be elevated over others by circumstances, and that none of the debate’s arguments hold an intrinsic value over others.

Type
Focus: Nihilism
Information
European Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 274 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Burgess, M. (2004) Federalism and federation. In: M. Cini (ed.) European Union Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 65–108.Google Scholar
2.Strøby Jensen, C. (2004) Neo-functionalism. In: M. Cini (ed.) European Union Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 65–108.Google Scholar
3.Cini, M. (2004) Intergovernmentalism. In: M. Cini (ed.) European Union Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 65–108.Google Scholar
4.Public Opinion in the European Union, Standard Eurobarometer 77, First Results, Spring 2012, pp. 15, 19. Find at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb77/eb77_first_en.pdf (last check 30 September 2012).Google Scholar
5.Scholten, D. (2012) Structurele uitdaging voor eurozone: Europa’s crises als afspiegeling van scheefgroei tussen Noord en Zuid. Internationale Spectator, 66(2), pp. 63–66.Google Scholar
6.Hermans, J. (1997) Uitgerekend Europa; geschiedenis van de Europese integratie (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis), pp. 92–93.Google Scholar
7.Cohen, B. (2012) The future of the euro: Let’s get real. Review of International Political Economy, 19(4), pp. 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Ketcham, R. (ed.) (1986) The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitution Debates (New York: A Mentor Book), p. 20.Google Scholar
9.Kesler, C. and Rossiter, C. (eds) (2003) The Federalist Papers (A Signet Classic), p. 149.Google Scholar
10.Schwartz, H. (2012) Euro-crisis, American lessons? Review of International Political Economy, 19(4), pp. 701–708, p. 702.Google Scholar
11.Reich, R. (2010) Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future (New York: Alfred A. Knopf), p. 4.Google Scholar